Author: TXGRStaff

June 29, 2024

In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine, dealing a significant blow to federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that have relied on it to create regulatory gun control measures.

This decision, following closely on the heels of the Court’s ruling against the ATF’s bump stock ban, marks a pivotal moment for Second Amendment advocates and sets a new precedent for the judicial oversight of federal agencies.

The Chevron deference, established by the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as those interpretations were “reasonable.”

This doctrine has often been criticized for giving federal agencies too much power to interpret and enforce laws without sufficient judicial oversight.

In the majority opinion for the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that it is the judiciary’s role to interpret laws independently, without yielding to agency interpretations.

“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. “Courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.”

This decision arrives just two weeks after the Supreme Court overturned the ATF’s bump stock ban, another significant victory for gun rights advocates. In that case, Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, unequivocally rejecting the ATF’s assertion that bump stocks convert semi automatic firearms into machine guns.

“Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to re engage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns,” Thomas wrote. “This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not.”

The overturning of Chevron and the rejection of the bump stock ban signify a robust reaffirmation of judicial authority over administrative interpretations of the law, particularly those affecting constitutional rights.

These rulings underscore the Court’s commitment to safeguarding individual liberties against expansive regulatory overreach.

Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, praised the ruling, stating, “This is a monumental victory for Second Amendment advocates. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message that regulatory agencies cannot bypass the Constitution to impose their anti-gun agenda. This ruling is a critical step in protecting our rights from bureaucratic overreach.”

The implications of this ruling could significantly impact Texas Gun Rights’ ongoing lawsuit against the ATF’s forced reset trigger (FRT) ban, which classified FRTs as machine guns.

The Supreme Court’s stance against Chevron deference strengthens the argument that the ATF has overstepped its authority in reclassifying these firearm components.

For Second Amendment supporters, Friday’s ruling is a monumental step in curtailing the power of federal agencies to unilaterally impose restrictive gun control measures.

The decision sends a clear message that the interpretation and application of the law must rest with the judiciary, not unelected bureaucrats.

 

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on bump stocks, ruling in favor of Michael Cargill, a Texas gun store owner who challenged the 2018 regulation.

The Court’s decision, which marks a significant victory for gun owners, underscores the ongoing debate over firearm accessories and Second Amendment rights.

The ruling in Garland v. Cargill nullifies the Trump administration’s regulation that classified bump stocks as machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This regulation was introduced following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, where the shooter used bump stocks to fire rapidly, resulting in 58 deaths and over 500 injuries.

The Ruling
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, stated that bump stocks do not transform semi-automatic rifles into machine guns because they do not allow the firearm to fire more than one shot per trigger pull automatically.

Thomas emphasized that a bump stock merely facilitates rapid trigger activation by utilizing the firearm’s recoil but does not alter the fundamental mechanics of the trigger itself.

“A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,'” Thomas wrote. “Each shot requires a separate trigger function, and therefore, bump stocks cannot be classified as machine guns under the NFA.”

The Dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that the majority’s interpretation undermines the legislative intent to regulate firearms that can simulate automatic fire. Sotomayor stressed that bump stocks effectively enable rapid fire akin to that of machine guns, posing significant public safety risks.

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” Sotomayor wrote. “A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

Impact on Forced Reset Triggers (FRT) and Pistol Braces
This ruling has broader implications for other firearm accessory regulations, notably the forced reset trigger (FRT) ban.

Texas Gun Rights (TXGR) organization has an ongoing lawsuit against the ATF over the FRT ban. The Fifth Circuit previously granted TXGR an injunction, protecting its members from enforcement of this ban.

In a related case, Mock v. Garland, the Fifth Circuit vacated the ATF’s pistol brace rule, which classified pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles subject to NFA regulation.

The court ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority, aligning with the Supreme Court’s stance on bump stocks.

TXGR President Chris McNutt hailed these decisions as monumental victories for gun rights advocates. “These rulings reinforce that the ATF cannot arbitrarily redefine what constitutes a machine gun or short-barreled rifle,” McNutt said. “We will continue to fight against overreaching gun control measures in Washington, Austin, and in the courtroom.”

The Bruen Decision’s Influence
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have been influenced by the 2022 Bruen decision, which emphasized that firearm regulations must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. The Bruen ruling has set a precedent for challenging modern gun control measures that lack historical analogues.

These legal victories for gun owners signal a shift towards stricter scrutiny of federal firearm regulations. Second Amendment advocates will continue leveraging these rulings to challenge other restrictive measures, potentially reshaping the landscape of gun control in the United States.

Texas Gun Rights is actively raising funds to support their legal battles against federal and state-level gun control measures. “We need continued support to ensure that our constitutional rights are upheld,” McNutt urged. “Your donations help us mobilize gun owners and keep fighting for our freedoms.”

This Supreme Court ruling not only affirms the legality of bump stocks but also strengthens the foundation for future challenges to gun control laws, emphasizing the importance of historical context in interpreting the Second Amendment.

June 13, 2024

New Orleans, LA — In a significant win for gun owners and Second Amendment advocates, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the ATF’s pistol brace rule in the case of Mock v. Garland.

The court’s decision invalidates the ATF’s classification of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA). The ruling asserts that the ATF overstepped its authority in redefining these accessories, aligning with the court’s earlier injunction that safeguarded TXGR members from enforcement of the pistol brace ban.

