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

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-4#post-12689798

Stay will remain in place while case proceeds through 5th Circuit

After district court judge O'Connor granted summary judgement against ATF and the Supreme Court approved stay for ATF, 5th Circuit granted stay in part and district court's preliminary injunction is vacated with understanding ATF won't be enforcing the final rule - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...re_motion_to_vacate_injunction.pdf?1696269344

Government has been adamant—in both writing and at oral argument on this motion—that it will not enforce the Final Rule against customers who purchase regulated “frames or receivers” and who are otherwise lawfully entitled to purchase firearms (Page 3)​

​

... But we disagree with the Government that the district court’s injunction as to two plaintiff-party manufacturers “directly conflicts with the Supreme Court’s determination that the [G]overnment should be permitted to enforce the Rule as to everyone while this appeal proceeds.” ... The party-plaintiff manufacturers are likely to succeed on the merits because the Final Rule is contrary to law.​

​

... federal definitions of “frame or receiver” have endured for decades before ATF changed them in the Final Rule. ATF’s desire to change the status quo ante does not outweigh the few additional weeks or months needed to complete judicial review of ATF’s work. Thus, under Winter or Nken or any other standard, we cannot say the Government has shown that it is entitled to emergency vacatur of the district court’s injunction as tothe two party-plaintiff manufacturers.Third, we are unpersuaded by the Government’s insistence that the district court flouted (disregarded) the Supreme Court’s August 8 order. (Page 5)​

​

... At the end of the day, we think four things are paramount. First, inferior federal courts must exhibit unflinching obedience to the Supreme Court’s orders.​

​

Second, the Court has directed us to be skeptical (if not altogether unwilling) to order universal relief that extends to non-parties.​

​

Third, insofar as possible, we should have orderly judicial review in which the status quo is maintained, and the legal rules sorted, without asking courts to make monumental decisions in short-fuse emergency dockets.​

​

Fourth and finally, courts should be able to review ATF’s 98-page rule, and the decades of precedent it attempts to change, without the Government putting people in jail or shutting down businesses.​

​

For these reasons, the Government’s motion is GRANTED IN PART, the district court’s preliminary injunction is VACATED as to non-parties, and the Government’s motion is otherwise DENIED​

​

Ex FPC attorney discuss 5th Circuit's ruling

Supreme Court Issues 5-4 Emergency Order Changing The Second Amendment Fight!!!

In this video I discuss a critical decision preventing the ATF from enforcing their frames/receivers rule. 🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸Join USCCA http://uscc...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner delve deeper into 5th Circuit ruling.

Key takeaway from 5th Circuit ruling ... "inferior federal courts must exhibit unflinching obedience to the Supreme Court’s orders ... finally, courts should be able to review ATF’s 98-page rule, and the decades of precedent it attempts to change, without the Government putting people in jail or shutting down businesses"

In Vanderstok federal case involving challenges to ATF's rule making concerning Biden's Ghost Gun regulations redefining frames and receivers, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to uphold the lower court's preliminary injunction pending the outcome of this lawsuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner breaks it all down.​

0:00 Pro 2A Ruling!​

0:51 5th Circuit Pro-2A Decision​

2:40 Potential Issue?​

5:40 Two Possible Remedies​

7:25 Vacation vs Injunction​

12:18 This Is a BIG Win!​

15:28 Thank You!​

​

BREAKING TODAY: FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES AGAINST ATF IN BIDEN GHOST GUN CASE

In Vanderstok federal case involving challenges to ATF's rulemaking concerning Biden's Ghost Gun regulations redefining frames and receivers, the Fifth Circu...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12729195

After district court judge O'Connor granted preliminary injunction against ATF, Supreme Court approved stay for ATF, 5th Circuit granted stay in part and district court's preliminary injunction was vacated with understanding ATF won't be enforcing the final rule.

On 10/2, ATF filed an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction pending appeal entered by the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas - https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A302/284301/20231005153709151_23a Application Garland v. Defense Distributed.pdf

On 10/6, an order was issued by Justice Alito - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the September 14, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, is hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Monday, October 16, 2023. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, October 11, 2023, by 5 p.m. (EDT).​

 

[DoubleMag]

WOW the normal, multi-level contorted twisting road potholes bridges are out, with court battles.

Seems any issue firearms related;
Gov Ok'd ItemX. They actually wrote it down!
Change of mind, now can/cannot own ItemX
If you purchased ItemX before (date) you're Ok. But not in states WZT & Y
Prelim injunction, but only for previous owners of ItemX
Appeal on grounds of ABC, PreInj stayed in part, Ok in part...
District Court says...
NOT SO FAST, SCOTUS says, but only for 1/4 of the issue...

etc

etc


What a tangled weave that makes a sweater, how-oh-how did one sleeve end up 12'' longer again? LoL

 

[LiveLife]

WOW the normal, multi-level contorted twisting road potholes bridges are out, with court battles.

Yes. Since Second Amendment is not a "second class right", I guess we will continue in the same footsteps of First Amendment before receiving permanent enforcement by the way of federal/state laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...eme_Court_cases_involving_the_First_Amendment

But our "not a second class right" journey has surely started and I have faith that in the end, the same will happen for gun rights as free speech.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12733298

Background:

• District court judge O'Connor granted preliminary injunction against ATF
• On 8/8, Application for stay presented to justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted and judgement of district court stayed pending appeal to the 5th Circuit (Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application for stay)
• On 10/2, 5th Circuit granted stay in part and district court's preliminary injunction was vacated with understanding ATF won't be enforcing the final rule.
• On 10/2, ATF filed an application to the Supreme Court to vacate the injunction pending appeal
• On 10/6, Justice Alito granted administrative stay until October 16, 2023
• On 10/11-12, briefs supporting and opposing application to vacate injunction filed

---

And today, application to vacate injunction is granted - https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101623zr_2co3.pdf

The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The September 14, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, is vacated.​

Supreme Court orders makers of gun parts to comply with federal "ghost gun" rules - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-ghost-guns-ruling-regulations/

• Supreme Court on Monday ordered two internet sellers of gun parts to comply with ATF regulation
• Supreme Court intervened in August by 5-4 vote to keep ATF regulation in effect and justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would deny the request from Biden administration to revive the rules
• No justice dissented publicly from Monday's brief, unsigned order, which followed a ruling from a federal judge in Texas that exempted Blackhawk Manufacturing Group and Defense Distributed from abiding by ATF regulation
• Regulation will be in effect while ATF appeals district judge's ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12738138

Regulation will be in effect while ATF appeals district judge's ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court

More good news after nationwide injunction against pistol brace rule!

Three judge 5th Circuit ruled 3-0 against ATF - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nDerStok_v_Garland_208_Opinion.pdf?1699567052

The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM IN PART and VACATE AND REMAND IN PART the judgment of the district court.​

​

... In the Final Rule, ATF asserts that anything beyond primordial ooze, liquid polymer, and wholly unformed raw metal can constitute a firearm ... But this expansion cannot stand, because(A) a frame or receiver parts kit is not a frame or receiver, (B) the Final Rule’s examples defining “frame or receiver” are nonsensical, and (C) the Final Rule fails to sufficiently engage with then-contemporaneous definitions of “frame” or “receiver.” (Page 53)​

​

... ATF cannot simply add the phrase “parts kit” and regulate as if the frame/receiver parts are the frames/receivers themselves. (Page 54)​

​

... the Final Rule says even unformed pieces of metal or plastic can constitute frames and receivers when they are found with instructions or jigs ... It seems that the presence of the jig changes that receiver blank from something that is not a firearm ... How can the jig or template change the nature of the receiver blank, such that the blank goes from unregulable to regulable ... It obviously cannot. (Page 56)​

​

... One could make a cake that looks like a hamburger, just as one could make a cake that looks like a gun frame or receiver. One is “clearly identifiable” as a hamburger, just as the other is “clearly identifiable” as a gun part. But that does not make the former taste like a Big Mac, just as it does not make the latter covered by the GCA. (Page 58)​

​

... ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers ... The Final Rule is limitless. It purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this. I concur in the majority’s opinion holding the Final Rule is unlawful. And I further concur that the matter should be remanded to the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs.​

FPC and FPCAF WIN: Fifth Circuit Vacates ATF’s Unlawful “Frame or Receiver” Rule - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-vacates-atfs-unlawful-frame-or-receiver-rule

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their favor, holding that portions of ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule are unlawful in VanDerStok v. Garland. The Rule will remain in effect “pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought,” per an August order from the Supreme Court. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.​

