Mock v. Garland (3:23-xc-00232) (N.D. Texas) - FPC Pistol Brace rule

[Upholder]

Mock v. Garland (3:23-xc-00232)

 

This is the FPC backed case against the new BATFE Pistol Brace rule

 

docket

 

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372604/gov.uscourts.txnd.372604.1.0.pdf

[Upholder]

Plaintiff's First amended petition for judicial review and injunctive relief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609.13.0.pdf

[davel501]

If you want to support this case: Felon Slap- Firearms Policy Coalition| Mock V Garland | Big Tex Ordnance

[Upholder]

Plaintiffs' Brief in Support of their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction or, in the alternative, for Postponement of the Effective Date of the Final Rule:

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609.35.0.pdf

[Upholder]

The 5th Circuit has issued an injunction for "the Plaintiffs i this case" with regards to the pistol brace rule:

 

 

[cybermgk]

 

[Upholder]

Discussion probably belongs in the judicial case thread:

 

 

[mauserme]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:37 PM, Upholder said:

Discussion probably belongs in the judicial case thread:

 

 

I merged 'em.

 

 

[steveTA84]

FPC requesting clarification. Might not be a bad time to join them for $30 if you’re not a member already 

 

[mkhalil61]

Great news! Hopefully this sets motion for a nationwide injunction. 

[cybermgk]

 

 

[steveTA84]

Member of FPC? You are exempt from the ATF ruling

 

 

 

[Hatchet]

I need to send them some money this weekend.

[steveTA84]

https://secure.anedot.com/firearmspolicycoalition/march2023_joingaw?sc=joingaw

[cybermgk]

Confirmation of above

 

 

[steveTA84]

GOA is going for it on their case too that got an injunction 

 

[Yeti]

It looks like all SAF members are also now covered!  Sounds like the same for GOA members based on other articles as well.  Nice to see a leaning towards ending (or at least slowing) this abhorrent ATF action.

 

 

[davel501]

5th circuit overrules district court decision not to issue an injunction. 

 

Mock_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf

 

 

[steveTA84]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:46 PM, davel501 said:

5th circuit overrules district court decision not to issue an injunction. 

 

Mock_v_Garland_Opinion.pdf 523.09 kB · 4 downloads

 

 

And check this out…..    

[yurimodin]

Where is the NRA's statement 

[EdDinIL]

Not a lawyer here... Does that mean:

 

1) they issued an injunction

2) they ordered the lower court to issue an injunction and the lower court must comply ASAP

3) they ordered the lower court to consider issuing an injunction, which the lower court can still refuse to do, because feelings

Edited August 2, 2023 at 04:24 PM by EdDinIL

[Euler]

District case 4:23-cv-00095
Appellate case 23-10319 on the preliminary injunction

The appellate court reversed the denial to issue a preliminary injunction and remanded the motion for a preliminary injunction back to the district court without limitation. The district court is directed to resolve the motion within 60 days (of August 1). The Appellate court had issued its own injunction on May 23 pending appeal. It has extended that injunction for 60 days to cover the time until the district court reconsiders the motion.

CA5 said:

...
We place no limitation on the matters that the conscientious district court may address on remand, and we give no indication of what decisions it should reach, regarding a preliminary injunction or any other matter.

So the district court can do whatever it wants. However, the district court just got reversed, so in practice "whatever it wants" pretty much means that the terms of the injunction are up to the court, but there has to be an injunction.

... and of course, the case itself has not yet been heard. All this furor is about a preliminary injunction. Nevertheless, we should probably expect the government to petition the Supreme Court quickly. Maybe Alito will stay the circuit court like he did for aluminum blocks (VanDerStok).

[Euler]

On August 4, the district judge set the following schedule for the reconsideration of a preliminary injunction.

August 18: plaintiffs' brief to plead for the preliminary injunction is due
September 1: defendants' response is due
September 9: plaintiffs' reply is due

[Tvandermyde]

 

[mab22]

On 10/3/2023 at 4:20 PM, Tvandermyde said:

 

So how does this effect the GRIP Easterbrook has on the Illinois case, which I forgot what it is called...

 

[Euler]

On October 2, as noted above, the judge preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the "final rule" against the plaintiffs, which include FPC. [Expect the government to appeal.]

On October 3, the judge ordered the parties to confer for a joint status hearing to be held on October 31. [That's probably when the court will schedule the discovery and argument for the main case.]

[Euler]

On October 10, 2023 at 08:32 PM CDT, Euler said:→

...
On October 3, the judge ordered the parties to confer for a joint status hearing to be held on October 31. [That's probably when the court will schedule the discovery and argument for the main case.]

On November 3, based on the October 31 status report, the judge set the following schedule:

Nov 14: Mock to file brief for summary judgment
Dec 18: government to file response to Mock's motion and to file brief for cross-motion for summary judgment
Jan 17: Mock to file reply to government's response and to file response to government's cross-motion
Feb 7: government to file reply to Mock's response to government's cross-motion

[Euler]

On October 10, 2023 at 08:32 PM CDT, Euler said:→

On October 2, as noted above, the judge preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the "final rule" against the plaintiffs, which include FPC. [Expect the government to appeal.]
...

On November 29, the government appealed the preliminary injunction to the 5th Circuit Court. The 5th Circuit Court assigned it docket 23-11199.

[Euler]

On December 22, CA5 consolidated several cases including this one.

23-11157 SAF v ATF (which is itself the consolidation of several cases at the district level)

is consolidated with

23-11199 Mock v Garland (this case)
23-11203 Britto v ATF
23-11204 TX Gun Rights v ATF
23-40685 TX v ATF

[Flynn]

Quote

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule is GRANTED and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment as to those claims is DENIED.

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609/gov.uscourts.txnd.372609.111.0.pdf