17 states join GOA/GOF and sue ATF’s new firearms rule on 80 percent/kits

Seventeen States Join GOA/GOF as Plaintiffs Against ATF’s New Firearms Rule - https://www.ammoland.com/2022/07/se...as-plaintiffs-against-atfs-new-firearms-rule/

• 17 state attorney generals have signed on as plaintiffs to the Gun Owners of America’s case against the ... ATF and its new rule surrounding the redefinition of a firearm.

• Arizona, West Virginia, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming ... 17 states claim that the ATF final rule violates the authority of the government agency.

• President Joe Biden ... demanded the ATF develop new regulations surrounding unfinished frames and pistol stabilizing devices which he called “ghost guns." ... ATF moved forward with crafting the rule but instead of clearing up confusion, the final rule muddied the water with contradictions and vagueness.

• GOA and the other plaintiffs are suing for an injunction to prevent the new rules from going into effect. The new regulation is due to go into effect in less than a month.

• The NYSPRA v. Bruen eliminated the two-step test in firearms cases. Before Bruen ... Anti-gun judges used the two-step process to restrict firearms. Now the courts must only rely on the original text and history of the Second Amendment.

• The second SCOTUS case that might affect GOA’s case is WV v. EPA. This groundbreaking case ... severely curtailed ... Chevron deference ... means that a court may not substitute its own interpretation of a statute of a government agency. The ATF used Chevron for this rule and the upcoming pistol brace rule, which is expected by December.

Attorney's review/overview of lawsuit - https://rumble.com/v1e8kim-supreme-court-decisions-back-atf-tyranny-and-new-rules-into-a-corner.html

 

Which will be tricky, as the Court ruled that "administrators" could not assume a mantle of "professional authority" just because they led a government agency.
The Key to Chevron was that professional petroleum engineers might be better qualified than politicians about regulations within their field.

Now WV v. EPA does have a key aspect in that the agency EPA, enacted regulations, while ignoring that they did not have the Legislative authority to do so. They also enacted regulations against published and commonly-known "good practices."

Those last two items may well wind up crucial in the case against BATFE, but, they may be more "check" than "checkmate."

Despite the name of the Agency, the EPA has surprisingly few Environmental Engineers in its employ. Grill BATFE and they will trot out any number of people with 10, 15, 20 or more years of experience with firearms or in firearms law.

Now, it's pretty obvious that 19 USC 922 does not empower BATFE to regulate things that are not firearms. And that letter is likely very central to the case.

 

Are antigun politicians better qualified concerning regulations in the firearms field?

 

The question, in both cases is politicians appointing people to write the actual regulations that define the enacted law.

EPA was allowing managers and the like to "make policy" as if they were qualified Environmental Engineers.
The argument against BATFE being under-qualified, technically, will be less obvious.

Politicians routinely make laws on topics they know nothing about. That's part of the problem.
But, it's bureaucrats in the Agencies,not the politicians who write the actual Regulations. Now, the argument for "our" side is when the distinction between bureaucrat and politically-motivated employee becomes blurred.

 

In addition to Morehouse/GOA/GOF v Garland (ATF redefinition of firearm) lawsuit that 17 states' AGs joined and lawsuit by Firearms Policy Coalition VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule), here's an update to another lawsuit against ATF Division 80 v Garland (Biden "ghost gun" kits).

Attorney discuss how the DOJ just made a huge admissions in a lawsuit against the ATF's new rule on frames and receivers - https://rumble.com/v1gekck-atf-make...its-to-having-no-power-to-regulate-parts.html

• ATF was sued after the sale of 80% kits was affected in response to Biden's directive of eliminating "ghost guns" and ATF changed 80% receiver rule to treat 80% kits as firearms
• ATF's rule change requires vendors/manufacturers selling 80% kits to serialize the receivers and go through the FFL process starting 8/24/22
• Division 80 asked the court for preliminary injuction (Relief that lasts throughout the duration of the trial)
• During the preliminary injunction hearing, an admission was made by the justice department's attorney Daniel Reese that for the 80% kit to be considered regulated firearm, a jig or template with drill bits/tools and instructions MUST be sold with the 80% receiver to readily convert the receiver into a firearm
• So it was revealed that 80% receiver without the jig/template, drill bits/tools and instructions could be sold not as a firearm (Which was news to Division 80 attorney and this ATF ambiguity was complained to the judge)
• Judge will decide before 8/24/22 on the preliminary injunction factoring new admissions by the DOJ attorney

 

Attorney discuss judge not granting the preliminary injunction and last minute changes (2 days before 8/24/22) ATF made to the final rule claiming they are "technical corrections" but made without the review/comment process and anticipated challenge - https://rumble.com/v1h4ecu-breaking-atf-wins-battle-to-halt-their-new-framesreceivers-rule.html

So ATF's new "technically corrected" rule on "80% kits" goes into effect today (8/24/22) requiring the sale of "kits" to be serialized and go through background check and FFL processes (This requires vendors to be FFL holders).

Publication in the Federal Register back in 4/26/22 - https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

ATF's final rule that went into effect today (120 days after publication in the Federal Register) with portions regarding "80% kits" - https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/overview-final-rule-2021r-05f-definition-“frame-or-receiver”-and-identification/download

• The rule makes clear that the “frame” or “receiver” includes a partially complete frame or receiver, including a parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver, i.e., to house or hold the appliable fire control component.
​

It is important to note that in classifying any frame or receiver, “the Director may consider any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit, or otherwise made available by the seller or distributor of the item or kit to the purchaser or recipient of the item or kit.”

• This change makes clear that many of the products currently marketed and sold as unregulated “80% kits” contain a “frame or receiver” that is regulated by Federal law. (Page 10)

• Example 1 [Picture of 80% AR receiver with jig/tools] - Frame or receiver: A frame or receiver parts kit containing a partially complete or disassembled billet or blank of a frame or receiver that is sold, distributed, or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver, as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame or receiver. (Page 11)
​

[Picture of 80% pistol parts kit] The rule clarifies that the definition of “firearm” includes a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.

The term “firearm” does not include a weapon, including a weapon parts kit, in which the frame or receiver of such weapon is “destroyed” as described in the definition “frame or receiver.” (Page 12)

... Example 2 [Picture of paper weight] - Not a receiver: A billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed, machined, or formed that is not sold, distributed, or possessed with instructions, jigs, templates, equipment, or tools such that it may readily be completed is not a receiver. (Page 14)

... With these changes, it is important to understand those things that are unchanged by the rule ... For example, pursuant to 27 CFR 478.12(a)(2), the “receiver” of an AR-15/M-16 variant firearms would be the upper assembly as it provides housing for the bolt.

... • However, the final rule makes clear that “[t]he receiver is the lower part of the weapon that provides housing for the trigger mechanism and hammer (i.e., lower receiver). Figure 3. [Figure 3 shows AR lower on page 16] (Page 15)​

 

For those who have completed their 80% paper weights into firearms, ATF calls these Privately Made Firearm (PMF).

The final rule amends 27 CFR Parts 447.11 and 478.11 to define a firearm made by a nonlicensee as a “Privately Made Firearm” (“PMF”).

• A PMF is defined as “[a] firearm, including a frame or receiver, completed, assembled, or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced. The term shall not include a firearm identified and registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to chapter 53, title 26, United States Code, or any firearm manufactured or made before October 22, 1968 (unless remanufactured after that date).”
​

The final rule amends the regulations to require all FFLs to identify (mark) any PMF they take into their inventory ... (Page 20)

The final rule:

• Does not prohibit an individual from making their own PMF.

• Does not mandate unlicensed persons mark their own PMF ... (Page 21)
​

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

So to this layperson 80% paper weights currently in possession and completed into firearms do not need to be serialized under the ATF's new (technically corrected) final rule as ATF's final rule applys to the sale of "80% kits" by vendors.

And we have new admission by DOJ lawyer Daniel Reese - "80% receiver without the jig/template, drill bits/tools and instructions could be sold not as a firearm" further confirming what's on page 14 of the new rule:

Not a receiver: A billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed, machined, or formed that is not sold, distributed, or possessed with instructions, jigs, templates, equipment, or tools such that it may readily be completed is not a receiver.​

So I guess paper weights can continue to be sold as paper weights.

 

That has been the understanding from the get go when this rule change was first submitted. The ATF knew that they could not go after all of the PMF's already owned/built by people. That goes along with the part of the rule changes detailing what a FFL is and who is required to have one.

