A coalition of 27 state Attorneys General has filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging Justices to limit the Biden Administration’s ban on “ghost guns” through a “Frame or Receiver” rule proposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The brief suggests, at best, that the ATF has overstepped its authority, and at worst that the agency is intentionally cooperating with the Biden Administration to evade the law by circumventing the legislative process. While the subject of the brief focuses on the proposed 2022 rule, broadening the definition of a “firearm” to include parts and parts kits that can be assembled into a functional firearm as well as partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers, the filing cites multiple examples outlining the overall unrestrained behavior of the ATF in recent years, including the failed overreach on bump stocks and stabilizing braces.
In July 2023, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Texas-based U.S. District Court ruled that the ATF had overstepped Congress with the proposed “Frame or Receiver” rule by banning partially made guns, effectively classifying certain parts themselves as firearms. Following the ruling, the Biden administration requested the Supreme Court intervene after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to put O’Connor’s ruling on hold. In a 5-4 vote last August, the justices granted the Biden Administration’s request to temporarily allow the rule to stand while the challenge proceeded in the lower courts, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting to the decision.
In November the “Frame and Receiver” rule was unanimously struck down by a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel that ruled the ATF was making laws rather than enforcing them, an action that, “exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority.” Predictably, the Justice Department appealed the decision and the Supreme Court agreed in April this year to consider the case for oral arguments. The matter will be one of the first cases before the Court when it returns for the fall term. The nine Justices set to hear arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok on Oct. 8.
Manufacturers and gun rights supporters are challenging the regulation, citing the Biden Administration’s attempt to change a 50-year-old legal understanding with the intent to put kit and parts manufacturers and dealers out of business. Of course, such an intent would need to be weighed against the Bruen decision, which made clear the Supreme Court’s position that the constitutionality of gun laws will be based on whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the activities proposed for regulation, adding that the government must affirmatively prove that a firearm regulation is part of the historical tradition. In this case, the opposite is true, with the activity itself being the tradition.
Citing a recent decision overturning the Chevron deference, which told courts to defer to agency interpretations of statutes when otherwise ambiguous legislation is passed by Congress, the coalition reminded the high court that the “ATF has a history of ignoring statutory text and APA mandates,” adding that “The Court should keep that history in mind when providing ATF with course correction here.”
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that the result of the 5th Circuit ruling, if upheld, would be “a flood of untraceable ghost guns into our nation’s communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes…Anyone could buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun in minutes — no background check, records or serial number required.” She added that it would effectively nullify parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey accused the Biden Administration of intentionally side-stepping the legislative process as an ongoing tactic.
“Here again is an example of how the Biden administration uses bureaucratic agencies, this time the ATF, to act as legislators instead of enforcing the laws Congress passed,” he told the Washington Examiner.
South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley targeted the ATF’s attempt to classify gun owners as commercial dealers.
“Despite ATF’s position, not every law-abiding citizen handling a gun is a firearms dealer…A federal agency can’t make those decisions, and it’s time Congress addresses this ongoing infringement on the individual Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms,” he told the DRGNews.com.
The coalition of states joining West Virginia in this legal challenge include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.
If only we had a term for groups of people, who by the threat of force or punishment circumvent or break the law in order to impose their will on others. Oh wait, we do. It’s called a criminal organization. I know that seems harsh, but if the shoe fits… I can’t fathom the millions in tax dollars wasted in litigation simply because politicians and rogue agencies disagree with the law of the land and blatantly violate it with a “What’re you going to do about it?” attitude. A society should not have to spend their lives and their money suing the government over the rights that their elected officials are sworn to protect.
FJB
“FJB”
I’d rather not, thank you, I’d rather ‘Cackles’ than him… 🙁
Geoff – eeeeewwwww – that’s all I’m gonna say.
Its not a waste of tax dollars…the government would have to pay the government attorneys and the judges no matter what they were up to.
Wait, I don’t see that California joined the brief. Say it ain’t so! (sarc; California has been at the forefront of seeking to ban parts kits.)
“(sarc; California has been at the forefront of seeking to ban parts kits.)”
Are there any challenges to that bullshit in the California lawsuit pipeline yet?
It can’t possibly pass the ‘Bruen’ standard, and an armed populous is literally why the 2A was drafted in the first place. The people as a whole must have the tools to regain our freedom…
When faced with criminal prosecutions, manufacturers/importers have caved to the impossibly high cost of litigation and an uncertain result (if not probable loss) in the state or local federal courts. In all likelihood, it would require taking a case to the Supreme Court where a grant of review is more unlikely than not after five or more years of legal fees.
Still never had it explained to my satisfaction how a serial number does anything at all to combat crime.
Class enemies are criminals to come, serial numbers are just there for identifying suspects.
Where have you been? It has never been about combating crime. It’s about combating Freedom by slow cooking the frog.
Because the ATF refuses to release statistics as to the number of traces much less the number of traces that led to the arrest of a subject, we simply do not know how well serial numbers do anything to crime. And that’s the way, uh huh, the ATF likes it…
But but but Mark (in as whiny of a tone as I can manage) ‘everybody knows’ that the Mexican ‘authorities’ have done a stellar job of using that data to ‘prove’ that 90% of the guns used in crimes down there originated in the USA. Why else would their .gov be trying to sue our gun makers out of existence? Wait, what, ya mean to tell me that the ‘lawfare’ attempts here aren’t driving them out of business fast enough, why I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya.
The fear mongering is thick. The administration claims a “flood of ghost guns”, or “assembled in minutes”. The 27 AGs. representing the free states, are fighting to keep the rules as they were; I don’t remember “untraceable” (scary!) guns “flooding” anywhere. I also happen to know any 80 percent firearm assembled in minutes is a complicated paperweight, best used for stoning your enemies. Finishing an 80% AR receiver, even a plastic one, in a useable way (to say nothing of doing a quality job), takes at least an hour, if you take pride in your work, 2 or 3. An 80% 1911 can take just as long, but what they’re really talking about, I suspect, are 80% Glock clones, which owing to the simplicity of the original design, are amazingly tolerant of poor or rushed workmanship. Still, I dare you to rush a P80 pistol, and try to run it with a switch. I’ll call you an ambulance if you want to try it out.
All a serial number is good for is figuring out who the gun was stolen from, and honestly, it’s not like they’re going to return it.
Mike,
You are 100% right about the serial number. It will show from whom the firearm was stolen.
It will show nothing about the 50 scumbags who have owned, borrowed, community-shared or stolen the weapon since the initial theft. You can darn sure bet your last dollar that the original thief has a rap sheet longer than your arm!
Savage – agreed, hence the ‘push’ from anti-gun people/groups to make that original owner ‘liable’ for that criminal misuse. That ‘tactic’ is called ‘vicarious liability’ which is one of the darlings of the liars oops I mean lawyers most of whom are antis.
IIRC (and I’m pretty sure I do) the original reason for serial numbers on firearms was more for inventory purposes and especially so when applied to the military. Weapon #ABC123 was issued to Pvt. Snuffy on such a day from the armory, Pvt. – can you please ‘splain how that gun got into the hands of a bad guy? Plus it shielded the manufacturer from any/all claims that they had ‘shorted’ .gov on delivery.
It ain’t about ‘safety’ or preventing crimes.
Great
Comments are closed.