Challenges to ATF “Ghost Gun” Final Rule (ATF 2021R-05) Megathread

[gamer_jim]

Big win!

 

[spoon059]

Were fools.

Or got a "free" tax stamp that allows them to do other things to their gun.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

 

[Combloc]

You never truly get a free lunch with the government my friend. You'd do well to remember that. I stand by my statement.

 

[Drucifer]

Does this clause in the MD PMF law have any bearing on this? The Federal Rule has been vacated.

SECTION 3. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall be construed in
a manner that is consistent with proposed federal rule 2021R–05, updating parts 447, 478,
and 479 of the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal Register (Volume 86,
No. 97) on May 21, 2021. If the proposed federal rule is modified at the time of adoption,
this Act shall be construed in a manner that is consistent with those modifications.

 

[ericoak]

You never truly get a free lunch with the government my friend. You'd do well to remember that. I stand by my statement.

What was the negative of the 1968 machine gun amnesty?

 

[adit]

Some Good News!!!!

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2023-07-24-CA5-Stay-Order.pdf

SAF CHEERS 5th CIRCUIT VICTORY IN VANDERSTOK FRAME, RECEIVER CASE​

July 24, 2023
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.

According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.

“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”

“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF CHEERS 5th CIRCUIT VICTORY IN VANDERSTOK FRAME, RECEIVER CASE - Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they...

www.saf.org

 

[Blacksmith101]

Langley Outdoors YouTube video report on the above ruling:

 

[Blacksmith101]

ATF loses again here is a link to the unpublished order:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1690229765/VanDerStok_v_Garland_Order_on_Motion_for_Stay_Pending_Appeal.pdf?1690229765

 

[bcr229]

 

[MattFinals718]

Oh, man, they're gonna get slapped HARD. I expect that they're probably doing this just to show the administration that they're trying their hardest to defend the rule, but Dettelbach and co. have surely already seen the writing on the wall and know what's coming from SCOTUS.

 

[MeatGrinder]

Could you give us a quick summary?

 

[bcr229]

Could you give us a quick summary?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/273123/20230727162524236_VanDerStok%20Stay%20Application%20vf.pdf

Read the conclusion on the last two pages:

The application for a stay of the district court’s judgment vacating the Rule should be granted. At a minimum, the Court should stay the district court’s judgment to the extent it applies to nonparties. And if the Court does not stay the vacatur in full, it may wish to construe this application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, grant the petition, and set the case for expedited briefing and argument.

IANAL but this is how I read it.
ATF passes rule.
Court case challenges rule.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacates rule, stay put in place to give time to appeal.
ATF files appeal containing the above language with the USSC.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Justice Alito just entered an administrative stay on the vacature until August 4th (Friday) at 5:00 PM and has asked for a response from from the plaintiffs (the gun rights people) to be submitted by 5:00 PM on Wednesday (August 2nd). so it is moving at light speed for a court case.

Link to Langley Outdoors (He gets the dates messed up):


Link To Guns and Gadgets:

 

[Allen65]

I'm sort of surprised SCOTUS is considering wading into a case that's a basic statutory construction issue, not really a constitutional issue. The lower courts enjoined enforcement based on the fact Congress gave a specific statutory definition of what constitutes a "firearm" in GCA 68, and ATF was trying to use a different definition of their own creation, outside what the law allows.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

I'm sort of surprised SCOTUS is considering wading into a case that's a basic statutory construction issue, not really a constitutional issue. The lower courts enjoined enforcement based on the fact Congress gave a specific statutory definition of what constitutes a "firearm" in GCA 68, and ATF was trying to use a different definition of their own creation, outside what the law allows.

According to federal law the lower receiver for the AR-15 is not able to be classified as a firearm. A guy in Cali got off on all charges using that as his defense. CA and the ATF shit bricks the size of the Pacific Ocean and quietly dropped all charges.

 

[Blacksmith101]

Link to the brief of Firearms Policy Coalition filed Wednesday in response to Justice Alito's request in the Vanderstok v Garland case.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274511/20230802162019194_2023-08-02%20VanDerStok%20-%20Resp%20in%20Oppn%20to%20Stay%20vf.pdf

 

[Blacksmith101]

ATF's response, filed Thursday, to the plaintiff's brief of Firearms Policy Coalition, referenced above:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274604/20230803162831282_VanDerStok%20Stay%20Reply%20vf%2023A82.pdf

Has anyone completed an 80% frame or receiver? The ATF makes it sound easy:

"ATF explained that the kit had allowed a user to “mill and assemble the kit’s
components into a complete pistol within 21 minutes,” and that the
kit therefore qualified as a “firearm” because it was “designed
to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive.” Id. at 71a, 76a."

 

[DaemonAssassin]

ATF's response, filed Thursday, to the plaintiff's brief of Firearms Policy Coalition, referenced above:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/274604/20230803162831282_VanDerStok%20Stay%20Reply%20vf%2023A82.pdf

Has anyone completed an 80% frame or receiver? The ATF makes it sound easy:

"ATF explained that the kit had allowed a user to “mill and assemble the kit’s
components into a complete pistol within 21 minutes,” and that the
kit therefore qualified as a “firearm” because it was “designed
to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive.” Id. at 71a, 76a."

An AR-15 lower takes at least 45 minutes to mill out. Add on another 30 minutes or more for the LPK, and you're looking at least 75 minutes before slapping an assembled upper on it.

 

[slsc98]

… you're looking at least 75 minutes before slapping an assembled upper on it.

Luckily, THE BILLION$ being burned by the public school systems and DemonRats’ darling (self enriching) entitlement programs ensure our society’s yutes and graduates don’t have that kind of free time on their hands cough, cough …

 

[Boats]

Would be nice if the USSC could codify a firearm by getting rid of the "readily converted" part.

i.e., if you can't just assemble, load, and cock it, it ain't a firearm.