US Dist Court Judge in Texas enjoins ATF from enforcement of 2021R-05 against Tactical Machining

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Jun 23, 2013
From earlier this month.

VanDerStok v. Garland
Tactical Machining has shown it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Having considered the arguments, evidence, and law, the Court determines that the relevant factors weigh in favor of a preliminary injunction. The remaining Plaintiffs have not carried that burden. Plaintiffs have also not shown that nationwide injunctive relief is appropriate at this stage. “njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.” Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Covered by the injunction, Tactical Machining can operate its business as it has, free from the threat of enforcement of the Final Rule’s unlawful redefinitions. Presumably, Tactical Machining’s customers are still subject to felony charges for buying its products. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(3). And it may be the case that Tactical Machining’s business will fail unless the injunction is subsequently amended to cover a substantial portion of Tactical Machining’s customer base. But for now Plaintiffs offer neither evidence nor argument on that point. 53
IV. CONCLUSION Tactical Machining has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction against Defendants’ enforcement of the Final Rule. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion in part, DENIES the motion in part, and ORDERS that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined from implementing and enforcing against Tactical Machining, LLC the provisions in 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.11 and 478.12 that this Order has determined are unlawful. The Court waives the security requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c). See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996). If Plaintiffs wish to submit further briefing and evidence on the scope of the injunction, they must do so no later than September 8, 2022. Any responses are due within seven days of Plaintiffs’ filing. SO ORDERED on this 2nd day of September, 2022.

There have been multiple motions and orders since then, including a request to expand the preliminary injunction, motion to transfer, and motion for clarification.
VanDerStok v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule

Landing page for ATF 2021R-05 "Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms":
Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Top Bottom