Breaking! Preliminary Injunction Granted Against A T F's đź‘»gun Rule

Breaking news!

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
10,371
Reaction score
11,086
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
I cannot find any links to any "print" reports of this. So, I don't know if it's true. Reportedly (according to the video), the Federal Court in the Northern Texas District granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the A T F's "đź‘»gun" ban.

The video was published today.

View: https://youtu.be/Q0ZtqcxdjBI
 
So, I read the Order.
This appears like it's a mirror image of the previous injunctions and focuses on a single company rather than the whole industry. I read that it applies to Defense Distributed products and their customers. If I'm correct, Defense Distributed primarily markets the Ghost Gunner line of products that are designed to CNC fab lowers from scratch.
So, this is not an injunction that applies to other folks or products.

Am I correct, or am I wrong?

Here are the final sentences that surround the "conclusion" section of the Order which is really the meat and potatoes of any Order. It's what matters. The other elements of the document support the reasoning for the Court's findings and thus the basis and grounding for the Judge's order.

From Page 10:

For these reasons, the Court holds that the balance of equities weighs in favor of granting Defense Distributed’s motion for a preliminary injunction and that the public interest is not disserved by affording such relief.
****
Having considered the arguments, evidence, and applicable law, the Court holds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of expanding the current preliminary injunction to include Defense Distributed and, necessarily, its customers.
 
So, I read the Order.
This appears like it's a mirror image of the previous injunctions and focuses on a single company rather than the whole industry. I read that it applies to Defense Distributed products and their customers. If I'm correct, Defense Distributed primarily markets the Ghost Gunner line of products that are designed to CNC fab lowers from scratch.
So, this is not an injunction that applies to other folks or products.

Am I correct, or am I wrong?

Here are the final sentences that surround the "conclusion" section of the Order which is really the meat and potatoes of any Order. It's what matters. The other elements of the document support the reasoning for the Court's findings and thus the basis and grounding for the Judge's order.
I believe you are correct.

I'm no legal expert... While the temporary injunction relates to the specific plaintiff (DD in this case), if they WIN the case at a high enough level, the precedent would apply to the rest of the industry, eh?
 
I believe you are correct.

I'm no legal expert... While the temporary injunction relates to the specific plaintiff (DD in this case), if they WIN the case at a high enough level, the precedent would apply to the rest of the industry, eh?
Not a legal expert either. My interpretation: This is an injunction not a final ruling, so we'd still want the court to ultimately rule in favor of the plaintiff. In the meantime, ATF can challenge the injunction via Appellate and potentially SCOTUS. Also, other federal courts could use this as a basis for ruling in favor of other plaintiffs who write up a similar case and/or are in similar positions. We've already seen 80% arms have an injunction ruled in their favor too. Assuming one of these cases gets won by the plaintiff, then I'd assume the ATF would appeal. To your point, the higher the court the "stronger" the ruling. If it gets to SCOTUS and they either refuse to hear it or hear it & rule in favor then it becomes "law of the land" unless SCOTUS changes its mind on a future case (like they did with Row v Wade) or until there is an amendment to the Constitution.
 
Assuming one of these cases gets won by the plaintiff, then I'd assume the ATF would appeal. To your point, the higher the court the "stronger" the ruling. If it gets to SCOTUS and they either refuse to hear it or hear it & rule in favor then it becomes "law of the land" unless SCOTUS changes its mind on a future case (like they did with Row v Wade) or until there is an amendment to the Constitution.

Yep. And that's one of the risks of appealing to a higher court. NY even tried to back out of the Bruen case for that very reason. The court said there was no backing out. And NY lost the case at the highest level. Boom! Law of the land now!
 
Yep. And that's one of the risks of appealing to a higher court. NY even tried to back out of the Bruen case for that very reason. The court said there was no backing out. And NY lost the case at the highest level. Boom! Law of the land now!
NY tried that BS before: "We passed an unConstitutional law, and when it was challenged to the SCOTUS, we rescinded the law." Case got dropped because it was no longer relevant... Then they enacted it again. Scum. Glad the Bruen case was heard through in spite of their dirty tricks, and ruled on correctly. I do wish it had more teeth to it though, like any state-level law of similar effect could simply be stricken automatically and the law-makers held in contempt of (SCOTUS) court, or better yet, remove "Qualified Immunity" altogehter for law-makers who violate the Constitution, let them be civilly sued into oblivion, and use the Bruen ruling to kick them immediately out of office and throw them straight into jail. THAT would fix a Hell of a lot of problems in this Country... NO MORE ELITIST BS RULING OVER WE, THE PEOPLE!
 
NY tried that BS before: "We passed an unConstitutional law, and when it was challenged to the SCOTUS, we rescinded the law." Case got dropped because it was no longer relevant... Then they enacted it again. Scum. Glad the Bruen case was heard through in spite of their dirty tricks, and ruled on correctly. I do wish it had more teeth to it though, like any state-level law of similar effect could simply be stricken automatically and the law-makers held in contempt of (SCOTUS) court, or better yet, remove "Qualified Immunity" altogehter for law-makers who violate the Constitution, let them be civilly sued into oblivion, and use the Bruen ruling to kick them immediately out of office and throw them straight into jail. THAT would fix a Hell of a lot of problems in this Country... NO MORE ELITIST BS RULING OVER WE, THE PEOPLE!

Yes... already NY, NJ, CA, MD are thumbing their noses at Bruen... with impunity.
 
Yep... posted here on Friday. (Merged threads)
Preliminary Injunction Granted Against A T F's đź‘»gun Rule

It's only a temporary injunction on behalf of the specific plaintiffs, which does NOT include Polymer80.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top