BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants Cert, Will Hear Case Challenging ATF’s ‘Frame or Receiver’ Rule

From the Firearms Policy Coalition

Today, the United States Supreme Court granted review in Attorney General Merrick B. Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok, a Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden’s “frame or receiver” rule implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As a result, the high court will decide the fate of the rule in its upcoming October 2024 term.

“FPC and our members look forward to the end of President Biden’s unconstitutional and abusive rule. We are delighted that the Supreme Court will hear our case and decide this important issue once and for all,” said FPC founder and President Brandon Combs. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision in our case was correct and now that victory can be applied to the entire country.”

“This is an important day for the entire liberty movement. By agreeing to hear our case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to put ATF firmly in its place and stop the agency from unconstitutionally expanding its gun control agenda. We look forward to addressing this unlawful rule in the Court’s next term,” said FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for Plaintiffs.

Last November, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that portions of ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule are unlawful. This February, the federal government filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing the Fifth Circuit wrongly ruled on FPC and FPCAF’s favor. FPC and FPCAF disagreed with the government’s reasoning but agreed the Supreme Court should hear the case to ensure that a final decision could be applied across the United States.

Plaintiffs in FPC’s VanDerStok case include FPC, two individual FPC members, and Tactical Machining, LLC. The parties are represented at the Supreme Court by Cooper & Kirk, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and FPCAF.

Individuals who want to support this and other cases can join the FPC Grassroots Army at or make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation here.

12 Responses

  1. “Supreme Court Grants Cert, Will Hear Case Challenging ATF’s ‘Frame or Receiver’ Rule”

    Home-gunmaking has always been legal for American citizens, and I’m cautiously optimistic this ruling will secure our right to continue the practice.

    Thomas, et al, I hope, will recognize the danger of requiring serialization, a necessary safeguard if the 2A is ever needed for its true purpose of securing this once-great nation… 🙂

    1. CA is already taking strides in criminalizing mere possession of a receiver that isn’t serialized. Marking for a completed lower (milled & drilled) was required a few years ago, and now we’re being required to mark even unfinished ones that are still NIB and incapable of even being used as a firearm. That brings into question all the people who purchased some extra frames at some point and have them (NIB, unfinished) in the back of the safe somewhere. Automatically a criminal now, despite no crime committed? And the AFT wants to impose the same absurd stance on a national level?

      Who in their right mind actually wants to sign up to be an AFT/FBI/DHS agent nowadays? They spend more time looking for ways to go after Mr & Mrs American Citizen than going after…I dunno…people committing actual crimes.

      1. “CA is already taking strides in criminalizing mere possession of a receiver that isn’t serialized.”

        Hopefully, this decision settles once and for all home built firearms are legal and expressly constitutional.

        I suppose we’ll know a bit more as the ‘Friends of the Court’ briefs get published, and when oral arguments happen.

        I really hope LKB could clarify what this is, and isn’t…

        1. (1) Briefing will be over the summer. Argument in the Fall Term. Decision sometime next year.
          (2) ***VanderStok is not a 2A case.**** It will not address whether home fabrication of firearms or legal serialization requirements are constitutional or not. Like Cargill (bump stock case), VanderStok involves whether the AFT’s regulations are proper under the ‘68 GCA and APA.

  2. Hopefully, LKB can chime in with his thoughts on the news.

    Is it just me, or did this case take the ‘rocket docket’ to be heard so fast? Can we do that with the other infringements they have a hard-on with tormenting us???

    1. VanderStok has been working its way through the pipeline for some time now. Given that there were four votes to deny a stay pending appeal, it actually took longer for cert to get granted than I would have thought.

    1. Unlikely. VanderStok isn’t a 2A case — it’s whether the “frame or receiver” regs are consistent with the ‘68 GCA and properly promulgated under the APA. Taylor is a NY state law case, where they tried to argue Bruen nuked the Ny law, but the trial judge literally said “you can’t argue the Second Amendment; this is New York.”

      1. “…the trial judge literally said “you can’t argue the Second Amendment; this is New York.””

        Ho-lee crap.

        Bald-faced contempt of ‘Bruen’ and the SCotUS may have been the motivating factor?

        1. Again, Taylor had nothing to do with the decision to grant cert in VanderStok. Timing is purely coincidental.

          You *might* see a mention of the Taylor judge’s alleged statement (apparently made in a chambers conference with counsel, so might not even be on the record) in a Thomas or Alito concurrence in Rahimi, in terms of calling out judges who are thumbing their noses at Bruen, but that about it for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *