A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas last week vacated the ATF’s final "frame or receiver" rule, citing the agency didn't have the authority to establish such a mandate.
The ATF's controversial new rulemaking, which treated unfinished frames and receivers the same as if they are complete and functional firearms, took effect last August. At least two lawsuits challenging the rule in court – one by Gun Owners of America and attorneys general from 17 states and another by the Firearms Policy Coalition – unsuccessfully sought injunctions to bar the rule from taking effect. It is the FPC-backed case, VanDerStok v. Garland, which resulted in an order against the ATF rule.
In his 38-page ruling issued on June 30, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor noted, “This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968,” going on to say, “Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule… is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule."
Further, he held that the government's argument that ATF had made such sweeping rule changes in the past without Congressional approval, was flawed.
"If these administrative records show, as Defendants contend, that ATF has previously regulated components that are not yet frames or receivers but could readily be converted into such items, then the historical practice does nothing more than confirm that the agency has, perhaps in multiple specific instances over several decades, exceeded the lawful bounds of its statutory jurisdiction," said O’Connor.
"We’re thrilled to see the Court agree that ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule exceeds the agency’s congressionally limited authority,” Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s counsel in this case, told Guns.com by email. "With this decision, the Court has properly struck down ATF’s Rule and ensured that it cannot enforce that which it never had the authority to publish in the first place."
Also party to the case is the Second Amendment Foundation, which was allowed to intervene in the case last December.
"This case is one more example of the Biden administration’s ongoing effort to exceed its authority in an effort to place as many restrictions as possible on the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement to Guns.com. “We are pleased the court took this decisive action, and we will litigate this issue to finality, if and when, the government appeals."
Banner image: Polymer 80 Frames on display in Houston, Texas for NRA Show in 2022. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)
