New lawsuit filled challenging ATF/DOJ new definition of receiver .

M

Metal god

New member
Complaint found here
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fi...VanDerStok_v_Garland_Complaint.pdf?1660254887

I started reading this and something jumped out at me I had not heard before . The DOJ and ATF now consider "rifle kits/build kits" as actual firearms . Meaning build kits that don't include the receiver as able to be regulated ??

The Final Rule defies the plain language of the GCA and longstanding
agency interpretation suggesting that the items at issue here, sometimes
colloquially referred to as receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers, are not firearms.3

2
The Final Rule is available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...me-orreceiver-and-identification-of-firearms 3

See Are “80%” or “unfinished” receivers illegal?, ATF,
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-“80”-or- %E2%80%9Cunfinished%E2%80%9D-receivers-illegal (last visited Aug. 10, 2022) (“ATF has long held that items such as receiver blanks, ‘castings’ or ‘machined bodies’ in which the firecontrol cavity area is completely solid and un-machined have not reached the ‘stage of manufacture’ which would result in the classification of a firearm according to the GCA.”).
Click to expand...

8. “Frame or receiver” is not independently defined in the GCA but
refers to the “frame or receiver” of a weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(3)(A). Through this rulemaking, however, the Agencies are attempting to create a broad, sweeping definition by including items that are not yet the “frames
or receivers” of such weapons and by including “frame or receiver kits.”
9. Additionally, by treating non-frames and non-receivers as if they were
actual frames and receivers of a weapon, the Agencies have expanded the reach of a criminal statute to cover “weapon parts kits” within the definition of a “firearm” under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(A), even though such kits do not meet the congressionally defined term and do not actually contain a frame or receiver of a weapon.
10. Congress never understood itself to be adopting language permitting
every actual or potential part of a firearm be regulated as a firearm itself through the GCA.4 Congress also did not give the Agencies the authority to regulate the broad array of materials that may, at some point in the future, be manufactured into firearms by private individuals.
Click to expand...

Where do I/we find the text of these new or proposed regulations ?
 
They were released by the ATF several months ago.
I can't give you a link, because I don't have time to search. But there was an official release on the website.
 
I remember people talking about proposed regulations, never knew they became official. Guess I missed my chance to write in during the public comment period
 
I just received an e-mail blast from the NSSF. A Texas company filed a lawsuit challenging the new final rule on frames and receivers, and in response they got a surprise. From the NSSF release:

Division 80, a Texas-based company, challenged the pending Department of Justice (DOJ) Final Rule on frames and receivers in the U.S. District Courts, Texas Southern District Court. The plaintiffs learned only then from DOJ lawyers that unfinished receivers by themselves wouldn’t be affected, Bearing Arms reported. DOJ attorney Daniel Riess explained that to qualify as a finished receiver, unfinished frames and receivers must be accompanied by a jig to complete the manufacturing process. Cory Liu, attorney for Division 80, was surprised and noted that the Final Rule’s vagueness leaves ambiguity if manufacturers and purchasers are violating the law. Division 80’s lawyers contend that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) lacks the authority to issue their own rules. A decision is not expected before the Final Rule goes into effect Aug. 24. Attorneys General from 17 states are also challenging the Final Rule.
Click to expand...
Emphasis added.

Small wonder it's confusing. So if I buy an unfinished receiver and a jig from the same company at the same time ==> it's a "firearm." If I buy the same unfinished receiver alone, and then buy a jig from another company ==> it's NOT a "firearm." What if I buy the unfinished receiver from Company X this week, and I buy their jig separately after waiting , oh ... six weeks? Now I have their frame and their jig. Is it now a "firearm" even though I haven't yet begun the work? When did it become a "firearm" -- when I bought the jig? But it wouldn't have become a "firearm" if I had bought the same jig from a different source?

Crystal clear it is not.

https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-division-80-llc-v-garland-et-al-1194742
 
Sounds like they are working off the idea of constructive possession . I wonder where rifle kits come in that don’t have a receiver ? Maybe the 80%er and a jig is a “rifle kit” ? You’d think someone would have found that wording claiming the receiver and jig aspect in those 300+ pages by now which makes me believe it’s not actually in there .
 
I am Worried the antis are going to use the NFA as a tradition. No its not been law since to founding but has been on the books for many decades . That , and it does not appear it ever really was challenged . That seems to say many if not most in the country believe the NFA is acceptable . If the large majority of people except a proposition does that in itself make it traditional after 80+ years . IMHO something does not have to be implemented from the beginning in order for it to be a tradition . My point is I think there’s an argument that the NFA is now a tradition as a relates to the second amendment . Maybe the next question is, do laws written by the few constitute a tradition no matter how long they’ve been in place. Does a tradition need to be a natural thing or can you force a tradition upon the population ?
 
