https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/glimmer-of-good-news-re-atf-frame-and-receiver-rule.909970/page-2#post-12404070 This is the "High Road" and in "High Road" fashion I think we owe ourselves to clarify some things. We should set an example for the rest of gun forum community as to what constitutes arms, firearm, receiver, frame, upper, etc. for the benefit of the Second Amendment that many minutemen, colonial army Rangers and soldiers died for and the preservation of gun rights not just for us, but to our children and their children. It is year 2022 and we are seeing the unfolding of what our founders framed back in 1776 because of having freshly defeated the tyranny of British royal rule imposed on the freedom and liberty of the colonists for taxation without representation (Being treated as second class royal subjects without having a voice/representation in royal court). And our founders feared tyranny could not only come from foreign powers but tyranny could also come from domestic powers such as local/state/federal governments and agencies to impose on the rights of the citizens and added the Bill of Rights to ensure protection of our rights and viability of the Constitution. And in 2022, we are now fighting for our minority gun owners' rights in court as we speak relying on the Supreme Court/the final voice for the judicial branch to be the "backstop" for our freedom and liberty as specified in the Bill of Rights, the Second, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments to not be treated as "second class" citizens with "second class" rights, the same reason why our founders fought against the British royal tyranny. And for the recent Supreme Court Bruen ruling, justice Thomas reminded us that the Second Amendment "is not a second class right" to reaffirm our right to self defense in "modern world" with "modern arms" is just as valid as First Amendment being a first class right with protection applied to "modern forms" of communication like email and texts to exercise free speech. As justice Gorsuch stated, our Constitution has been updated by "We the People" to address "modern" application of Constitution in a modern world by the way of amendments. That's why women can now vote and slaves are free with the same rights as slave owners, including being gun owners - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/a-great-interview-with-justice-gorsuch-with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/ "The original Constitution now includes 27 amendments passed by the 'We the People' ... 'We the People' amended the Constitution, ... to fix the injustices... improved the Constitution, made it a better document. And that is the proper process to do that" The late justice Ginsburg defined, “... natural meaning of ‘bear arms’ is to 'wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.'” - https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/concealed-carry-and-the-right-to-bear-arms (BTW, justice Ginsburg has defended justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, both Originalists, on their impeccable reasoning - https://www.yahoo.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-praises-brett-165809998.html "My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals.") The Supreme Court explicitly included both concealed carry and open carry in its definition of “bear arms". So in 2022, "We the People" have the right to self defense at home and outside of home using "modern" types of arms just as we have right to free speech using "modern" forms of communication at home or outside of home using "modern" devices such as cell phones/tablets/laptops, etc. And just as there are "modern" devices and features to help those with disabilities like large print, glasses/contacts and easier to use handles and wheelchair ramps, there are "modern arms" devices to help those with disabilities (vision, strength, dexterity, etc.). You know disabled/physically challenged gun owners are a subset of minority gun owners ... And I am sure they also have the right to self defense. How many of us use optical aids like scopes, red dot, fiber optic sights, night sights, etc. because of vision issues? So why is there tyranny against other "modern" physical aid technologies like pistol brace, suppressors, binary triggers and other shooting aids by our governments/agencies? So who defined what a "firearm" is? Congress ... law makers ... the legislative branch wrote the bill and signed into law by the president, the executive branch under the Gun Control Act. And the Supreme Court and lower courts already ruled "modern" devices such as ammunition storage devices, aka magazines, is "arms" protected by the Second Amendment. And it was the representatives of "We the People" who carefully and precisely defined what constitutes firearm/receiver. So we are not helping by misusing terms and should start using "firearm" interchangable with "receiver". And government agencies like ATF cannot change/redefine what the "We the People" so carefully/precisely defined what is a firearm. For VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule) case where judge granted a limited preliminary injunction, this is what he wrote - 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 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 And the Supreme Court does not use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" which are based on features/furniture. Instead, courts and Supreme Court have used the term "modern rifle" to better reflect "modern" evolution of firearm technology like magazine fed semi-auto handguns and rifles just as "modern" evolution of free speech like email and texts. Judge Kavanaugh (now justice Kavanaugh) wrote - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12395913 Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses Even Associated Press finally got the "modern rifle" memo and provided this guidance to all the journalists to stop using "assault rifle/weapon" and instead use "semi-automatic rifle" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/scotus-considering-bianchi-v-frosh-duncan-v-bonta-the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-8#post-12380551 "Avoid assault rifle and assault weapon, which are highly politicized terms ... convey little meaning about the actual functions of the weapon" And judge Benitez in Miller v Bonta clarified use of "modern rifle" compared to "traditional rifle" used by civilians "in common use" for lawful/sporting/self defense purposes. And with Bianchi v Frosh (MD assault weapon ban), Miller v Bonta (CA assault weapon ban), Duncan v Bonta (CA magazine ban) and other cases, improper use of terms like "assault weapon/rifle" and "large capacity magazine" may finally be put to consititutional rest - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/a-great-interview-with-justice-gorsuch-with-question-on-the-second-amendment.856201/page-2#post-11375346 The term "Assault Weapon" targets cosmetic features and these popular firearms commonly used are actually legal semi-auto firearms and ban won't pass constitutional muster. Millions of "Assault Weapons" were purchased legally and are "commonly used" with large capacity magazines and ban on firearms and magazines won't pass constitutional muster. So, we should consider/use: Start using the term "modern" whenever talking about new firearm technologies and devices Reference "modern" types of firearm technology/devices for Second Amendment in the same manner as "modern" forms of communication for First Amendment Second Amendment is not a "second class" right just as First Amendment is not a "second class" right Just as emails/texts are protected under the First Amendment, semi-auto magazine fed handguns/rifles are protected under the Second Amendment "Modern" ammunition storage devices called magazines are "arms" as ruled by courts/Supreme Court and protected by the Second Amendment "Large capacity magazine" is an arbitrary term as there is no definition/standards for low capacity magazines with different states arbitrarily using 7-10 round limits and instead "standard capacity magazine" or "commonly used capacity magazine" should be used "Modern" semi-auto rifles are not "Assault weapon/rifle" which are misused terms that are "Highly politicized terms" as stated by Associate Press and should not be used Definition of "firearm" was defined by "We the People" via Congress under the Gun Control Act and "receiver" means "firearm" Only "We the People" via Congress can change the definition of what is a "firearm/receiver"