Author: Cole Maerli

The International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association and the National Association of Chiefs of Police filed an Amicus brief in support of our case against Connecticut’s ban semiautomatics and standard capacity magazines. You can read their brief here.

Our case at the Second Circuit is in its opening briefing stage following our appeal of the District Court’s denial of preliminary injunction in August.

In Judge Arterton’s district court ruling, she opined that AR-15s and similar rifles are only sought out for their militaristic features and are not useful for self-defense.

The law enforcement amicus brief rebuts this by stating, “AR-15s are not exclusively or predominantly used in military service, nor are they otherwise reserved for the military—they’re not used at all.”

Judge Arterton also stated that the AR-15 was designed to produce “maximum wound effect.”

The supporting amicus brief from the two police organizations refutes this by showing that 5.56 is in fact a smaller round than previous infantry rifles and that even high-ranking members of the military find it too small. The amicus quotes Major General Robert Scales as stating, “The civilian version of the 5.56mm bullet was designed as a ‘varmint killer’ and six states prohibit its use for deer hunting because it is not lethal enough.”

In the opening of their amicus brief they state that AR-15-platform rifles, standard gear for most police officers, are not “weapons of war” and that the police officers who carry them “are not an army of occupation, wielding the weapons of militarized mass killers.”

Most interesting is that the Connecticut ban does not apply to police officers, and they have gone out of their way to let the court know that the reason police officers carry these rifles is precisely why they are an exceptional choice for self-defense in civilian hands.

The state of Connecticut has requested to delay their opening brief until February 21, 2024, so it will be several months before we see more movement in this case.

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the Courts!

The National Association for Gun Rights has filed an official comment on the ATF’s “Engaged in the Business Rule.”

Read NAGR’s official comment here >>

The ATF’s new rule aims to essentially force every firearm sale – even private sales – to go through the background-check process.

The key change the ATF is using to change this rule is a very small change Congress made to the Gun Control Act (GCA) in 2022. Part of the definition of the term of what it means to be a dealer of firearms was changed from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to “to predominantly earn a profit.

Essentially, the ATF has rewritten the rule so that those who enjoy collecting firearms as a hobby are now forced to register as an FFL to pursue their hobby. This would mean they have to keep books, conduct background checks, and are subject to ATF inspection whenever the agency pleases.

The ATF has also acted to change the rules without an act of Congress. The exceptions the ATF are attempting to remove are those that did not have the votes in Congress to change, a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedures Act.

In conclusion, our letter demands that the ATF abandon the proposed regulations, and instead match the regulatory definition to that of Congress.

Click here to read NAGR’s official comment >>

Click here to donate to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight the ATF in the courts!

The National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed for summary judgement in our case, NAGR v. Garland. You can read the motion here.

We previously received a preliminary injunction in this case on October 7^th, blocking the ATF from enforcing their classification of Forced Reset Triggers as NFA regulated machine guns against our individual plaintiffs and their families, our members, and all downstream customers of commercial members.

The ATF has continued enforcing this rule, and they have even targeted several of our members since Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued the preliminary injunction.

This is why we have filed our motion for summary judgement as soon as we have, we want the ATF to be blocked from enforcing this unconstitutional rule against anyone. Your inalienable human rights should not be subject to membership of any organization.

Judge O’Connor has already stated that we are “likely to succeed on the merits” in this case, and that the ATF has no legal grounds for this trigger ban. We are simply asking the court to follow through with these statements to ensure protection from ATF enforcement for all Americans.

It is quite obvious that the ATF has no intention of voluntarily abiding by the court’s ruling on the preliminary injunction, so it is time for strong, decisive action from the court to stop the ATF’s tyranny.

The ATF has appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This means that they are trying to take away the temporary relief ordered at the district court, but our motion for summary judgement will move concurrently towards a ruling on the merits.

If you are a member who has been contacted by the ATF after the injunction was issued on October 7^th regarding an FRT, please call our ATF hotline at 877-205-6554.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the courts!

On October 7^th, the National Association for Gun Rights secured a Preliminary Injunction against the ATF in our Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) lawsuit, barring the ATF from enforcement against our individual plaintiffs, their families, and all NAGR members. You can read the ruling here.

Specifically, the injunction stops the ATF from doing any of the following (against plaintiffs, their family members, and NAGR members):

      (1) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possession of FRTs;

      (2) Initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;

      (3) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;

      (4) Initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;

      (5) Sending “Notice Letters” or other similar communications stating that FRTs are machineguns;

      (6) Requesting “voluntarily” surrender of FRTs to the government based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;

      (7) Destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTs; and

      (8) Otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer, or exchange of FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns.

While we are glad our members are protected, we whole-heartedly believe that Second Amendment rights should not be contingent on membership to any organization. The next step is to push for a ruling on the merits to protect all Americans from this arbitrary and capricious redefinition.

In our lawsuit, we challenged the ATF’s expansion of the statutory definition of “machinegun,” to which Judge Reed O’Connor agreed that the ATF’s expanded language likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and is “likely unlawful.”

The ATF spent a significant amount of their briefs claiming that our organization and our individual plaintiffs lacked standing for the lawsuit through the assertion that they have “no current plans to prosecute.” This is something O’Connor addressed thoroughly in his decision, stating, “Defendants could change their current plans at any time by deciding to prosecute.”

• “Without access to courts to bring pre-enforcement challenges, vulnerable citizens may surrender the ability to promptly challenge unlawful executive branch actions. This cannot be.”
• “Yet just as the government cannot prosecute based on what a person might do, the government similarly cannot seriously argue there is a threat to public safety based on what a person might do without some justification.”
• “The crux of this case is that the executive branch has improperly usurped legislative authority by enacting criminal prohibitions that are beyond the scope of its legislatively granted authority.”

This is a huge win as FRTs are clearly not machineguns as defined by the statutory definition written by Congress, as they still require an individual trigger pull to fire an individual round.

This Preliminary Injunction grants protection from prosecution pending an actual ruling on the merits of the case, and according to O’Connor there is a “strong likelihood of success on the merits of its APA statutory interpretation claim.”

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the courts!

The National Foundation for Gun Rights secured a Preliminary Injunction against the ATF’s “arbitrary and capricious” Final Rule classifying braced pistols as Short Barreled Rifles which are subject to NFA and GCA regulation. You can read the ruling here.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued the injunction which blocks government enforcement of the Final Rule against all members of the National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights until there is a ruling on the merits of the case.

In his ruling, O’Connor found that both semiautomatic pistols and pistol braces are in common use, and therefore are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Furthermore, the court ruled that, “a pistol does not qualify as a rifle under the NFA or the GCA.”

Not only did the court find that the final rule violated the Second Amendment, but it is also in direct violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The APA requires executive agencies to submit proposed rules for public comment, which the ATF did with the pistol brace rule. However, the Final Rule bears little resemblance to the proposed rule. As O’Connor said in his ruling, “the ATF’s decision to skirt notice-and-comment provisions is arbitrary and capricious.”

Here are some highlights from O’Connor’s ruling:

• “Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits because the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious.”
• “The ATF provided no explanations for how the agency came to these classifications and there is no ‘meaningful clarity about what constitutes an impermissible stabilizing brace.’”
• “The ATF’s disregard for the principles of fair notice and consideration of reliance interests is further exacerbated by its failure to follow the APA’s procedural requirements for public notice and comment.”

This injunction is a big win for the Second Amendment, and a major step in curbing the unconstitutional tyranny of the ATF.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is representing us in this case.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest so we can continue to fight for the Second Amendment in the Courts!