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

[ilbob]

In requesting the block on enforcement, FPC argues that “under Bruen, the burden now shifts to Oregon. It must ‘justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ Oregon cannot do so because there is a rich tradition throughout the Nation’s history in favor of self-built arms”​

That has a lot of potential. if the government can ban you from making guns they can ban you from making other kinds of weapons like baseball bats.

Until the middle of the 20th century anyone that wanted to could make and sell guns to anyone.

 

[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-12936057

FPC Supreme Court Brief Shows Why ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule Is Unlawful and Must Be Vacated - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-...receiver-rule-is-unlawful-and-must-be-vacated

Attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a merits-stage Respondents’ brief with the United States Supreme Court in FPC’s Garland v. VanDerStok lawsuit challenging ATF’s “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” Rule. FPC’s brief, available at FPCLaw.org, explains why the government’s Rule cannot survive scrutiny and must fail.​

​

Explained FPC President Brandon Combs, “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris used the ATF as a legislative body and weapon to achieve policy objectives through unlawful rule-making that they could not achieve through constitutional means. Every step of the way, courts in our case have held that ATF’s ‘Frame or Receiver’ Rule exceeded the limits of the agency’s authority and definitions found in the statutes enacted by Congress. And rightly so. Americans have long enjoyed a constitutionally protected right to craft their own firearms for lawful purposes and we look forward to further securing that right in this case.”​

​

“ATF’s ‘Frame or Receiver’ Rule is nothing less than an executive branch power grab to impose the Biden-Harris Administration’s anti-Second Amendment agenda on millions of peaceable people. We look forward to putting ATF in its place and an end to this unlawful regulation,” said FPCAF President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for the FPC plaintiffs.​

​

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are scheduled to take place on October 8, 2024.​

Briefs filed by plaintiffs for the Supreme Court:

• Brief of Respondents Defense Distributed, Polymer80, Inc., Not an L.L.C. (Doing Business as JSD Supply), and the Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
• Brief for Respondents VanDerStok, Andren, Tactical Machining, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc.

In the US Supreme Court, a major legal brief was filed arguing against the ATF's 2022 Final Rule redefining a "frame or receiver." Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes the key arguments.

BREAKING 2A NEWS: ATF UNDER ATTACK LEGAL TODAY IN SCOTUS

In the US Supreme Court, a major legal brief was filed arguing against the ATF's 2022 Final Rule redefining a "frame or receiver." Mark Smith Four Boxes Dine...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Adding 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/post-12959250

In the US Supreme Court pending case of Vanderstok, a major legal brief was filed against the ATF. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes it here...Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD

0:00 Huge New Brief Filed!
2:20 ATF Makes Ridiculous Rule Change & Why
6:25 ATF Wants Vagueness...
9:10 Rule of Lenity & Response
11:10 Regulating Creation vs Item Itself
13:45 How This Should Work
15:30 Thank You!

MAJOR 2A SCOTUS NEWS: ATF SCORCHED IN NEW SCOTUS BRIEF...

In the US Supreme Court pending case of Vanderstok, a major legal brief was filed against the ATF. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes it here...Link: http...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Adding 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-6#post-12959854

FPC thanks amicus organizations in ATF Supreme Court case for upcoming 10/8/24 oral arguments - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-thanks-amicus-organizations-in-atf-supreme-court-case

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a statement thanking the organizations that filed amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs with the United States Supreme Court in support of FPC’s Garland v. VanDerStok lawsuit, which challenges ATF’s “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” Rule. More information about VanDerStok can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok.​

​

“Every step of the way, courts in our VanDerStok case have rightfully held that the ATF’s rule is unlawful. On behalf of the parties, our FPC team, and our members, we thank the amicus organizations for coming together to hold the ATF accountable and commend them for their helpful briefs and generosity in support of this important challenge,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.​

​

The following organizations submitted briefs in support of FPC’s VanDerStok challenge (in alphabetical order):​

• California Gun Rights Foundation: https://www.cagunrights.org/
• California Rifle and Pistol Association: https://crpa.org/
• Center for Human Liberty
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: https://ccrkba.org/
• Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition: https://www.fracaction.org/
• Foundation for Moral Law: https://morallaw.org/
• Gun Owners of America: https://www.gunowners.org/
• Gun Owners Foundation: https://foundation.gunowners.org/
• International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association: https://www.ileeta.org/
• Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: https://jpfo.org/
• Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund: https://www.policedefense.org/
• National Association for Gun Rights: https://nationalgunrights.org/
• National Association of Chiefs of Police: https://www.nacoponline.org/
• National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers: https://nasgw.org/
• National Foundation for Gun Rights: https://gunrightsfoundation.org/
• National Rifle Association (NRA): https://home.nra.org/
• National Shooting Sports Foundation: https://www.nssf.org/
• Palmetto State Armory: https://palmettostatearmory.com/
• Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition: https://www.sadec.org/
• Second Amendment Law Center: https://www.2alc.org/
• Tennessee Firearms Association: https://tennesseefirearms.com/
• Virginia Citizens Defense League: https://vcdl.org/
• Western States Sheriffs’ Association: https://www.westernsheriffs.org/

FPC would also like to thank the intervenor parties for their response brief (in alphabetical order):​

• Defense Distributed: https://defdist.org/
• JSD Supply: https://jsdsupply.com/
• Polymer80
• Second Amendment Foundation: https://saf.org/

All briefs are available on the Supreme Court’s docket, here. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court are scheduled to take place on October 8, 2024.​

 

[ilbob]

It seems to me if the ATF can claim a chunk of aluminum vaguely shaped like part of a firearm is a firearm, they can claim anything that could potentially be made into part of a firearm is a firearm.

There are people who have made AK-47 receivers out of shovels. Does that make all shovels firearms?

You can buy home CNC machines that can mill a receiver out of a solid block of aluminum. Does that make every chunk of scrap metal a firearm?

 

[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/post-12968881

DOJ and ATF desperately try to justify "Ghost Gun" ban in their brief for scheduled 10/8/24 Supreme Court oral argument.

Brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-852/325811/20240912141001784_23-852rbUnitedStates.pdf

The Harris/Biden DOJ filed a brief with the Supreme Court trying to justify their unserialized firearms regulations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses…

0:00 US DOJ Makes Crazy Argument...​

3:41 DOJ Argument & Why It's So Bad​

7:50 DOJ Admits They're Wrong...​

10:18 The Data Doesn't Line Up AT ALL​

15:04 SCOTUS Won't Fall For This...​

17:05 Thank You!​

SCOTUS BREAKING 2A NEWS: DOJ & ATF DESPERATELY TRY TO JUSTIFY "GHOST GUN" BAN...

The Harris/Biden DOJ filed a brief with the Supreme Court trying to justify their unserialized firearms regulations. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses…B...

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/post-12979844

Ex FPC attorney Anthony Miranda discuss the case and ATF brief for upcoming Supreme Court arguments:

