LiveLife
Member
Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-4#post-12689798
Ex FPC attorney discuss 5th Circuit's ruling
After district court judge O'Connor granted summary judgement against ATF and the Supreme Court approved stay for ATF, 5th Circuit granted stay in part and district court's preliminary injunction is vacated with understanding ATF won't be enforcing the final rule - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...re_motion_to_vacate_injunction.pdf?1696269344Stay will remain in place while case proceeds through 5th Circuit
Government has been adamant—in both writing and at oral argument on this motion—that it will not enforce the Final Rule against customers who purchase regulated “frames or receivers” and who are otherwise lawfully entitled to purchase firearms (Page 3)
... But we disagree with the Government that the district court’s injunction as to two plaintiff-party manufacturers “directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s determination that the [G]overnment should be permitted to enforce the Rule as to everyone while this appeal proceeds.” ... The party-plaintiff manufacturers are likely to succeed on the merits because the Final Rule is contrary to law.
... federal definitions of “frame or receiver” have endured for decades before ATF changed them in the Final Rule. ATF’s desire to change the status quo ante does not outweigh the few additional weeks or months needed to complete judicial review of ATF’s work. Thus, under Winter or Nken or any other standard, we cannot say the Government has shown that it is entitled to emergency vacatur of the district court’s injunction as tothe two party-plaintiff manufacturers.Third, we are unpersuaded by the Government’s insistence that the district court flouted (disregarded) the Supreme Court’s August 8 order. (Page 5)
... At the end of the day, we think four things are paramount. First, inferior federal courts must exhibit unflinching obedience to the Supreme Court’s orders.
Second, the Court has directed us to be skeptical (if not altogether unwilling) to order universal relief that extends to non-parties.
Third, insofar as possible, we should have orderly judicial review in which the status quo is maintained, and the legal rules sorted, without asking courts to make monumental decisions in short-fuse emergency dockets.
Fourth and finally, courts should be able to review ATF’s 98-page rule, and the decades of precedent it attempts to change, without the Government putting people in jail or shutting down businesses.
For these reasons, the Government’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, the district court’s preliminary injunction is VACATED as to non-parties, and the Government’s motion is otherwise DENIED
Ex FPC attorney discuss 5th Circuit's ruling
Supreme Court Issues 5-4 Emergency Order Changing The Second Amendment Fight!!!
In this video I discuss a critical decision preventing the ATF from enforcing their frames/receivers rule. 🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://uscc...
www.youtube.com
Last edited: