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
How is this gonna work in light of the recent VanDerStok v. Garland SCotUS ruling?
I did note in the opinion there was ZERO mention of the ‘percentage’ of completeness that was the triggering point, do you think this was deliberate by the Court, LKB, if by chance you’re reading this???
The government should not be in the business of ‘managing’ the constitutional rights of ‘We the people’ with ‘agencies’ or otherwise. The only thing with constitutional rights they need to be doing is protecting and preserving them. There is a reason there is no enumerated power of government over the rights of the people. At first the founders thought those specifically defined enumerated powers would also constrain the government from messing with the rights of the people, but later defined specific rights in the Bill of Rights. The intent was never that the government could exercise control over the rights of the people – it was always that the government did not have such power and never did even before the Bill of Rights.
Agreed. ATF, if it existed at all, should be a customer service organization for gun owners, alcohol companies, and smokers.
I don’t know what service they would supply, but I expect some bright bureaucrat could come up for some excuse to keep his/her phony bologna job.
Picky nit: Reed O’Connor is a federal District Judge, not a Fifth Circuit judge. His Court is the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. Appeals from that court go to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Again, he’s a district judge IN the Fifth Circuit, but he’s not a Fifth Circuit judge.
I did note in the SCotUS Frames and Receivers opinion there was ZERO mention of the ‘percentage’ of completeness that was the triggering point, do you think this was deliberate by the Court, LKB???