Hey remember when I posted that Trump wasn't a great friend to the 2A, and we should wait before we got excited? And it was brought up so often that a former NAGR guy was a White House Counsel so many times that we needed to start a whole "discussion" thread?
Yeah, Pam Bondi, in her role as AG, has filed a response
against NAGR claiming that non firearms parts that were wrongly confiscated by ATF can not be returned without a background check.
http://www.https://mrgunsngear.org/4kLZgvQ
Plaintiffs “disagree with the need, and possibly even the legality of running background checks” prior to the return of seized FRT-15s and WOTs to eligible individuals. Pls.’Notice at 3 n.1. But this Court unequivocally excluded individuals prohibited from possessing firearms from the scope of its injunction. Order at 60, ECF No. 100 (“[T]his injunctive relief shall not extend to any individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).”). Accordingly, background checks prior to the return of seized FRT-15s and WOTs are necessary to ensure that Defendants do not return the devices to individuals prohibited from possessing firearms, as this Court’s Order contemplated.
It should be noted as well that the DOJ is still actively prosecuting a guy for having an illegal machine gun because his FRT might be a little different than the two they lost a court case over.
Fourth, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants “continue to rely on the illegal classification of FRTs as machineguns,” pointing to two criminal prosecutions in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Pls.’ Notice at 4-5. But as Defendants have explained repeatedly, prosecutions and other enforcement actions are not undertaken on the basis of any “illegal classification” because ATF’s classification does not carry binding legal effect apart from the statute. SeeDefs.’ Opp. to Mot. for Order to Show Cause at 18, ECF No. 118; Defs.’ Mem. inSupp. of Mot. for Stay at 5, ECF No. 105. And one of those prosecutions does not even implicate the FRTs at issue in this case. See Pls.’ Notice at 4 (noting that “United States argued that the FRTs at issue in that case (Alamo-15 FRTs) might be different from the FRT-15 or WOT”).
[/b]
David Warrington sure is doing the Lord's Work over there in the White House.
