-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
ATF's Frame/Receiver Rule VACATED!!!
- Thread starter NoDopes
- Start date
Poured a whiskey and lit a cigar for this news! (Was gonna do it anyway, but hey, now it's with purpose!)
Edit: cause I had already started drinking said whiskey and spelled "poured" like a dumbass
Edit: cause I had already started drinking said whiskey and spelled "poured" like a dumbass
Last edited:
Creaming your pants over making junk recievers....great....YAWN....
Wake me up when the pistol brace bullshit is struck down.
Wake me up when the pistol brace bullshit is struck down.
Hey, any time the bullshit ATF gets smacked down, it's a step in the right direction! And this ruling adds fuel to the fire for the brace, because neither were acts of Congress, so..
And don't hate. I've built a few and they run like tops. Only way I've found to get a decent concealable10mm with a full slide is chopping a Poly80 to take g29 mags. I'm not a big fan of the Glock grip..
We all expect a 2 page letter begging for forgiveness, and a citation has already been sent to your wife.
Cigar ??
She's out of town with the youngest at a softball tournament! Cigar is one of my current favorites..
ManOWar Ruination 10th Anniversary
And AGAIN by the 5th Circuit... Hooray!
Text of actual ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743.506963058.1.pdf
Basically saying (AGAIN) that executive branch agencies DO NOT MAKE LAW. And that is what happened here. So, this is a slap-down. And the rule is basically nullified for now. But to my understanding, it ain't over 'till it's over. And it ain't over. But this was another battle won.
Here's the "take home message" from the ruling:
d. The remedy
We turn now to the appropriate remedy. The Government argues that
the district court’s universal vacatur of the entire Final Rule (i.e., not just the
two challenged portions) was overbroad, regardless of the merits of the case.
While this Court’s precedent generally sanctions vacatur under the APA,27
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.
V. Conclusion
ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle
of Congress to “do something” with respect to gun control.28 But it is not
the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital
duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature. Only Congress
may make the deliberate and reasoned decision to enact new or modified leg-
islation regarding firearms based on the important policy concerns put forth
by ATF and the various amici here. But 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 Final Rule impermissibly ex-
ceeds 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 Con-
gressional input whatsoever. An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day
and felonious the next—yet that is exactly what ATF accomplishes through
its Final Rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AF-
FIRMED to the extent it holds unlawful the two challenged portions of the
Final Rule, and VACATED and REMANDED as to the remedy.
For now... the AyTeeEff's frame rule is at least (once again) null and void. Not the final decision. But yeah... it's not looking good for the alphabet boyz doing the will of the tyrants.
This circuit court is remanding it BACK to the district court. Basically telling the lower (district court), "You got it wrong. So look at it again, and don't fuck it up this time.."
I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm not sure how it works from there, if they fuck it up AGAIN. I think eventually, if they keep batting it back and forth, it goes to the Supreme Court. Someone here surely knows more about this than me.
Perhaps the best part of the ruling is the one of the judge's statements at the very end of the ruling.
I will post some excerpts, but it's worth reading in it's entirety. It's worth reading!
ATF’s overarching goal in the Final Rule is to replace a clear, bright-
line rule with a vague, indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test. ATF’s
rationale: The new uncertainty will act like a Sword of Damocles hanging
over the heads of American gun owners. Private gunmaking is steeped in
history and tradition, dating back to long before the Founding. Millions of
law-abiding Americans work on gun frames and receivers every year. In those
pursuits, law-abiding Americans (and the law-abiding gun companies that
serve them) rely on longstanding regulatory certainty to avoid falling afoul of
federal gun laws. But if ATF can destroy that certainty, it hopes law-abiding
Americans will abandon tradition rather than risk the ruinous felony
prosecutions that come with violating the new, nebulous, impossible-to-
predict Final Rule.
So the Old Rule allowed Americans to purchase the silver pieces of
metal, to machine the final 20% of the metal in their homes or garages, and
thus to make 100%-complete receivers. See ROA.228–44 (ATF’s pre-2022
Old Rule classification letters on partially complete frames and receivers). An
enthusiast or amateur gunsmith might mill the fire-control area with a drill
press so the receiver could hold a trigger assembly. And the enthusiast or
amateur gunsmith might drill three holes through the receiver to hold the
safety selector, trigger, and hammer pins. And voila: the modern analogue to
the homemade rifle Daniel Boone’s father gave him when he was 12.
Congress has done nothing to change the statutory definition of
“firearm” or “frame or receiver” since 1968.2 And for 54 years, the
regulatory text stayed the same too. Then in 2022, without any direction or
authorization from Congress, ATF changed everything.
Why did ATF promulgate a 98-page Final Rule—replete with
multiple, non-exhaustive, eight-factor balancing tests and subjective
standards evocative of Jacobellis—to replace the Old 80% Rule? ATF says its
concern is so-called “ghost guns”: Frames and receivers finished in private
homes and garages do not have serial numbers, and that makes it difficult for
the Government to track the homemade guns. Id. at 24652. (Hence the
Government’s “ghostly” moniker.) But if that was all ATF cared about, it
would just require serialization of all frames and receivers—even those (like
the silver pieces of metal pictured above) that are only 80% complete. See 27
C.F.R. § 479.102 (requiring “a manufacturer” to serialize frames and
receivers). ATF expressly did not do that, however; it instead expressly
exempted private individuals from serializing their frames and receivers. See
Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 24653. That is the precise opposite of what ATF
would do if it cared about tracing so-called “ghost guns.”
