Update for
Mock v Garland (ATF pistol brace rule) -
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ace-rule-lawsuits.920838/page-3#post-12725865
60 days that was given to the district court to rule on preliminary injunction with reconsideration of 5th Circuit ruling is coming up within the next few days
And we have the "reconsidered" preliminary injunction ruling from the district court judge O'Connor who granted preliminary injunction for plaintiffs but denied a nationwide injunction -
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...ion_for_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf?1696319429
Having considered the parties’ briefing and applicable law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction against the Government Defendants.
... Since 2012, the ATF has seen a proliferation of “stabilizing brace” devices, which were originally designed “to assist people with disabilities or limited strength or mobility” to safely and single-handedly fire heavy pistols. (Page 3)
... ATF published the Final Rule on January 31, 2023 ... the Final Rule modified the ATF’s earlier regulations addressing how the agency would determine whether a weapon is a “rifle” for purposes of the NFA and GCA.
... On August 1, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the Court’s order denying a preliminary injunction and decided in favor of Plaintiffs’ logical outgrowth APA claim, holding that (i) “it is relatively straightforward that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule, and the monumental error was prejudicial,” and that (ii) “[t]he Final Rule therefore must be set aside as unlawful.” (Page 8)
... The Fifth Circuit remanded the case back to the Court with instructions to assess the remaining preliminary injunction factors and rule on Plaintiffs’ motion—in light of the circuit panel’s decision—and within 60 days thereof.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Substantial Likelihood of Success on the Merits
... Following the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the controlling law of this case posits that Plaintiffs have demonstrated, a fortiori, an actual success on the merits of their APA challenge to the Final Rule. (Page 10)
... Plaintiffs allege that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule violates their constitutional rights provided under the Second Amendment. Separate from the merits of this claim, the Court finds that the Government Defendants’ implementation and enforcement of the Final Rule substantially threatens to inflict irreparable constitutional harm upon the FPC members. Absent injunctive relief, the Final Rule will impair and threaten to deprive them of their fundamental right to keep and bear commonly used arms as a means of achieving the inherently lawful ends of self-defense. (Page 17)
... The Court finds that the braced pistols subject to enforcement of the Final Rule are in common use today. (Page 18)
... the Court finds that braced pistols regulated under the Final Rule are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. (Page 19)
... The Supreme Court has already established that the text and history of the Second Amendment’s operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” ... protect an individual’s right to possess, carry, and operate a commonly used handgun in the home and in public for the lawful purpose of immediate self-defense ... As such, the Second Amendment “presumptively guarantees” Plaintiffs Mock and Lewis the right to keep and bear braced (and unbraced) pistol arms at home and in public for general self-defense use. (Page 20)
... All in all, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have each carried their burden of persuasion on a substantial threat of irreparable harm if not for a grant of interlocutory injunction. (Page 34)
... Having considered the arguments, evidence, and applicable law, the Court holds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of granting preliminary injunctive relief to Plaintiffs FPC and members Mock, Lewis, and Maxim Defense ... the Court determines that the appropriate scope of the injunction is that which parallels the scope of the preliminary injunction issued by the Fifth Circuit in its May 23,2023 order and clarified in its May 26, 2023 order ... the Court’s injunction extends to enjoin enforcement of the Final Rule against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members whose interests it has represented since day one of this litigation. (Pages 35-36)
... The Court declines Plaintiffs’ invitation to extend the scope of the injunctive relief “nationwide.” (Page 37)
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court holds that each Plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against the Government Defendants’ enforcement of the Final Rule that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined to be invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Government Defendants—the Attorney General of the United States; the United States Department of Justice; the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—and each of their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees—are hereby:
1) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;
2) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Maxim Defense Industries, LLC and any downstream customers of Maxim Defense Industries, LLC (including all direct consumer purchasers and all intermediary distributors, dealers, retailers, and OEM purchasers of Maxim Defense products, and any of their respective customers) the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful;
3) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against William T. Mock and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined areunlawful; and
4) ENJOINED from implementing and/or enforcing against Christopher Lewis and any of his family members the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined are unlawful. The injunctive relief shall not extend to any individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g).
The injunctive relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the conclusion and final disposition of all claims and causes of action before the Court in these review proceedings.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 2023
) agreed ATF violated the APA but went further by stating that FPC and Mock would win under Second Amendment "text and history" as pistols with braces are arms protected under the 2A.