• Next big Supreme Court case is a challenge to the ATF's overreach and their rules against unfinished frames and receivers
• Case is set to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court during the next term with oral arguments to take place on October 8th
• This case has the benefit of the Supreme Court recently issuing a new decision against the ATF's bump stock rule in a 6 to 3 decision in the Cargill case
• ATF just submitted their final arguments why the Supreme Court should reverse what the 5th Circuit said and it's very interesting because the ATF is making a bunch of "Hail Mary" arguments
• Also interestingly, they finally address how the Cargill [bump stock] case will impact what's going on in VanDerStock [80% frame or receiver] case
• To understand what's at stake in this case and why the Supreme Court's hands were forced to review this case, we need to talk about what happened prior in this lawsuit
• Originally in this case, the original plaintiffs FPC and Tactical Machining sought preliminary injunctions to halt the enforcement of ATF rule against unfinished frames and receivers
• On review, district court judge O'Connor granted a limited preliminary injunction against ATF which prevented enforcing the rule against Tactical Machining and its customers
• Judge O'Connor did find that under the plain text of the statute, the ATF had engaged in overreach and that these parts and kits are actually not frames like the ATF claims
• After that, there were a bunch of other companies who joined as new plaintiffs, companies like Blackhawk Manufacturing Group which is 80% Arms and some others. They sought to intervene and they got the same type of protections that Tactical Machining got for their company and their customers
• After the injunction stage, the plaintiff sought to win the entire case by asking for a motion for summary judgment and in response, judge O'Connor did grant that motion for summary judgment striking down the rule in its entirety and he ultimately vacated the frames and receivers rule entirely nationwide
• Well of course, the ATF could not have their entire rule vacated so then they appealed that summary judgment up to the 5th Circuit
• While the summary judgment appeal was going on, both judge O'Connor and the Circuit motions panel denied stay request and that led the ATF for the first time to go to the Supreme Court on an interlocutory emergency basis
• ATF wanted the Supreme Court to step in early and put a block on that lower court decision and the Supreme Court on review did in fact issue an emergency stay and prevented the nationwide vacature of the rule on 5 to 4 ruling
• While all that was happening, plaintiffs decided to go back down to the district court judge O'Connor to seek an emergency motion for a new preliminary injunction. What they wanted was for judge O'Connor to put back in place the limited preliminary injunctions which would only protect the companies and the customers [Instead of nationwide vacature]
• Essentially they wanted the old status quo to be put back in place despite what the Supreme Court just said on review
• Judge O'Connor agreed and granted that limited preliminary injunction, but of course, once again ATF did not like that so they went crying up to the 5th Circuit arguing that judge O'Connor was directly defying the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 ruling
• 5th Circuit disagreed and for the second time led the ATF filing for emergency review to the Supreme Court and they wanted review of what they claimed was the plaintiff and the lower courts circumventing that order
• On review for the second time, the Supreme Court sided with the ATF and struck down even that limited preliminary injunction so the Supreme Court prevented any positive relief in this case
• While the summary judgment was being appealed in the 5th Circuit, the 5th Circuit recently did decide on the merits of this case and in their decision, the panel partially upheld what the lower court decision said striking down the ATF rule nationwide; however, the 5th Circuit did say that that nationwide vacature by judge O'Connor was beyond his authority that he went a little bit too far
• So essentially, 5th Circuit did find that ATF rule was invalid that ATF engaged in overreach but they just found that the form of relief granted by the lower court judge was a little bit too too expansive, too broad
• So 5th Circuit sent the case back down to judge O'Connor for him to issue a new decision, maybe more limited in scope
• After that 5th Circuit decision on the summary judgment, ATF really didn't have a ton of options so they decided to roll the dice and go up directly to the Supreme Court for a review of that final merits decision from the 5th Circuit
• And now the Supreme Court has granted review to VanDerStock case, a review of unfinished frames and receivers rule
• In their petition, ATF really made the same fear-based ghost gun arguments that we've heard a lot already in this case. They simply argued that the regulation is important to essentially track firearm sales and to avoid criminals ultimately skirting the laws and getting possession of what are untraceable firearms in the ATF's eyes
• ATF is also still holding onto the argument that the potential ease of completing the unfinished frames and receivers makes the entire parts kits fall within the statutory text in language, so they're still making the arguments that they can regulate even parts kits as actual firearms
• Now you maybe asking yourself, okay also with this petition and with the Supreme Court's recent decision in Cargill, how is the ATF addressing that?
• Well, as we've talked about in prior videos on ATF's first petition, they really didn't address Cargill at all in some of their original briefs. I think it was only mentioned one time
• But the plaintiffs have used Cargill as additional support for why the Supreme Court should side with him
• And because of that, ATF essentially now had to address that argument and in their most recent brief, their final brief, the ATF does address how Cargill impacts this case. But again, they only reference it four times in a very short paragraph.
• The ATF takes a position that the Cargill analysis did not apply to this issue at all because they claim that 80 percents are geared towards circumventing the GCA's language
• The Supreme Court found in the Cargill case that bump stocks were not geared towards circumventing the GCA in the NFA; however, here the ATF claims that Cargill wouldn't apply. Analysis wouldn't apply because they believe that 80 percents are geared towards circumventing the language
• ATF also claims that their position that 80 percents are regulated as firearms that has been consistent perspective from the ATF that they've always regulated these items so there's not a drastic change in position like they claim was present in the Cargill case
• I's interesting that ATF is now trying to claim that their position on 80% and parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers that has always been their position that they've always claimed that these types of items are in fact firearms. However, we know that fact is not true
• The ATF has not always treated these items as regulated. In fact we have multiple ATF guidance letters and multiple situations where the ATF has taken a different position. And now suddenly with the new rule they changed their perspective so that they could regulate all these items
• Plaintiff stated in their brief on this very issue that the argument that ATF position has remained consistent also is contradicted by ATF's repeated statements that the rule was necessary to address the urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis posed by the exponential rise of untraceable firearms
• And by ATF's expressed refusal to grandfather in its prior classifications of any partially complete, disassembled or non-functional frames or receivers that ATF did not classify as firearms, frames or receivers as defined prior to the rule
• So what the plaintiffs are pointing out in their brief and what the ATF is now trying to address in their final brief is the wishy-washy back and forth position that ATF has taken on this very issue
• And then also in the final rule, the ATF stated that they were going to eliminate and not grandfather in any prior guidance on these types of items. The ATF did that because they knew if they grandfathered in prior guidance, it would contradict what the new rule statements were about these types of items being actual firearms
• So the ATF is trying desperately to save their frames and receivers rule but after the Cargill decision, I think the writing is on the wall for the ATF
• ATF knows that they've lost multiple cases at the 5th Circuit level, at the en banc level, even in some district courts they've lost a ton of cases. So the ATF knows that this is an uphill battle now
• Like I mentioned, the oral arguments are set in front of the Supreme Court, those are going to take place on the 8th, that will be live. We can listen to those live.
• We're all going to be waiting anxiously to hear those arguments because it's going to be interesting and probably very enjoyable to hear the ATF squirm about these types of items and how parts and kits and that are unfinished and not operable are actually firearms

