ATF Proposed Rule Change for Frames and Receivers

The recent Fifth circuit ruling on the ATF bump stock ban should have significant impact on the ATF's rule change for Frames and Receivers. One of the key findings was:
If we were required to defer to the Government's position, the Government could change the scope of criminal liability at any time. Indeed, that is exactly what it has done here. Until 2017, the ATF had never classified non-mechanical bump stocks as machineguns. But now the interpretation is reversed, and the Government would criminalize behavior that it long recognized was lawful. . . .
Since 80% manufactures can point to a long series of letters from the ATF's Firearms Technology Branch stating that "80%" frames and lowers were not firearms, the same logic will need to be applied to the rule change. That is, the ATF is attempting to criminalize a behavior that it had long held was lawful.
 
A few months back I saw a man in the store wearing a "JUST STICK A THUMB IN IT!" t-shirt.

He and his wife both laughed when I got the reference. ;)
Matt Carriker aka Demolition Ranch owns Bunker Branding in Boerne, TX, and provides production/distribution for a number of Youtubers‘ merch, including Kentucky Ballistics. Cool shop. When Scott was in the hospital, Demo Ranch, Donut Operator, and a number of other Youtubers were making content with proceeds going to Scott. Very cool guys taking care of each other.
 
Justice Samual Alito granted an administrative stay in favor of the ATF until August 4th in response to that department’s emergency pleading.

So technically the new frame and receiver rules are back in force at least temporarily.

Mark Smith thinks this is a standard procedural operation and shouldn’t overly alarm folks.




🐯
 
“Application (23A302) 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.”


It’s over gents….


CF091716-B2CD-472F-9340-4B5ED2E62683.png
 
So this affects glock 80% stuff but not specifically stuff like Sig, AR, AK, 10/22, Cetme, etc.

Not that stock for anything related to these builds will be easy to find now and all shops are now divesting their stock of all P80 and 80% arms glock style frames.
 
How does this affect Massachusetts and the new gun bill?

Are 80% lowers now legal here?
Nobody cares about that end... .
Or at least anyone using 80s sure as f*** won't care. If you do this product segment is not for you.
 
Can someone give an update on where things stand at the end of October 2023?
How about as of today?

The 5th Circuit has struck down ATF 2021R-05 in VanDerStok v. Garland but, per SCOTUS, stayed the ruling, keeping ATF 2021R-05 in effect until the case is resolved.

The FPC will put an update here:
VanDerStok v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule

ETA:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...99567052/VanDerStok_v_Garland_208_Opinion.pdf
 
Last edited:
How about as of today?

The 5th Circuit has struck down ATF 2021R-05 in VanDerStok v. Garland but, per SCOTUS, stayed the ruling, keeping ATF 2021R-05 in effect until the case is resolved.

The FPC will put an update here:
VanDerStok v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule

ETA:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...99567052/VanDerStok_v_Garland_208_Opinion.pdf
I think this case wasn’t on interlocutory appeal, this was a final decision on the merits. So all that’s left is for the ATF to appeal to SCOTUS right? The rule will still remain in effect until SCOTUS denies certiorari or grants it and issues their own ruling?
 
I think this case wasn’t on interlocutory appeal, this was a final decision on the merits. So all that’s left is for the ATF to appeal to SCOTUS right? The rule will still remain in effect until SCOTUS denies certiorari or grants it and issues their own ruling?
Per the order, the case is to be "remanded to the district court."
 
The opinion is easily divided into two sections.
First: The WHAT
The opinion and it's LEGAL justification.
Second: The WHY
A concurrence that explains in plain, layman's language the reasoning behind the opinion with clear citations.

I would suggest reading by starting with the concurrence first and then moving on to the opinion as time allows.
The citations, arguments tand concepts in this decision would be directly applicable to fighting any version of 4139 here in Mass when it gets through the senate.
 
Per the order, the case is to be "remanded to the district court."
We therefore hold unlawful the two challenged portions
of the Final Rule as improper expansions of ATF’s statutory authority.

While this Court’s precedent generally sanctions vacatur under the APA, we VACATE the district court’s vacatur order and REMAND to the
district court for further consideration of the remedy, considering this
Court’s holding on the merits.
The holding is that the two sections are invalid, period. Once held, those sections can no longer be enforced.
Yes, this will go back to the district court but that's to clear up the loose ends - I don't know if the FPC is asking for reasonable costs as part of the remedy but, if so, that would be handled within the remand as the costs are questions of fact not law.
 
The holding is that the two sections are invalid, period. Once held, those sections can no longer be enforced.
Yes, this will go back to the district court but that's to clear up the loose ends
Yeah my understanding is that this is similar to Cargill v. Garland where CA5 struck down the bump stock ban then remanded the case back to the district court. DOJ filed a motion with the inferior court to pause the loose ends portion of the case so that they could appeal to SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the next step at this point
 
Back
Top Bottom