ATF instead chose to change the meaning of “firearm” so that it can
apply to any piece of metal that has been machined beyond its “primordial”
state. Why? ATF wants the “flexibility” to regulate unformed, unfinished
pieces of metal when it, in its judgment, thinks regulation is “necessary.” Id.
at 24669. And ATF wants to “deter” people from relying on “a minimum
percentage of completeness (e.g., ‘80.1%’).” Id. at 24686. So it deleted the
Old 80% Rule and replaced it with new, indeterminate, multi-factor-
balancing, and eye-of-the-beholder standards. But it never pointed to a single
homemade gun that escaped regulation under the Old Rule but would stay
out of criminals’ hands under the New Rule.
ATF’s only response is to say that it’ll deem incomplete kits as
“firearms” based on “a case-by-case evaluation of each kit.” Final Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 24685; cf. Jacobellis, 378 U.S. at 197 (Stewart, J., concurring).
How is any American supposed to know when a collection of gun parts meets
that standard?
In the Final Rule, ATF asserts that anything beyond primordial ooze, liquid
polymer, and wholly unformed raw metal can constitute a firearm.
If I went to a junk yard and picked up a piece
of metal that used to be part of a truck, no reasonable person would say I’m
holding a truck because the metal has been formed beyond primordial ooze
and hence could be “completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted
to function” as either a truck or truck frame. Likewise, if I cut a truck into
100 pieces, scattered them on the ground, and then picked up some, no
reasonable person would say I’m holding a truck or truck frame because the
piece hadn’t been melted down to its primordial state.
Consider the lumber in every Home Depot across
America. It obviously has been machined beyond its primordial state; much
of it has been pressure treated, and all of it has been cut to specified lengths.
The same is true about every screw, nut, and bolt in the store; all of them
have been machined beyond their primordial states and cut to specified
lengths. Now, if I walk into the Home Depot with instructions for making a
chair, would any reasonable person say I possess a chair? Of course not.
ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames
and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers.11 A recent
Internet fad illustrates the point. Consider the “cakes that look like food”
Internet trend. See, e.g., Chelsweets, Cakes That Look Like Food: 10 Amazing
Cakes, YouTube (Jan. 22, 2018), Cakes That Look Like Food: 10 Amazing Cakes | CHELSWEETS - YouTube. 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.
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.
Text of actual ruling:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743.506963058.1.pdf
Basically saying (AGAIN) that executive branch agencies DO NOT MAKE LAW. And that is what happened here. So, this is a slap-down. And the rule is basically nullified for now. But to my understanding, it ain't over 'till it's over. And it ain't over. But this was another battle won.
Here's the "take home message" from the ruling:
d. The remedy
We turn now to the appropriate remedy. The Government argues that
the district court’s universal vacatur of the entire Final Rule (i.e., not just the
two challenged portions) was overbroad, regardless of the merits of the case.
While this Court’s precedent generally sanctions vacatur under the APA,27
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.
V. Conclusion
ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle
of Congress to “do something” with respect to gun control.28 But it is not
the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital
duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature. Only Congress
may make the deliberate and reasoned decision to enact new or modified leg-
islation regarding firearms based on the important policy concerns put forth
by ATF and the various amici here. But 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 Final Rule impermissibly ex-
ceeds 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 Con-
gressional input whatsoever. An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day
and felonious the next—yet that is exactly what ATF accomplishes through
its Final Rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AF-
FIRMED to the extent it holds unlawful the two challenged portions of the
Final Rule, and VACATED and REMANDED as to the remedy.
For now... the AyTeeEff's frame rule is at least (once again) null and void. Not the final decision. But yeah... it's not looking good for the alphabet boyz doing the will of the tyrants.
This circuit court is remanding it BACK to the district court. Basically telling the lower (district court), "You got it wrong. So look at it again, and don't fuck it up this time.."
I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm not sure how it works from there, if they fuck it up AGAIN. I think eventually, if they keep batting it back and forth, it goes to the Supreme Court. Someone here surely knows more about this than me.
Perhaps the best part of the ruling is the one of the judge's statements at the very end of the ruling.
I will post some excerpts, but it's worth reading in it's entirety. It's worth reading!
Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, concurring opinion...
ATF’s overarching goal in the Final Rule is to replace a clear, bright-
line rule with a vague, indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test. ATF’s
rationale: The new uncertainty will act like a Sword of Damocles hanging
over the heads of American gun owners. Private gunmaking is steeped in
history and tradition, dating back to long before the Founding. Millions of
law-abiding Americans work on gun frames and receivers every year. In those
pursuits, law-abiding Americans (and the law-abiding gun companies that
serve them) rely on longstanding regulatory certainty to avoid falling afoul of
federal gun laws. But if ATF can destroy that certainty, it hopes law-abiding
Americans will abandon tradition rather than risk the ruinous felony
prosecutions that come with violating the new, nebulous, impossible-to-
predict Final Rule.
