Quantcast
  1. Upgrade efforts paused for now. Thanks for your patience. More details in the thread in Tech Support for those who are interested.
    Dismiss Notice

Glimmer of Good News re: ATF Frame and Receiver Rule

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by denton, Sep 3, 2022.

  1. denton

    denton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,091
    Location:
    Free state of Utah


    In the case of Tactical Machining LLC, a Texas federal judge has ruled that ATF was not granted authority to regulate things that may become receivers or frames, nor gun parts, nor aggregations of gun parts.

    It's one case, but I like it.
     
    SharpDog, gwpercle, 230RN and 11 others like this.
  2. N555

    N555 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2022
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    New Mexico and Texas panhandle
    So the AFT just wasted a year on this only to get smited by the courts as it takes effect.
    It only applies to tactical machine for the moment but it should spread like the deep water horizon oil spill and end up everywhere.
     
  3. denton

    denton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,091
    Location:
    Free state of Utah
    Yeah, pretty much.
     
    SharpDog, Big Bore 44 and Demi-human like this.
  4. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,555
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    I believe the correct term is "smote" :D
     
  5. N555

    N555 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2022
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    New Mexico and Texas panhandle
    Go woke get smote
     
  6. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    30,018
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
  7. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    63,640
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    It's a good step.
     
  8. Demi-human

    Demi-human maybe likes firearms a little bit…

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,743
    Location:
    The Haymarsh, MI (Aka, Paradise.)
    Am I the only one that likes when giant, lumbering, oppressive agencies waste time?

    It puts a smile to my face every time, rare that it is.

    All the agents and clerks get paid and feed their families, and we still get to tell them to stuff it.
    A work of art.


    What scares me is when they are doing “good work”. A government’s idea of “good” and mine do not correlate.
     
  9. greyling22

    greyling22 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    6,638
    Location:
    East Texas
     
  10. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    26,037
    smite
    smote
    smitten
     
  11. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    26,037
  12. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    30,018
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    So what?

    What did you expect? These are AGs of "anti-gun" states that have passed anti-gun laws. So what if 20 AGs filed amicus briefs. Will that sway the court's final decision? (Unlikely and believe me AGs of "pro-gun" states have filed their amicus briefs as well ... But that won't get the coverage by the MSM). This layperson do not think so as one of three lawsuits pertaining to ATF redefinition of frame or receiver just got a limited preliminary injunction granted - 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-12400399

    And we have 17 AGs of other "pro-gun" states who actually 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.

    These 17 states are:

    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.
    With VanDerStok v Garland being granted limited preliminary injunction for the plaintiffs, things are looking better for all of the lawsuits against ATF:
    • VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) - Lawsuit that was just granted limited preliminary injunction that something that is not a receiver/firearm (Like 80% receiver) is not a receiver/firearm according to Gun Control Act's definitions that Congress very carefully and precisely worded and this willl likely affect below case.
    • Division 80 v Garland (Biden "ghost gun" kits) - At the last hearing, DOJ attorney admitted 80% receiver without templates/tools/instructions is not a firearm and ATF did a last minute "technical correction" to the final rule and with limited preliminary injunction being granted for VanDerStok v Garland, may follow suit as well.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2022
  13. old lady new shooter

    old lady new shooter Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2015
    Messages:
    26,037
    Worth knowing that the anti's aren't giving up.
     
    danez71 and RetiredUSNChief like this.
  14. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    11,473
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Absolutely.

    The pro gun control crowd has been doubling down over the years against a steady series of losses since the height of the gun control era in the 70s.

    Good to see them continue to lose ground, but we can't let up for a moment.
     
  15. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    21,245
    Well, it’s political and political is not allowed here.

    Do what you want, people can actively fight it off or it sticks and repeat. That’s the play book.

    It’s not wasted for them, if all your time is spent on defense, your offense doesn’t even get on the field.
     
    Bfh_auto, SharpDog and 230RN like this.
  16. Double Naught Spy

    Double Naught Spy Sus Venator

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    11,804
    Location:
    Forestburg, Texas
    I, for one, am HUGELY displeased when government agencies waste time. That costs me money and/or benefits when they do.
     
  17. Demi-human

    Demi-human maybe likes firearms a little bit…

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    5,743
    Location:
    The Haymarsh, MI (Aka, Paradise.)
    While I do agree completely, I take what very little I can get.
     
    SharpDog and theotherwaldo like this.
  18. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    30,018
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    What we are seeing actually is unfolding of what our founders established go through it's paces.