​

“The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy,” wrote Judge Kurt Engelhardt for the Court. “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.”​

​

“Unless and until Congress so acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text’s existing limits,” the Court concludes. “The Final Rule impermissibly exceeds those limits, such that ATF has essentially rewritten the law. This it cannot do, especially where criminal liability can—and, according to the Government’s own assertions, will—be broadly imposed without any Congressional input whatsoever.”​

​

“This is yet another massive victory against ATF and a huge blow to the Biden Administration’s gun control agenda,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and counsel for Plaintiffs. “ATF has no authority to make law, and the Biden Administration cannot circumvent Congress and the rights of the People through federal agency rulemakings–a point the Fifth Circuit just reiterated. We look forward to defending this win and to continuing to deliver additional victories to the People in the future.”​

​

Plaintiffs in this case are two individuals, Tactical Machining, LLC, and FPC. FPCAF represents the Plaintiffs, alongside Mountain States Legal Foundation.​

 

[LiveLife]

Update to NAGR v Polis (CO "ghost gun" ban) - https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com/23/98/321780e34ad98e08f16bb713b13c/ghost-gun-ban-lawsuit.pdf

3. Today, privately made firearms (“PMFs”) are often made from readily purchasable firearm parts kits, standalone frame or receiver parts, and easy-to complete frames or receivers. For example, Polymer80, Inc. (“Polymer80”) is an American manufacturer of parts kits containing firearm parts including unfinished receivers frequently used for making PMFs. These kits and standalone parts have never been themselves considered “firearms” under any interpretation of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (“CGA”) and related Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,and Explosives (“ATF”) regulations. Id. Further, when made for personal use, PMFs are not required by the GCA to have a serial number placed on the frame or receiver.​

​

4. In VanDerStok, the ATF attempted to bypass Congress and interrupt this centuries-long tradition through agency rulemaking process. The Fifth Circuit held that the ATF had overstepped its authority and struck down its rule requiring serial numbers on PMF kits.​

​

5. In 2023, the Colorado General Assembly enacted C.R.S. § 18-12-111.5 (the“Statute”). A copy of the Statute is attached as Exhibit A. Similar to the ATF rule struck down in VanDerStok, the Statute imposes burdens on the tradition of privately made firearms, a tradition that dates back to before the Revolution. Plaintiff’s proposed conduct of making and possessing PMFs is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. The Statute’s prohibition of that conduct is not consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations. Therefore, the Statute violates Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, and they request the Court to enjoin this unconstitutional law.​

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) and National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) file lawsuit challenging Colorado's "ghost gun" ban - https://nationalgunrights.org/resou...-lawsuit-challenging-colorados-ghost-gun-ban/

RMGO, Colorado’s only no-compromise gun rights lobby, announced yesterday that they have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s newly enacted homemade firearm ban, Senate Bill 23-279. The federal court lawsuit aims to overturn the ban, which infringes on Second Amendment rights.​

​

Three members of RMGO, along with the NAGR, joined as plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban on the ground that it infringes their right to keep and bear arms.​

​

“This law is an outright assault on the constitutional rights of peaceable Coloradans. It’s not just an overreach; it’s a direct defiance to our Second Amendment freedoms,” Rhodes stated. “We believe that this law, much like others that attempt to restrict gun rights, will not stand up under scrutiny, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen.”​

​

The lawsuit specifically references the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which set a precedent that any gun control law must be consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation. Bruen prohibits judges from giving any credence to government arguments that the benefits of a firearm regulation outweigh the burden on citizen’s constitutional rights.​

​

“In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made it clear that any law infringing on the right to bear arms must align with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Senate Bill 23-279 clearly does not meet this standard. If homemade – unserialized – guns weren’t legal at the time of our nation’s founding, we would all have a British accent,” Rhodes emphasized.​

​

RMGO asserts that the new legislation infringes on the rights of gun enthusiasts, collectors, and hobbyists who engage in the lawful creation and possession of homemade firearms. They argue that the bill lacks clarity and unfairly targets peaceable citizens.​

​

“The fight for our constitutional rights is never easy, but it’s always worth it,” Rhodes continued. “We’re committed to ensuring that Coloradans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without undue governmental intrusion. This lawsuit is yet another testament to that commitment.”​

​

---

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12754936

After 3-0 5th Circuit ruling against ATF, plaintiffs requested court mandate - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nd_212_Motion_to_Issue_Mandate.pdf?1700176000