Supreme Court Issues 6-3 Decision Changing The Second Amendment & ATF Fight! ATF Faces Another Loss!

In this video we break down the current Supreme Court case reviewing whether to strike down the ATF's frames/receivers rule!BlackoutCoffee: https://www.black...

www.youtube.com

 

[LiveLife]

Update to VanDerStok v Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/post-12980434

Supreme Court oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, 10/8/24.

 

[Insignificant bill]

That has a lot of potential. if the government can ban you from making guns they can ban you from making other kinds of weapons like baseball bats.

Until the middle of the 20th century anyone that wanted to could make and sell guns to anyone.

Again we as the citizens have to do something about this ruling by the SCOTUS they threw this historical bs in their ruling. The 2nd says no gun control by government. And I realize in reality where we are, but we can't let them keep doing this.

 

[LiveLife]

Update to Montgomery v. Rosenblum (OR "ghost gun" ban) - 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-12956040

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with the United States District Court of Oregon

Federal District Court judge Nelson denied request for TRO and Preliminary Injunction - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...24.08.24_029_ORDER_Denying_TRO.pdf?1724208078

In requesting the block on enforcement, FPC argues that “under Bruen, the burden now shifts to Oregon. It must ‘justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’ Oregon cannot do so because there is a rich tradition throughout the Nation’s history in favor of self-built arms”

That has a lot of potential. if the government can ban you from making guns they can ban you from making other kinds of weapons like baseball bats.
Until the middle of the 20th century anyone that wanted to could make and sell guns to anyone.

Again we as the citizens have to do something about this ruling by the SCOTUS they threw this historical bs in their ruling. The 2nd says no gun control by government. And I realize in reality where we are, but we can't let them keep doing this.

I believe "We the People" already have as in 2016, they elected an executive branch representative who appointed "Originalist" justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett to give us Bruen ruling which tossed out decades long practice of interest balancing greater community/society's good over individual rights and replaced with "Text, history and tradition" with burden shifting to the states/government.

Keep in mind that what Supreme Court has done for Second Amendment is same for First Amendment of continued expanding protection to "modern" forms of communication/free speech like email/texting to "modern" types of arms and accessories like newer technology receiver materials (brass to iron to steel to Zytel to polymer and Kevlar reinforced polymer) and CNC/3D printing to include laser sintered "metal" 3D printing.