    To ensure what was outlined in the Constitution, having freshly experienced the imposition of tyranny on their "rights" for freedom and liberty, founders then added the Bill of Rights to ensure the viability of the Constitution and chose the republic representative form of government with electoral college election process so the will of the majority could not be imposed on the rights of the minority.

    And just as ATF agency's overreach (as extention of legislative and executive branches) is challenged/stopped by the courts, our founders foresaw the future reality that imposition of tyranny on our rights not only could come from foreign powers but also from domestic powers, our own government. And our founders separated government powers into three branches to apply checks and balances.

    So now that legislative and executive branches passed anti 2A laws at federal and state government levels, the judicial branch is doing their job of challenging/stopping the imposition on the rights of minority gun owners in the form of district/circuit court rulings and Supreme Court rulings. And if fate and destiny would have it as framed by the founders, in 2022/2024, "We the People" could elect the legislative law makers and executive president to permanently enforce the Supreme Court/judicial branch's challenge to stop the unconstitutional laws that violated the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

    So this young nation is going through the exact steps/processes the founders foresaw, anticipated and framed our government.

    As to the OP's agency overreach in violation of Gun Control Act by redefining the definition of firearm without Congress, my anticipation is the court will find that act illegal.

    So share your sentiment with "We the People" and vote to change our legislative and executive branch "representatives".

    If they don't represent our sentiment, vote them out and replace them with those who will. ;)

    With 6-3 pro-2A Supreme Court bench of 2022, especially with Bruen ruling and other 2A cases on hold that were remanded back down to circuit courts, I do believe 2022 is the start of "turn around" of gun rights that could continue for decades with lasting effects felt for generations! :p
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2022
  19. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    11,473
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    ACK-shuly...the founders did no such thing (create the Bill of Rights). This was the work of the First Congress, though James Madison (a founding father) pushed the subject through. There were 29 Senators and 66 Representatives (counting seats which had more than one member during the first term). If I remember correctly, thre were only 4 of the founding fathers who served in the First Congress.

    And James Madison himself used to be very adamantly against a Bill of Rights. He was against it as a precondition of ratification of the Constitution and he doubted that simply putting the words on paper would actually provide any real protection at all. But both election politics and personal thoughts on the matter brought about a change and he because the most vocal proponent of a Bill of Rights. In fact, it was part of his election campaign.

    The lack of a Bill of Rights threatened the newborn nation, as some States let it be know that their ratification was based on the First Congress addressing that very issue. If I recall correctly (I'd have to dig through my books again), NC and NY were adamant that a right to keep and bear arms be a part of any bill of rights, or they'd withdraw from the Union.

    The Constitutional Convention itself wasn't what "should have happened". A convention was convened to address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, under which our country actually officially existed after it's ratification in1781 until the new government was formed under the Constitution following it's ratification in 1789. The Confederation Congress endorsed the 1787 convention in Philidelphia "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Convederation".

    Why? Because the federal government held so little actual power and authority that it was essentially useless.

    What happened was the delegates literally held closed door sessions until they completed drafting the entirely new Consititution.


    From the beginning, the two biggest factions were the Federalists, who favored a strong, centralized form of government, and the Anti-federalists who didn't for fear of the abuse such a government could represent.


    Interestingly, the BORs ended up with heavy Federalist support. To be sure, the Federalists were opposed to a BOR, because "it wasn't needed". Politics of the day said it wasn't needed based on the way the Constitution was already written. Given that the nature of politicians hasn't changed since the history of ever, this is likely the watered down historical textbook version and they really saw it as a roadblock to greater federal power. My opinion on this. So why did the Federalists actually end up supporting the BORs? Because they, like politicians of today, could see where the political winds were blowing. It was, quite simply, a case of getting with the program or getting left behind. The States had spoken during the ratification process and it was going to be a huge First Congress issue...or there would be consequences.


    People practically deify the founding fathers and quite often overlook the fact that they were all people, just as people are today. There was much ado about what they did during the Constitutional Convention, but because there were no "minutes" of the closed door meetings, we don't have a blow-by-blow of all that happened, as it happened. But it was very much a huge political power play where a very small number of not-entirely-like-minded individuals duked it out over what became the Constitution. The battle raged over who could exert what powers, how those powers could be affected, how they could be held in check, State vs. Federal powers, even slavery. These people were POWER BROKERS and they were knowingly playing with fire in the process. Rest assured, had they all been of like-mind, the Constitution as we know it would never have come to fruition.


