10/03/2023

After bouncing back and forth from the District Court and the 5th circuit in Texas we've got a huge win in Mock v. Garland which challenges the ATF's final rule on "pistol braces". Don't wait. Get Your Gold and Silver now- American Hartford Gold To Learn more Visit https://offers.americanhartfordgold.c... -- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket Social Media INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho... Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More! https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions. (DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!

DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediatelyP


Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got some very big news that I think most of you are going to find extremely exciting. This is in regards to mock V Garland, which is a case that's challenging the ATF's clearly unconstitutional brace Rule.

Now, we've already seen an injunction from the fifth circuit court of appeals, but now we have something that, in my opinion, is even better and I think is going to lead to the end of the brace rule very soon. So let's talk about what just happened.

This video is proud to be sponsored by American Hartford Gold. Listen, if there is one thing that those of us in the Firearms Community understand, it's that you cannot rely on the government for your protection, not with your life and especially not with your wealth.

Look throughout our lifetime, the dominance of the US dollar was unquestioned, but that may be changing as we face unprecedented inflation. The world's biggest economies are ditching the dollar for the Yen, banks are failing left and right, and the government is discussing total control of all of your money with the new digital dollar. Don't let your life savings become a casualty of failing corporations or currency wars. Now is the time to call the only precious metal dealer that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They'll show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio with physical gold and silver. With the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment, American Hartford Gold has a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A+ from the Better Business Bureau. American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth. Tell them I sent you, and they'll give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first order. So call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-257. That's 866-856-257 or text "copper" to 65532.

Okay, so let's go talk about what's going on here. In the beginning of mock V Garland, the FPC and others filed a lawsuit in The District Court of Texas to either get a summary judgment, basically overturning the ATF's brace rule, or to get an injunction stopping enforcement of the brace rule. They said that it violated the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) because originally when they came out with their opinion, the ATF's rule had some type of worksheet with it and a bunch of different things, and people left comments about that. All of the comments were about that particular iteration of the rule.

Well, after the comments were submitted and everything was done, the ATF went ahead and basically changed everything. They got rid of that paperwork, they got rid of a bunch of stuff, and the final rule that came out was completely different than what people were allowed to comment on. The FPC and the people who filed the mock V Garland lawsuit said that well, that violates the Administrative Procedures Act and that it should be considered invalid.

Well, the district court at the time decided that they didn't see that the FBC had a likelihood of success on the merits, so they denied their claim. They denied their injunction, and obviously, they didn't issue a summary judgment. So, the FBC brings it up to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that again, the ATF violated the APA and is also violating people's Second Amendment rights. So again, they're bringing this lawsuit on APA grounds and they're bringing it on Second Amendment grounds.

The fifth circuit goes ahead, and they take a look at everything and decide that, yes, as a matter of fact, we are going to allow for an injunction. This injunction is not going to be nationwide; it's not going to be so broad as to cover everybody in the country, but it will cover the plaintiffs, their families, it will cover FPC members, and things like that. So it was broad in terms of the fact that it did cover FBC members, which is quite a few people, and it covered the plaintiffs themselves and people in their household, families, and so forth.

But what the district court, or what the fifth Circuit Court decided to do was they decided to send it back down. Basically, what they did is they said, "Hey District Court, you got it wrong. We need you to take another look at this. We believe that the FBC and mock actually have a good chance of success on the merits, and we want you to take another look at this. We're going to give you some time to look at it. You go ahead and make whatever decision you want. It's actually written in there. They said, 'This is not something that you should take as we're telling you that they need to get an injunction. We're just telling you to take another look at it based on the information that we have here.'"

So again, they didn't force the lower courts to do anything the lower court didn't want to do. Well, that District Court just came out with their decision late last night. Now, try and keep in mind that the fifth circuit's injunction was still in place while the district court was kind of taking a second look at this. So again, FPC members and others who are involved in this were all covered as everything was going on.

Now we have the decision from the district court level, and the district court basically decided that they were going to also provide injunctive relief in this case, and that is the big breaking news. Basically, what the district court said is we went ahead and we looked at what the fifth circuit did, we agree with what the fifth circuit did, and so we're actually going to provide an injunction in this case that is equal and similar to the fifth circuit's injunction.

Let me go ahead and read you a little bit from this order, and it'll show you exactly who is covered by this. Now, one thing I want to keep in mind while we take a look at this order is that now we have two major courts agreeing on a particular matter. We have the district court and we have the appellate court both saying that mock has a good chance of success on the merits, meaning that if for some reason the state or the government decides to appeal back to the fifth, the fifth has already said that Mock has a good chance of success on the merits, and so more than likely they're going to deny the government's appeal in this case.

Here's the conclusion from The District Court: "The court holds that each plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against the government defendants' enforcement of the final rule that the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit determined to be invalid under the administrative procedures act. For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court orders that the government defendants, the Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice, the ATF, and its officers, servants, and employees are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing against the firearm policy coalition Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit has determined are unlawful."

It goes on to cover each one of the named plaintiffs. So maximum defense and William T. Moach, and so forth. It goes through that and says, "This injunctive relief shall not extend to any VI individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922. The injunctive relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the conclusion and final disposition of all claims of cause of action before the court in these review proceedings. The court waives the security requirement," and it was signed by Judge Reed O'Conor on the 2nd of October.

Now, try to keep in mind here that what the ATF is saying is that what they did is not legislative in nature; it's clearly legislative in nature, and the courts have recognized that. They also recognized the fact that they violated the APA; they also recognized the fact that this violates the Second Amendment. They have realized that what they've done here is they've way overstepped their boundary, and so what they're doing is they're kind of putting them in check.

If you are somebody who is an FPC member, you are covered by this injunction. There's other injunctions right now that have currently taken place, lawsuits filed by the GOA and other groups as well. So we're seeing pretty much all across the country right now injunctions being enforced against the final Rule, and again, they're on different grounds from grounds from the APA to the Second Amendment. So there's a lot of things going on right here, but the big takeaway is that we have multiple courts now across the country that have decided that what the federal government has done here through this agency is unconstitutional and it violates the Second Amendment in the APA.

We have a consensus now amongst the lower courts, and so I think what we're going to see here very soon is we're going to see this overturned. But what's the FPC's response? Well, I had to search for that, went to their Twitter, looked down a little bit, or X or whatever it is now, went down a little bit and actually saw where they commented on somebody who had that same question. Let's just take a quick look at what the FPC is actually saying in regards to when this is going to be finished.

So we have a comment here under the FPC's post by CMDR Goat where it says, "When does this go away permanently?" and the FPC responded with, "The district court and the Circuit Court both in agreement about the likelihood of our success. We look forward to making this happen ASAP."

Well, what does that mean? Basically, what it means is it's not being enforced on its members as of right now, but it looks like we have a good chance of winning on the merits. So it's just going to be however long the case takes to be final. Obviously, there's still going to be Discovery and there's going to be oral arguments and things that are still going to happen after this. They have to still go through the case. This didn't overturn it, but what it did is it put it on hold, and so the case is going to move forward now, and there's everything standard that typically happens in a case is going to happen, and then at the end, the judge will make his final decision.

In my opinion, just based on what we've seen in this injunction, it looks like we're going to win this one. Now, obviously, the government's not going to like that very much, and so they're going to try and appeal to the fifth circuit, but the fifth circuit's kind of already weighed in on this. They've already said, "Hey, we believe they have a good chance of winning on the merit," so whether they take it up or not and continue this on is still yet to be seen. But if they do take it on, we have, again, a fairly good chance of winning on the merit, and so I think that this is going to be over sooner rather than later.

Things have been kind of expedited here just because of the nature of this having to create new laws essentially through this Rule and new punishments and new requirements and everything. This kind of has to be settled pretty quickly. It's not going to be one of those five-year things like we've seen in California, five or six years before we even get close to being final. I think we're going to see this finalized fairly soon. So I'm really excited about it, and as an FPC member, somebody who is covered by this injunction, I'm even more excited about it.

Again, this is just another reason why you really need to join whatever group you can, even if you can join multiple groups. Obviously, that would be better if you could be covered by the Goa and the FPC and all others. That'll pretty much cover your bases. But again, it shows why being part of these organizations is great for you in more ways than just helping them fight these things in court.

Again, very big news, extremely exciting. I wanted to bring that to you guys, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, you guys have a great day.