ATF FRT Rule VACATED
Federal District Court 5th Circut has officially Ruled and entered Judgement in NAGR v GARLAND. Federal Court has DECLARED the ATF "FRT Rule" to be unlawful and uninforcable.
The "FRT Rule" has been VACATED and the ATF has also been ENJOINED from enforcing it in any way against us as we are commercial members of the Organizational Plaintif NAGR. Therfore we as the Manufacturer and our downstream customers are covered by this permenent injunction.
The "FRT Rule" being VACATED essentially wiped it out completely as if it never existed. Being DECLARED unlawful and ENJOINING the AFT is a powerful direct hit against the unlawful Gov "Administrative Law" bullshit.
NAGR fought long and hard for all of us on this one, and many others.
Consider becoming a Member and supporting them in thier mission of Arms Freedoms.
https://nationalgunrights.org/
States we cannot sell or ship to due to State Restrictions.
CA, CT, DC, DE, FL, HI, IA, IL, MD, MN, NJ, NY, RI, WA.
We do not accept mail in payments from Restricted areas. Regardless if they use ship to addresses outside of those Restricted areas.
NAGR v GARLAND 4:23-cv-00830-O
"An FRT is a device that forcibly returns the trigger to its reset state." . . . . "When firing multiple shots using an FRT, the trigger must still reset after each round is fired and must separately function to release the hammer by moving far enough to the rear in order to fire the next round."
@ pg 3
"This scope of this injunction covers the Individual Plaintiffs and their families, the Organizational Plaintiffs and their members, and the downstream customers of any commercial member of an Organizational Plaintiff" . . .
@ pg 62
Specifically, the Court ORDERS the following relief:
The Court VACATES Defendants' unlawful classification of FRTs as "machineguns."
The Court DECLARES unlawful Defendants' determination that FRTs are "machineguns."
The Court ENJOINS Defendants along with their respective officers, agents, servants, and employees from implementing or enforcing against the parties in this lawsuit, in any civil or criminal manner described below, the expanded definition of "machinegun" to FRTs that this Court has determined is unlawful:
(a) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for possession of FRTs;
(b) Initiating or pursuing civil proceedings for possessing, selling, or manufacturing FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
(c) Initiating or pursuing criminal prosecutions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
(d) Initiating or pursuing civil actions for representing to the public of potential buyers and sellers that FRTs are not machineguns;
(e) Sending "Notice Letters" or other similar communicaations stating that FRTs are machineguns;
(f) Seizing or requesting "voluntarily" surrender of FRTs to the government based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns;
(g) Destroying any previously surrendered or seized FRTs; and
(h) Otherwise interfering in the possession, sale, manufacture, transfer, or exchange of FRTs based on the claim that FRTs are machineguns.
This scope of this injunction covers the Individual Plaintiffs and their families, the Organizational Plaintiffs and their members, and the downstream customers of any commercial member of an Organizational Plaintiff to the extent that it does not interfere with other courts, such as the E.D.N.Y. jurisdiction over the Rare Breed Parties and other pending criminal cases against individuals already subject to prosecution.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2024
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE