Can the federal government impose firearm regulations on an incomplete hunk of metal? One federal judge says no.
In 2022, the Biden administration’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issued final rules entitled Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms. A federal judge for the Northern District of Texas said Tuesday, what the ATF regulates as a firearm changed 45 years of precedent to include partially manufactured frames and receivers as “firearms.”
The final rule also amends ATF’s definition of “firearm” to include weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
The case VanDerStok v. Garland was first filed in 2022. It has since turned into Defense Distributed v. Blanche. Defense Distributed had sold blocks of metal that were 80% completed lower receivers that could be used to build a rifle. The company also sold a kit to complete the block. Separately, the company has been involved in another legal controversy over computer files that can be used to 3D print firearms.
An order and opinion in the frames and receivers rule case was issued Tuesday by Chief U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor.
“The decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement,” O’Connor wrote. “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.”
— Greg Bishop in Judge sides with Defense Distributed over gun ‘frame or receiver’ rules
Good