Setback in Court

A judge has denied a preliminary injunction on the border rifle reporting requirement, saying that the NRA failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. There’s still hope for the NSSF case. I’d say being forced to comply with a provision which has no basis in law should qualify as irreparable harm under any standard.

7 Responses to “Setback in Court”

  1. countertop says:

    Not surprised, especially if the basis of the NRA’s argument was on the cost of compliance (which is at least what the article seems to infer).

    An irreparable injury is one which can’t be rectified. Loss of life. Or loss of a fundamental right. Its an annoyance that they might have to report. But the fact that they have to spend money to comply isn’t, in and of itself, irreparable since the cost can always be recouped after victory on the underlying suit.

    Courts have been extraordinarily and consistently clear that business costs, in particular, are never irreparable.

    Its worth noting that she’s expedited the challenge to go to trial in October. There will be a decision soon enough.

  2. Bryan S. says:

    How is it that unless you can prove harm, you cannot stop a bogus law?

  3. Sebastian says:

    You can still stop the law, that’s why I said it’s a setback. It’s just that to get a preliminary injunction, IIRC, you have to prove that you’ll suffer irreparable harm, and have a high likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Both these things need to be true. The judge in this case rules the harm suffered wouldn’t be irreparable.

  4. Sigivald says:

    What countertop said. The harm seems pretty reparable, thus no preliminary injunction.

    Eventually victory precisely because the law doesn’t allow it seems unimpaired.

  5. Gene Hoffman says:

    Actually, the harm is not reparable as ATF is sovereign. They’re not going to be able to be forced to offset the costs that dealers incur here.


  6. Chas says:

    Markie Marxist sez: “We don’t need a basis in law. Screwing private gun owners out of their rights is politically correct according to Marxist values, so it’s okay. After all, America isn’t a nation of laws, it’s a nation of political correctness. The law absolutely must be obeyed when it supports our Marxist agenda, but otherwise, it’s nothing more than mere guidelines. That’s how it works, and that works for US! Ha! Ha!”

  7. Ed says:

    Why are they not going the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection” route on this? Having different rules in border states does not equally apply and ads an undue burden to business in the border states