2. Although this Court vindicated Appellees’ challenge to the relevant portions of the Final Rule, determining them to be unlawful, Appellees will not obtain any effective relief until this Court issues its mandate ...​

​

5. ... Appellees respectfully request that the Court immediately issue its mandate in this appeal​

And the 5th Circuit 3 judge panel granted the mandate request - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...VanDerStok_v_Garland_221_Order.pdf?1700508365

Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Given the Government’s stated lack of opposition,​

​

IT IS ORDERED that Appellees’ motion for issuance of the mandate forthwith is GRANTED.​

 

[armoredman]

Ok, you lost me on the mandata thing...I am going to assume this is good?

 

[LiveLife]

Ok, you lost me on the mandata thing...I am going to assume this is good?

Oops, typo ... meant to type "mandate" and yes, it's good - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mandate

"A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey. A mandate might be issued upon the decision of an appeal, which directs that a particular action be taken, or upon a disposition made of a case by an inferior tribunal ...​

​

1) any mandatory order or requirement under statute, regulation, or by a public agency. 2) order of an appeals court to a lower court (usually the original trial court in the case) to comply with an appeals court's ruling, such as holding a new trial, dismissing the case, or releasing a prisoner whose conviction has been over-turned. 3) same as the writ of mandamus, which orders a public official or public body to comply with the law."​

 

[DoubleMag]

L-L re: post #108

I cannot get the link to open? This one...

'' After 3-0 5th Circuit ruling against ATF, plaintiffs requested court mandate - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nd_212_Motion_to_Issue_Mandate.pdf?1700176000 ''

 

[LiveLife]

After 3-0 5th Circuit ruling against ATF, plaintiffs requested court mandate - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nd_212_Motion_to_Issue_Mandate.pdf?1700176000

post #108 ... I cannot get the link to open?

I have no issues opening the linked pdf. Can other members verify link working?

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nd_212_Motion_to_Issue_Mandate.pdf?1700176000

 

[DT Guy]

I have no issues opening the linked pdf. Can other members verify link working?

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...nd_212_Motion_to_Issue_Mandate.pdf?1700176000

I'm using Chrome, and it opened fine.

On a related note (and I know I'm late to the party); how can the ATF claim 'expertise' when they're simply carrying out an order from the executive branch?

Larry

 

[Mk-211]

I'm using Chrome, and it opened fine.

On a related note (and I know I'm late to the party); how can the ATF claim 'expertise' when they're simply carrying out an order from the executive branch?

Larry

They're from the government!

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12819196

• After losing 5th Circuit 3 judge panel with 3-0 ruling, ATF could have opted for 5th Circuit En Banc (Entire bench) review or an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court
• But after 5th Circuit En Banc panel ruling against ATF in 13-3 decision in Cargill case (ATF bump stock ban), as anticipated ATF decided to petition for emergency appeal to the Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari) - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...34750/2024.02.07_Cert_Petition.pdf?1707334750
• FPC and SAF filed their response briefs agreeing that Supreme Court should accept ATF's petition for a writ of certiorari - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok
• Supreme Court heard arguments for Cargill bump stock case just last month dealing with ATF authority vs Congress definition of "What is a machine gun" so there's good chance that the Supreme Court could decide to hear the VanDerStok case of "What is a firearm" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/atf-bump-stock-lawsuits.921442/#post-12845332

Supreme Court 5-4 Emergency Order Strikes Down Nationwide ATF Win!!! ATF Seeks Expansion!

In this video we break down the current Supreme Court case reviewing whether to strike down the ATF's frames/receivers rule!1stPhorm: www.1stPhorm.com/armeds...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland ... ATF decided to petition for emergency appeal to the Supreme Court (Petition for a Writ of Certiorari)

FPC and SAF ... agreeing that Supreme Court should accept ATF's petition for a writ of certiorari

And briefs were distributed for consideration conference on 4/12/24 - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-852.html

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12858078

And briefs were distributed for consideration conference on 4/12/24

Petition to the Supreme Court was granted and ruling to be made this year.

BREAKING!!! New Supreme Court Decision & Hearing Changes The Second Amendment ATF Fight Forever!

In this video I break down a historic case just granted review by the Supreme Court and the upcoming decision which will change the Second Amendment fight fo...

www.youtube.com