Besides, what plays out for Oregon "ghost gun" case maybe moot as Supreme Court will be hearing VanDerStok case next Tuesday. And applying Bruen methodology as "binding law" of the land, the Supreme Court will likely focus on whether the government can provide historical tradition evidence of regulation/banning arms just because new material/technology were used.

Just as means of communication evolved from printed documents sent by carrier pigeons to digital documents sent over wire/fiber optic cables and even through air (wifi/satellite), arms production evolved from hammered metal forging to computer controlled manufacturing and 3D printing. Material and process used to produce "arms" should not change Second Amendment protection and I believe the Supreme Court will consider the same.

 

[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/post-12980434

Supreme Court oral arguments scheduled for Tuesday, 10/8/24.

Things are already not starting out good for ATF/DOJ ...

At 7:55 minute of video, DOJ apologizes to the Supreme Court in their letter for having made a terrible mistake in the statement they made to the court after plaintiffs' attorneys [FPC] pointed them out ...

I am writing to correct an inaccurate statement in the government’s reply brief in this case. The reply brief stated that the Polymer80 “PF940C” products ATF reviewed in 2017 and 2022 were different because of distinctions related to the trigger pin hole, trigger mechanism housing pin hole, and material in the front or rear fire control cavity. After the brief was filed, counsel for the VanDerStok respondents [FPC] drew our attention to a 2022 ATF classification letter that was not previously cited in the briefs in this Court, but that is included in the district court record. See D. Ct. Doc. 159, Ex. E (Jan. 9, 2023) (2022 Letter) (attached).​

​

[Uh Uh ... Going in the bad direction for DOJ ... Admitting they were wrong and actually had evidence in their possession. And although they had the information, they didn't cite to it.]

​

After reviewing the 2022 Letter and consulting with ATF, we agree that the statement in the reply brief was incorrect: Both the 2017 product and the 2022 product lacked a completed, machined, or indexed trigger pin hole and trigger mechanism housing pin hole. J.A. 103-104; 2022 Letter at 4. And both products had material removed from the front or rear fire control cavities. J.A. 103; 2022 Letter at 3-4.​

​

We apologize for that error.​

​

[Wow, this is very embarrassing ... Aren't attorneys working for DOJ/ATF to represent at Supreme Court level some of the finest litigators in the country? They are not supposed to make this kind of mistakes. The fact that they made a major boo-boo and had to apologize to the Supreme Court is embarrassing. DOJ attorneys are probably pissed at ATF for not bringing this to their attention]

And when DOJ/ATF tries to explain ...

The 2017 and 2022 products were, however, materially different in another respect: The“PF940C” product that ATF purchased and classified in 2022 included additional components and materials not contained in Polymer80’s 2017 submission.​

FPC replied, "Dirty, dirty, dirty ... very bad" in their reply letter https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...01144456278_Vanderstok letter 10.1.24 vpf.pdf

The Government’s letter implicitly acknowledges that the PF940C frame precursor that ATF classified as not a firearm in 2017 had the same machining as the PF940C frame precursor that ATF classified as a firearm in 2022. Both classification letters assessed the machining on the PF940C, with divergent results.​

ATF caught making false statement to US Supreme Court ...

In VanDerStok Supreme Court case, the DOJ filed a letter admitting to making a false statement in the case. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses.​

​

Letters:​

• https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...
• https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPD...

0:00 Massive Breaking News​

1:50 ATF Tries to Redefine the Term Firearm​

5:03 ATF Gets In Big Trouble...​

7:55 ATF Apologizes to SCOTUS​

10:20 This is SUPER Embarrassing...​

12:00 VanDerStok & DOJ Lawyers Respond​

16:20 Thank You!​

MASSIVE BREAKING 2A NEWS: ATF CAUGHT MAKING FALSE STATEMENT TO US SUPREME COURT....

In VanDerStok Supreme Court case, the DOJ filed a letter admitting to making a false statement in the case. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses. Letters:...

www.youtube.com

 

[armoredman]

Oh, wow - ATFE just isn't really doing well this year, are they? Gee, darn...I hope it continues.

 

[Mal H]

Thread closed at OP's request.