We discussed this in depth on the old Marine Gun Builder forum before it shut down.

 

Correct.

The "technically corrected" ATF rule permits the sale of 80% paper weights by vendors without having to serialize them and go through the background/FFL process by selling them without the "jigs/templates, tools, instructions, etc."

And individual customers can continue to finish the paper weights into firearms without serializing them. So vendors can continue to sell unserialized 80% paper weights by simply selling jigs/templates/tools/instructions separately.

 

So how much of our tax dollars were wasted on this?

Today I'll go and buy 10 80% lowers.

Tomorrow I'll go and buy the jig and tools.

 

Really ... Good grief ... < Face palm >

 

How does this affect one's already in stores on shelves? Does the store have to serialize them?

 

I guess if they are in "kit" form on the shelf, they either need to serialize them or remove the 80% paper weight from the kit and sell separately without serializing.

 

Update to post #5 of current legal challenges to ATF rule on frame and receiver - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/#post-12384602

Update to VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) granted partial and limited injunction against ATF's final rule (Technically corrected) on frame/receiver - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...DerStok_v_Garland_Order_on_MPI.pdf?1662145028

FPC Secures Partial Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging ATF “Frame or Receiver” Rule - https://gunandsurvival.com/2022/09/...wsuit-challenging-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule/

• Federal district court judge Reed O’Connor granted Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) a partial and limited injunction against ATF’s final rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce
• Judge O'Connor wrote in his order, "The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning ... The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver.”
• Granting of a preliminary injunction is an indication that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenge to the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” rule
• Order grants a preliminary injunction as to plaintiff Tactical Machining, but does not grant a preliminary injunction in regards to Tactical Machining’s customers, other manufacturers or retailers, or any other individuals interested in buying the affected products
• Plaintiffs “to submit further briefing and evidence on the scope of the injunction” by September 8th, with a response from ATF due 7 days later

 

Update to post #15 regarding VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Attorney discuss a big win against the ATF and their new rule on frames and receivers. A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the ATF - https://rumble.com/v1ipc3d-federal-...nt-of-atfs-new-frames-and-receivers-rule.html

• Federal judge Reed O'Connor granted a limited preliminary injunction to plaintiff Tactical Machining, but not to customers, other manufacturers or retailers, or any other individuals interested in buying the affected products (For now and may be amended in the future to include customers)
• ATF's final "technically corrected" rule redefined the definition of firearm to include 80% receivers sold as kits requiring serialization and background checks
• Plaintiffs requested a preliminary injunction to halt the enforcement of ATF's redefinition of firearm
• Judge ruled what the ATF did was invalid and wrote, "The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning ... The definition of ‘firearm’ in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver.”
• Judge ruled parts that may become a receiver is not a receiver/firearm in "parts" state
• ATF's final "technically corrected" rule on frame or receiver redefined what a firearm is and tarnished Congress' carefully crafted definition of firearm
• ATF's redefinition of firearm unlawfully expanded ATF's authority beyond the boundaries set by the Gun Control Act.
• Judge stated Gun Control Act's precise wording demands precise application and Congress could have expressed such language regarding parts and parts kits but even being aware of such, Congress decided not to and judge decided Tactical Machining is entitled to a preliminary injunction and can continue to operate business as usual free from ATF's enforcement of the final rule which is unlawful redefinition
• Preliminary injunction applies only to Tactical Machining as other plaintiffs have not shown same level of burden and preliminary injunction does not protect the customers who are likely to face felony charges if they purchase kits from Tactical Machining and preliminary injunction may need to be amended in the future to protect the customers
• Judge is permitting supplemental briefs and evidence to be submitted

 

Update to post #16 regarding VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Attorney discuss the ATF's current efforts to prevent an injunction from being expanded to a national injunction against their new final "technically corrected" frame/receiver rule - https://rumble.com/v1kekoe-atf-tyranny-and-rules-backed-into-corner-by-federal-court-injunction.html

• ATF and Firearms Policy Coalition/plaintiffs have summitted their supplemental briefs
  
• Because judge already found what ATF did was invalid, "The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning" of precise wording of Gun Control Act by Congress, consideration is being made to expand the limited preliminary injunction (Currently only applies to Tactical Machining) to customers, members of FPC and other manufacturers/vendors
• Plaintiffs argued expansion of injunction should be made on a national level
• ATF argued injunction should not be expanded to national level
• Because of ATF's final "technically corrected" rule, many/most of 80% receiver manufacturers/vendors stopped selling with jigs/templates/tools/instructions or stopped selling jigs/tools altogether impacting sales
• Key point made by ATF's supplemental brief is "unfinished" frames and receivers (80% receivers) are not "firearm"

 

Update to post #17 regarding VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Judge expands preliminary injunction in VanDerStok case! - https://mslegal.org/2022/10/judge-expands-preliminary-injunction-in-vanderstok-case/

• In a spectacular development for Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms case, VanDerStok v. Garland, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas handed a victory to nearly all of MSLF’s clients in the ongoing case.

• Limited preliminary injunction granted in early September for Tactical Machining only was expanded to include customers

• Judge O’Connor stated, “Tactical Machining’s injuries cannot be remedied if its only source of revenue - customer willingness to transact business - has been severely curtailed … customers must be covered by the preliminary injunction.” Tactical Machining customers are now protected

• Additionally, two individual clients of MSLF, Jennifer VanDerStok and Mike Andren, were included in the newly expanded injunction.

• MSLF argued ATF’s Final Rule was so vague that anyone who purchased certain parts could be subject to criminal penalties and be irreparably harmed. Such a threat from the federal government is nothing short of chilling to Americans who want to practice their constitutionally protected natural right of self-defense. And judge O’Connor agreed.

Attorney discuss another huge win out of Texas against the ATF with expansion of limited preliminary injunction - https://rumble.com/v1mtckx-federal-...to-regulate-and-restrict-framesreceivers.html

 

Update to post #18 regarding VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Attorney discuss how the ATF just suffered another major loss in the Texas lawsuit against the ATF's new frames/receivers rule - https://rumble.com/v1ozohv-federal-...ny-and-power-to-regulate-framesreceivers.html

• When Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas expanded preliminary injunction to include customers of Tactical Machining, other plaintiffs such as Firearms Policy Coalition members were not included.

• Today court allowed Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc./80 Percent Arms to join the lawsuit as plaintiff which was opposed by ATF as preliminary injunction would likely expand to include Blackhawk Manufacturing and customers.

• Blackhawk Manufacturing joining the lawsuit is significant as other 80% manufacturers can join the lawsuit to protect themselves and their customers.

 

Update to VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Attorney discuss how the ATF is facing another major loss in the Texas lawsuit against the ATF's new frames/receivers rule and breaking news on the ATF appealing - https://rumble.com/v1r0in3-atf-stri...nd-restrict-framesreceivers-atf-disagree.html

• After Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted limited preliminary injunction to Tactical Machining and expanded to include customers, allowed Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc./80 Percent Arms to join the lawsuit as plaintiff

• Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc./80 Percent Arms filed for preliminary injunction protection including their customers

• ATF is appealing the decisions of preliminary injunctions to 5th Circuit - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

 

Update to VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule).

Attorney discuss federal court in Texas once again struck down the ATF's ability to regulate under their new frames/receivers rule - https://rumble.com/v1r0in3-atf-stri...nd-restrict-framesreceivers-atf-disagree.html

• After Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted limited preliminary injunction to Tactical Machining and expanded to include customers, allowed Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc./80 Percent Arms to join the lawsuit as plaintiff

• Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc./80 Percent Arms filed for preliminary injunction protection including their customers and judge O'Connor granted same limited preliminary injunction protection as Tactical Machining and customers.

In granting the preliminary injunction, judge stated (Page 5) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...and_118_Order_on_Blackhawk_MPI.pdf?1667493155

Rather than recite its previous analysis with respect to the interpretive claims verbatim, the Court incorporates by reference the reasoning in its First Opinion. To summarize: the Final Rule purports to regulate firearm parts—including incomplete, non-functional receivers and weapon parts kits—contrary to the plain language of the GCA, which confined ATF’s authority to regulation of “firearms,” a term clearly defined by the statute. Moreover, the Final Rule’s expanded definition of “frame or receiver” to include partially manufactured, non-functional receivers within the meaning of “firearms”—contrary to the GCA’s clear statutory definition—is facially unlawful.​