So the Old Rule allowed Americans to purchase the silver pieces of
metal, to machine the final 20% of the metal in their homes or garages, and
thus to make 100%-complete receivers. See ROA.228–44 (ATF’s pre-2022
Old Rule classification letters on partially complete frames and receivers). An
enthusiast or amateur gunsmith might mill the fire-control area with a drill
press so the receiver could hold a trigger assembly. And the enthusiast or
amateur gunsmith might drill three holes through the receiver to hold the
safety selector, trigger, and hammer pins. And voila: the modern analogue to
the homemade rifle Daniel Boone’s father gave him when he was 12.
Congress has done nothing to change the statutory definition of
“firearm” or “frame or receiver” since 1968.2 And for 54 years, the
regulatory text stayed the same too. Then in 2022, without any direction or
authorization from Congress, ATF changed everything.
Why did ATF promulgate a 98-page Final Rule—replete with
multiple, non-exhaustive, eight-factor balancing tests and subjective
standards evocative of Jacobellis—to replace the Old 80% Rule? ATF says its
concern is so-called “ghost guns”: Frames and receivers finished in private
homes and garages do not have serial numbers, and that makes it difficult for
the Government to track the homemade guns. Id. at 24652. (Hence the
Government’s “ghostly” moniker.) But if that was all ATF cared about, it
would just require serialization of all frames and receivers—even those (like
the silver pieces of metal pictured above) that are only 80% complete. See 27
C.F.R. § 479.102 (requiring “a manufacturer” to serialize frames and
receivers). ATF expressly did not do that, however; it instead expressly
exempted private individuals from serializing their frames and receivers. See
Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 24653. That is the precise opposite of what ATF
would do if it cared about tracing so-called “ghost guns.”
ATF instead chose to change the meaning of “firearm” so that it can
apply to any piece of metal that has been machined beyond its “primordial”
state. Why? ATF wants the “flexibility” to regulate unformed, unfinished
pieces of metal when it, in its judgment, thinks regulation is “necessary.” Id.
at 24669. And ATF wants to “deter” people from relying on “a minimum
percentage of completeness (e.g., ‘80.1%’).” Id. at 24686. So it deleted the
Old 80% Rule and replaced it with new, indeterminate, multi-factor-
balancing, and eye-of-the-beholder standards. But it never pointed to a single
homemade gun that escaped regulation under the Old Rule but would stay
out of criminals’ hands under the New Rule.
He then rips apart the "New Rule," piece-by-piece. I won't copy all of it here. It's worth reading, though.
ATF’s only response is to say that it’ll deem incomplete kits as
“firearms” based on “a case-by-case evaluation of each kit.” Final Rule, 87
Fed. Reg. at 24685; cf. Jacobellis, 378 U.S. at 197 (Stewart, J., concurring).
How is any American supposed to know when a collection of gun parts meets
that standard?
In the Final Rule, ATF asserts that anything beyond primordial ooze, liquid
polymer, and wholly unformed raw metal can constitute a firearm.
If I went to a junk yard and picked up a piece
of metal that used to be part of a truck, no reasonable person would say I’m
holding a truck because the metal has been formed beyond primordial ooze
and hence could be “completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted
to function” as either a truck or truck frame. Likewise, if I cut a truck into
100 pieces, scattered them on the ground, and then picked up some, no
reasonable person would say I’m holding a truck or truck frame because the
piece hadn’t been melted down to its primordial state.
Consider the lumber in every Home Depot across
America. It obviously has been machined beyond its primordial state; much
of it has been pressure treated, and all of it has been cut to specified lengths.
The same is true about every screw, nut, and bolt in the store; all of them
have been machined beyond their primordial states and cut to specified
lengths. Now, if I walk into the Home Depot with instructions for making a
chair, would any reasonable person say I possess a chair? Of course not.
And here's the kicker....
ATF’s problem is that § 921(a)(3)(B) covers objects that are frames
and receivers, not objects that look like frames or receivers.11 A recent
Internet fad illustrates the point. Consider the “cakes that look like food”
Internet trend. See, e.g., Chelsweets, Cakes That Look Like Food: 10 Amazing
Cakes, YouTube (Jan. 22, 2018), Cakes That Look Like Food: 10 Amazing Cakes | CHELSWEETS - YouTube. 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.
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.
Junk? Hardly. 12,000 rounds fired collectively in the past 2 years. Run as well (flawlessly) as my factory Glocks. But more fun!
You got your wish for the silly "brace." (See? Making fun of one aspect of the hobby goes both ways!) Another win for that, too.
Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Enforcement of Pistol-Brace Ban
The ATF can’t arrest anyone for owning a pistol-brace-equipped gun.
thereload.com
Two BIG wins last week! It ain't over. But the tide is in our favor.
Last edited:
Similar threads
