BREAKING NEWS: Vanderstock Opinion just Released. From the Opinion: “… A. Permanent Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief. A permanent injunction is proper when a plaintiff (1) prevails on the merits, (2) there is no adequate remedy at law for the plaintiff’s otherwise irreparable injury, (3) the balance of the harms favors the plaintiff, and (4) an injunction would serve the public interest. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Plaintiffs satisfy each of these elements. As explained earlier in this Order, Plaintiffs satisfy the first requirement because they succeed on the merits of their Second Amendment claims. Regarding the remaining injunction factors, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm due to credible threats of enforcement, compliance costs, and the chilling of constitutional rights.51 Likewise, the balance of the equities and the public interest factors are in Plaintiffs’ favor. The Government has not identified any concrete injuries to counterbalance the real harms facing Plaintiffs. And there is no public interest in unlawful government action. Wages & White Lion Invs., L.L.C. v. FDA, 16 F.4th 1130, 1143 (5th Cir. 2021). Accordingly, having considered the arguments, evidence, and relevant law, the Court holds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of entering a permanent injunction… … VII. CONCLUSION Having found that the Final Rule is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 316) as to Counts Five and Six. And because the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not prevailed on their APA claims, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 318) as to Plaintiffs’ Counts Two, Three, and Four.” Link to Opinion Here: saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2…