This ruling was heavily influenced by the 2022 Bruen decision, which set a precedent that firearm regulations must be consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. The Bruen decision emphasized that any gun control measures must be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition, a standard that the ATF’s pistol brace rule failed to meet.

Judge Smith, writing for the majority, highlighted that the pistol brace rule not only lacked historical precedent but also imposed undue burdens on law-abiding citizens. “The ATF’s rule arbitrarily redefines pistols equipped with stabilizing braces, infringing upon the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” Smith wrote. “Such regulations must be grounded in historical context, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Bruen.”

The implications of this ruling extend far beyond the specific issue of pistol braces. By reinforcing the historical standard set by Bruen, the Fifth Circuit’s decision strengthens the legal foundation for challenging other contemporary gun control measures that lack historical justification. This ruling could pave the way for further judicial scrutiny of federal and state-level firearm regulations, leading to more victories for Second Amendment advocates.

“The Fifth Circuit’s ruling reaffirms that the ATF cannot arbitrarily redefine firearms and accessories to fit its gun control agenda” stated Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights.

While the ATF is likely to appeal the ruling, the ruling primsed TXGR to win its ongoing lawsuit against the ATF. “We can’t celebrate yet. Our efforts in the courtroom are not over, and we need continued support to make sure we make it all the way past the finish line.”

The Texas Democratic Party Convention was a full-throttle push for gun control, echoing the message, “Apathy is deadly, hopelessness is deadly.”

David Hogg, the notorious gun control activist and survivor of the 2018 Parkland, Florida high school shooting, was front and center, rallying the troops at a gun control panel.

“Democrats are no longer running from gun control. They’re running on it in most instances. We’re showing that it’s a winning issue. It’s going to take time though,” Hogg declared.

Among the attendees at the convention were prominent gun ban advocates like Beto O’Rourke and Gabby Giffords, making it clear that the Democratic platform is now firmly anchored in anti-gun rhetoric.

These politicians aren’t just advocating for gun control—they’re openly supporting outright bans on most privately owned firearms through so-called assault weapons bans.

These bans target not just rifles, as the majority of Americans believe, but also the majority of modern handguns and shotguns.

Hogg received a standing ovation from the 70 people in attendance before prancing to the photo line and participating in further discussions on gun control laws.

Highlighting legislative victories in Republican-controlled Florida, Hogg pointed to laws that raised the age for purchasing firearms and a “red flag” gun confiscation law.

“My message to Texans when it comes to passing gun laws, being from Florida where we were able to, is don’t lose hope,” Hogg urged.But let’s be clear: the narrative at the Texas Democratic Convention is a direct threat to our Second Amendment rights.

The measures promoted by Hogg, O’Rourke, and Giffords are clear steps towards gun bans and Universal Gun Registration—a slippery slope leading straight to gun confiscation.

Critics rightly argue that gun control efforts fail to address the root causes of violence and instead punish responsible gun owners.

While high-profile shootings are tragic, they overshadow the broader reality that firearms are used defensively millions of times each year in America.

In stark contrast to the Democratic convention, the Republican Party of Texas convention featured a booth operated by Texas Gun Rights, which included a photo line and meet-and-greet with Kyle Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse, who recently joined Texas Gun Rights as Outreach Director, was famously acquitted of all criminal charges in arguably the most high-profile self-defense case in American history, symbolizing the critical importance of the right to bear arms for personal protection.

The debate over gun control versus gun rights is far from over, and the upcoming elections will undoubtedly keep this issue at the forefront.

As gun control activists rally their base, pro-gun advocates must stand firm in defending the constitutional right to bear arms.

Apathy in this fight is not an option—it could indeed be deadly for our freedoms.

June 12, 2024

Washington, D.C. — Just hours after Hunter Biden was convicted on three counts of falsifying a federal background check form when purchasing a handgun, Joe Biden delivered a speech at Everytown for Gun Safety’s “Gun Sense University” in Washington, D.C.

Joe’s remarks echoed his familiar calls for stricter gun control measures, but this time included a controversial warning to law-abiding gun owners about the futility of opposing the government.

In his speech, Biden reiterated his stance that Americans need more than rifles to defend against a tyrannical government, suggesting they would need F-15 fighter jets instead. “If they want to take on the government if we get out of line, guess what, they need F-15s. They don’t need a rifle,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks were in reference to his calls for an “assault weapons” ban, recalling his efforts as a senator. “It’s time, once again, to do what I did when I was senator. Ban assault weapons,” Biden said. “Who, in God’s name, needs a magazine that can hold 200 shells? Nobody. That’s right. Think about it. They’re weapons of war.”

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Biden referenced from his days in the Senate expired in 2004 and was found to have little impact on gun violence.

Biden also repeated his oft-cited claim that there has never been a time when citizens could own cannons, a statement that has been consistently debunked.

Historical evidence shows no restrictions on owning cannons during the Revolutionary or Civil Wars, and private ownership of cannons remains legal today.

The Supreme Court’s Heller decision further protects the ownership of firearms commonly used for lawful purposes, and the recent Bruen decision emphasized that modern regulations must align with historical traditions of gun rights.

Biden’s remarks ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights isn’t contingent upon government beliefs about what citizens “need.”

The Second Amendment enshrines the right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of government opinion. The Supreme Court’s rulings, including Heller and Bruen, reinforce that bans on commonly owned firearms are unconstitutional.