VanDerStok v. Garland ruling ATF spanked good

[Racer X]

FPC AND FPCAF WIN: Federal Judge Vacates ATF’s Unlawful “Frame or Receiver” Rule - Firearms Policy Coalition

a federal judge has granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in VanDerStok v. Garland, vacating the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule and preventing the federal government from enforcing it.

"“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,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “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.”

the BATFE exceeded it's authority? Oh my, say it isn't so!

A few choice tidbits.

"Parts that may become receivers are not receivers"

"A weapon parts kit is not a firearm"

"Because the Final Rule purports to regulate both firearm components that are not yet a “frame or receiver” and aggregations of weapon parts not otherwise subject to its statutory authority, the Court holds that the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by promulgating it."

 

[ladder13]

Those checks and balances may actually work after all.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Federal judge vacates ATF rule

VACATED: Federal Judge Knocks Down ATF Frame or Receiver RuleThe Firearm Blog

Y'all can read the full case if you want to. The Court's statement below is what I want to point out:

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. 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, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479), is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.

This ruling is going to have a very interesting impact on anything still being litigated in re bump stocks and I am guessing it will really negatively affect the ATF pistol brace rule. Time will tell!

Hmmmm....seems like someone else noticed this as well.

VanDerStok v. Garland ruling ATF spanked good

Moderators - feel free to move this to combine with that earlier post. You don't even have to tell me that you did it.

 

[Racer X]

great minds think alike.

 

[robertrwalsh]

It isn't yet set in stone, but it is certainly heading in the right direction.

 

[Racer X]

The ATF and one of their Amicus partners submitted their documentation, both left out 2 key, very limiting words in their cites. Only and Neccessary. Now, when you copy and paste something, it doesn't suddenly, randomly drop random words. Hmmmmm.

 

[CH4]

The ATF and one of their Amicus partners submitted their documentation, both left out 2 key, very limiting words in their cites. Only and Neccessary. Now, when you copy and paste something, it doesn't suddenly, randomly drop random words. Hmmmmm.

Yep, conspicuously absent. Most judges don't like being snowed.

 

[Racer X]

Yep, conspicuously absent. Most judges don't like being snowed.

They relied heavily on the GCA of 1968, and completely ignored the FOPA of 1986 which severely cut back on the ATF's powers enumerated in the GCA. Congress had to enact the FOPA because the ATF was running rampant on FFLs and legal/lawful gun owners. SCOTUS will obviously see through this as well.

I am not anti government, nor anti BATFE. They just need to stick to the jobs specifically allowed and directed by Congress. Nothing less, and nothing more.

And Chevron deference is up for SCOTUS review in a fisheries case, but the outcome will effect every Executive Branch agency. My guess is SCOTUS will rule to limit or eliminate Chevron, and the 3 BATFE lawsuits get solved in one whack.

 

[Racer X]

its meaningless, all they need to do is appeal and get an obama or biden appointed judge.

And the judge/judges would have to justify why they dissagree with the at least 3 judges who already ruled it over-reach. The next step is a circuit-wide en-banc ruling, then SCOTUS.

 

[GaryS]

That is incorrect.

its meaningless, all they need to do is appeal and get an obama or biden appointed judge.

 

[BC38]

Now, if someone can just tell the Governor and Legislators in Olympia and a few other state capitols about this...

I guess if it ever makes it all the way to SCOTUS and we get a favorable ruling from them - maybe?

Or does the fact that the courts (and even SCOTUS) say the ATF is over-stepping to try to outlaw parts hold no weight if a state legislature passes a state law and a Governor signs it to say it is illegal to buy and sell parts?

Because that is what they have in Washington and some other states...

 

[Racer X]

Now, if someone can just tell the Governor and Legislators in Olympia and a few other state capitols about this...

I guess if it ever makes it all the way to SCOTUS and we get a favorable ruling from them - maybe?

Or does the fact that the courts (and even SCOTUS) say the ATF is over-stepping to try to outlaw parts hold no weight if a state legislature passes a state law and a Governor signs it to say it is illegal to buy and sell parts?

Because that is what they have in Washington and some other states...

There are already 2 lawsuits pending here in WA state, the AWB and the magazine capacity ban. I believe those are on a slow burner pending the outcome of 2 specific lawsuits well underway in California. Those are also 9th Circuit, so precedent in CA will clear up the WA and OR lawsuits. Its underway. Will be a year or 2 most likely.

There is someone here who knows more, and he/she might chime in, or maybe fill me in through a PM, and I can deseminate the info to keep him/her out of it. I respect their position and understand they need to keep their head down.

I think, based on how I understand the banning hardware issue, that if SCOTUS says banning sales or trading/gifting non-serialized parts (which are not firearms as defined by the current ATF frames/receiver rules) isn't Constitutional on 2A grounds, Hardware Bans will be over nationwide.

There are 2 issues. Serialized frames/receivers are protected by the 2nd A. Heller and Bruen. SCOTUS is going to have to smack someone down obviously, painfully and very publicly to get that point across. That hasn't happened yet. That would cover any ban on AR/AK platforms for example. Issue 2 is that "parts" aren't firearms, and as such the ATF has no jurisdiction. This is the Frames and Receivers lawsuit right now. And bumpstocks and braces. Washington State went after everything AR/AK, magazines and parts.

It is my understanding parts are protected hardware because you can buy a firearm, which is protected, or you can MAKE ONE, and for that, you need to be allowed to buy/trade for/be gifted the parts. And magazines are protected as necessary parts of the functioning whole. 10 rounds is just a random number. At least one state the limit is 15, another state I think is 17, and in others, no limit. So there isn't even an agreement on that.

This is in no way meant to be political. Just explaining where we are, and what it all likely means.

I'll say this again. I am on the GOA, FPC and 2nd A Foundation e-mail lists, and they keep me up to date on legislation, and provide multiple times a week to generate and e-mail letters to our reps telling them our views, and reminding them we are watching and listening what they do. Oh, and the NRA-ILA list as well.

There is one interesting tidbit, just a hair under 82 million individual fire arm owners by most counts, and we can assume they are all elegable to vote. There are only 38.8 million registered Republicans, so who are the 44 million other gun owners? This isn't an us v them fight, it cuts across gender, race and political beliefs.

GET ON THOSE MAILING LISTS AND INNUNDATE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!