    The Constitution, and it's associated Bill of Rights and other Amendments, are not the only thing protecting the people's rights. We are a geo-politically huge and diverse nation. If we were not, then our Constitution would not have done much to stem the flow of tyranny in our relatively young nation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2022
  20. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    11,473
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    I sure hope so!

    It's more of a culmination of decades of effort since the height of the gun-control era in the 70s. We've been slowly, but steadily, making headway since then on many fields, such as shall issue, reprocity, etc., on top of the more recent Supreme Court decisions.

    The battle is far from over, and slacking now will not only cause radical backsliding, but even more restrictive laws.
     
    theotherwaldo and kcofohio like this.
  21. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    30,018
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Come on now :) ... I understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights went through a "process" to be revised and rewritten over a period of time but to me, all those that played their part to arrive at the final product, I consider them all "founders" for simplicity of 2A discussion. (Thankfully, these "founders" who understood the true nature of man to want to impose on others' rights like the King of England were successful in arguing for and adding the Bill of Rights to ensure the viability of the Constitution)

    Yeah I know, even in 1776, there were British sympathizers who wanted to remain as royal subjects ... sad but true :oops: ... Perhaps much like there are anti-2A law makers and presidents who want to do away with the 2A. :eek: ... sad but true :p.

    And justice Gorsuch said this about our state of government - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11324026

    When asked what James Madison (who helped write the Constitution/Bill of Rights) would say about today's government, "Well, I think one thing he might tell us is to pay attention to the separation of powers ... the truth is that our rights, including the separation of powers, are only as good as the people who want to keep them there."

    "We the people can do this ... We can govern ourselves."​

    And as justice Gorsuch stated, key is the "enforcement" mechanism behind our "excellent" Bill of Rights ... factoring separation of powers - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/

    "Bill of Rights and liberty ... Bill of Right is a set of promises on paper ... What makes a promise worth the words on paper is the enforcement mechanisms behind it ... Our Bill of Rights is excellent.

    ... Judges are the backstop to ensure rights and liberties, that is our job"​

    If 2022/2024 elections are not won by pro-2A law makers and the president, then you can bet anti-2A law makers and president will surely work to negate the pro-2A Supreme Court rulings. But if 2022/2024 elections are won by pro-2A law makers and the president, then legislative and executive branches can work to permanently enforce the pro-2A judicial rulings.

    So 2022/2024 election outcome is crucial to the future of 2A.

    Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections.

    Godspeed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2022
  22. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    11,473
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Well, to be fair it WAS James Madison who actually drafted the Constitution from all the inputs that came about during the Constitutional Convention. So you're more correct in your assumption than you realize!

    Personally, I'm of the opinion that James Madison was a word-smith of extraordinary capabilites because, though he actually refused to take credit for writing the Constitution (because it was a draft of several ideas and beliefs that made up the entire membership of the Convention), he wrote with a skill and elegance that in my opinion forshadowed the realities of the future despite the espoused beliefs of his present.

    For example, we know slavery was a hot potato at that time, and it ended up being dropped because it was so hot it threatened the very existence of the Union itself.

    But the very bold start of the Constution contains three bold words of an incredibly huge font size compared to the rest of the document that made it very clear that it was all-inclusive:

    We the People

    In law, a preamble is an introduction which states the purpose, aims, and justification of a statute. It is a summary explaining intent.

    Madison (an opponent of slavery) made it abundantly clear, despite the supporters of slavery who threatened the continuation of the Union over this, that the Constitution he was drafting applied to EVERYBODY. And the supporters of slavery never even noticed what he did.

    It was a statement every bit as bold as the one made by John Handcock's signature on the Declaration of Independence.


    And, though Madison takes credit only for penning the summary of all the ideologies of the Convention into that single document, the fact remains that he was the one doing the writing, including the inclusion of the amendment process itself.


    So yeah...you're really on the money with your statement!
     
  23. LiveLife

    LiveLife Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2010
    Messages:
    30,018
    Location:
    Northwest Coast
    Justice Gorsuch sure believe "We the people" can do it.
    Come on 2022 and 2024!

    Let fate and destiny unfold, according to the founders.
     
  24. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Location:
    CA,AZ,CA,TX

    IMO, it's 5-4 at best and considerate it closer to 4-2-3 or even 3-3-3
     
  25. N555

    N555 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2022
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    New Mexico and Texas panhandle
    20 AGs < supreme court.
     
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice