Posted on 02/07/2024 3:35:55 AM PST by marktwain
In the case of Colon v BATFE, United States District Judge Mary S. Scriven has granted an order for a preliminary injunction to prevent the BATFE, the Department of Justice, and others from enforcing the Final Rule against any Florida resident who has purchased or who may purchased in the future, any brace-equiped firearm before the resolution of the court case. From the order:
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. 21), is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Steven Dettelbach, United States Department of Justice, and Merrick B. Garland, their agents, servants, employees, officers, and all other persons who have notice of this Order and are in active concert or participation with Defendants, be and are, without prior written or oral notice, preliminarily restrained and enjoined from, in any way, either directly or indirectly, enforcing the Final Rule against the named Plaintiffs and 2nd Amendment Armory’s past and future customers (collectively, “Covered Persons”) who reside in the State of Florida. For purposes of this injunction, the term “customer” includes any Florida resident who has purchased or subsequently purchases a brace-equipped firearm from 2nd Amendment Armory before final resolution of this action. The injunctive relief authorized by this Order expressly does not grant Covered Persons any additional privileges during interstate travel. Covered Persons engaging in interstate travel are required to comply with any requirements pertinent to traveling with their respective firearms in existence before the Final Rule became effective.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Floridians should be very careful how they buy a brace before the resolution of the court case - in case it goes against us and the BATF&E starts looking at credit card sales of braces.
The 5th Circuit Court already applied a national injunction against the pistol brace rule in November. What does this decision do that the November one doesn’t?
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/federal-judge-stays-entire-atf-pistol-brace-rule/#axzz8R45SZfJD
This is a form of lawfare. The anti-gunners cause damage to gun owners in the form of threatened jail time and attorney expenses, even though they know the actions probably will not be upheld after the proceedings are begun or appealed. And if they can at the same time attack or weaken a gun-friendly red or red-leaning state and, by extension, its strong red governor, that’s just icing on the cake and really helps them fund-raise from their sycophant followers. They don’t miss an opportunity to demean Florida for those reasons. Or so it seems to me.
This “Lawfare” crap has got to stop!
AND, the ONLY way it will stop is for legislation to be passed which forces losers LAWYERS to pay winner’s legal bills when these FRivolous lawsuites are over & done!
Good luck with that, though!
Lawyers in Legislatures write laws to protect their own!
Thanks for this post. I’m a Floridian.
The judge talks about what is happening in other circuits, and considers it.
She can't control what happens in other circuits, and we cannot know what will happen in other cases.
So, she says all the plaintiffs in the Florida case are in Florida. The Supreme Court said to avoid national injunctions if possible; therefore, the injunction only applies to Florida. This case is independent of the Fifth Circuit cases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.