SUMMARY JUDGMENT!!! We just won summary judgment striking down the ATF’s forced reset trigger ban in a scathing 64-page ruling. I’ll drop some highlights below as I go thought it. This is a huge win!!!
Obviously the ATF is going to double down and fight like crazy to get this overturned at the 5th Circuit, so please consider donating to this case here: secure.anedot.com/national-found…
One thing to remember with this ruling: this is not a 2A Bruen-based case. This is about agency powers and the rule of law. And Judge O’Connor is spitting fire in defense of the democratic process. 🔥
Hard to believe that the ATF actually argued we don’t have standing because there’s no credible threat of prosecution. Thankfully, the judge was not having it.
Really appreciate O’Connor’s pointing this out. My staff has been playing whack-a-mole with the ATF agents harassing our members over FRTs, despite the injunction blocking the ATF from doing just that. We had to file a Notice of Noncompliance reporting it to the court.
🔥🔥🔥
Also huge. There have been a LOT of evidentiary and process shenanigans from the ATF on the FRT issue.
Judge O’Connor calls the ATF out on their effort to back-door Chevron deference into the case:
And finally: enter Cargill!! As we have argued all along, the facts are exactly the same whether you’re talking bump stocks or forced reset triggers. Judge O’Connor confirms unequivocally.
Now for the relief. Is there any more beautiful word in the language than “vacates”?
Judge O’Connor finishes off with a poignant ode to the rule of law and the Constitution put in place by the Founders. Beautifully said. 🇺🇸
Massive props to @dhillonlaw for their stellar representation in this case! 👏 Outstanding work defending gun rights and the rule of law!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 2nd Circuit just presumed to overturn Heller in ruling against our challenge to Connecticut's AR-15/mag ban. This one's gonna be lit - which we expected after oral arguments felt like watching Barry go up against the legal version of The View.
This is a preliminary injunction ruling, which we asked for before the Supreme Court began refusing to hear interlocutory appeals. So after this, we'll take it back down to the district court to go through the merits process.
The fact that they start the ruling like this tells you everything you need to know about what you're fixing to read.
We just filed an amended complaint in our Colorado AWB/mag ban case. This wraps up a weird turn of events in this lawsuit where we survived an unexpected broadside over standing from the judge. Strap in, this one's a bit wild.
This lawsuit challenges gun and mag ban ordinances enacted by four Colorado local governments. These started as individual lawsuits where we won two back-to-back temporary restraining orders immediately after Bruen.
When we combined the four cases into one, we also negotiated a voluntary stay of enforcement. That let us skip the interlocutory path and go straight to the merits process. We finished, filed summary judgment motions - and then things got interesting.
OK, so I like this, but why the word “many”? All of them are arms.
Here’s the explanation. And I have to note here that Justice Kagan didn’t hesitate to state that .50 cals are in common use. But even the common use question isn’t the point here. The point is that all bearable arms are “arms.”
A federal judge in Mississippi (5th Circuit) just ruled that the federal machine gun ban is inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment - while making it clear he disagrees with Heller and Bruen. 🧵
This is an as-applied challenge. The ruling dismisses a criminal charge of possession of a machine gun under the federal statute, because the government didn't meet its burden under the Bruen test.
This is a fascinating 12-page ruling. The judge here very much disagrees with the history, and tradition approach, but he faithfully applies every single aspect of the Bruen test and reaches the correct conclusion - one, ironically, the Supreme Court would NOT endorse.
Today SCOTUS denied cert to the Hawaii "spirit of Aloha" case due to its interlocutory posture. BUT we got a Thomas/Alito statement with some pretty interesting things - including that "Americans need not engage in empty formalities before they can invoke their constitutional rights." 🧵
The Hawaii Supreme Court had ruled that Wilson couldn't claim the unconstitutionality of the HI licensing scheme as a defense for not having a permit, because he didn't even apply for one. Trouble is...
The Supreme Court had already pointed out in Bruen that the Hawaii scheme was more or less the same as the New York scheme - meaning that it was a de facto ban.
Y'all. The Supreme Court just granted cert to Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, Mexico's attempt to shut down gun manufacturers by blaming them for their own cartel problem. This is HUGE.
Just by way of background, Mexico sued the entire gun industry in an attempt to destroy our Second Amendment. The district court judge threw out the case saying "PLCAA literally said you can't do this" - which was absolutely true.
That judge called our interpretation of the Second Amendment a "suicide pact" in oral arguments on our AWB lawsuit, so he's no friend to gun rights. That's how outrageous and frankly illegal Mexico's lawsuit is.