Last edited:
Traditions always start somewhere.

The NFA 34 was challenged. We lost. This is the famous (in our circles) "Miller" case. Most of us believe that the high court ruling was flawed, and that they used "court speak" terminology in their ruling that the rest of the country did not correctly understand.

As I understand it, Miller was a moonshiner, who got busted, when he wasn't making moonshine, and the Feds charged him with having a sawed off shotgun and not paying the (then new) NFA tax on it.

The case went to trial, Miller had a pro bono lawyer, and argued that as a milita weapon, the shotgun was exempt from the NFA tax. The court agreed.

The Fed appealed. By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Miller was long "in the wind" and no one showed up to oppose the Fed's arguments.

The Supreme Court ruled that "since we have been shown no evidence" that the shotgun in question was a militia weapon, the Fed's case was granted, and the ENTIRE NFA 34 was then presumed by the nation to be constitutional ever since.

Maybe the next question is, do laws written by the few constitute a tradition no matter how long they’ve been in place. Does a tradition need to be a natural thing or can you force a tradition upon the population ?
Click to expand...

Laws are always written by "the few".

Doing something (anything) a certain way for a long time makes it "tradition". It does not make it right, or wrong, that is a much different matter.
 
"I am Worried the antis are going to use the NFA as a tradition. No its not been law since to founding but has been on the books for many decades . That , and it does not appear it ever really was challenged . That seems to say many if not most in the country believe the NFA is acceptable . If the large majority of people except a proposition does that in itself make it traditional after 80+ years . IMHO something does not have to be implemented from the beginning in order for it to be a tradition . My point is I think there’s an argument that the NFA is now a tradition as a relates to the second amendment . Maybe the next question is, do laws written by the few constitute a tradition no matter how long they’ve been in place. Does a tradition need to be a natural thing or can you force a tradition upon the population ?"

This leads me to believe there may have been a challenge. It is believed that had Miller shown up in court, serious damage would have happened to NFA. Miller was found dead, apparently murdered. The case HAS NEVER BEEN SOLVED. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller 1939 In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised of all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense...[and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves AND OF THE KIND IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME. (emphasis mine)
(BTW, Miller lost in court because he did not show up. It was never taken into account that his no show was because he had passed away.)

Paul B.
 
Paul B. said:
"I am Worried the antis are going to use the NFA as a tradition. No its not been law since to founding but has been on the books for many decades . That , and it does not appear it ever really was challenged . That seems to say many if not most in the country believe the NFA is acceptable . If the large majority of people except a proposition does that in itself make it traditional after 80+ years . IMHO something does not have to be implemented from the beginning in order for it to be a tradition . My point is I think there’s an argument that the NFA is now a tradition as a relates to the second amendment .
Click to expand...
On one level, the Bill or Rights was ratified in 1791, which was 231 years ago. I'm not prepared to concede that something that may or may not even be constitutional under the 2A is (and must be viewed as) "traditional" when that view represents just over one-third of the history of the 2A.

On another level, there is nothing in the Constitution that says something being "traditional" acts to make it constitutional. Remember, until 1920 it was "traditional" that women were not allowed to vote. My maternal grandmother was 32 years old in 1920 -- she wasn't allowed to vote for almost half of her life.

IMHO, you have to be careful of circular logic. I think there is actually a logical fallacy named for this, but I can't remember what the name is. It's the approach the anti-gunners use now when the subject of machine guns comes up. They argue that machine guns aren't encompassed by the 2A because they aren't in common use -- ignoring the fact that the reason they aren't in common use is solely that there's a law that says civilians can't buy new ones. You can't legislate something out of use and then argue that it shouldn't be allowed back into use because nobody uses it.
 
By the time it reached the Supreme Court, Miller was long "in the wind" and no one showed up to oppose the Fed's arguments.
Click to expand...

Actually, Miller had met a bad end at that point. He was never a particularly upstanding member of society, and things caught up with him. The lawyer who'd represented him at the district level received very short notice it was being heard by SCOTUS and couldn't afford to travel to DC.

The result was Cummings making the argument for the government unopposed.

It was Justice McReynolds' turn to write the opinion. He clearly wasn't interested, and he wrote a very short opinion that some suspect was actually written by his clerks.

McReynolds was a pretty awful guy. He openly used racial slurs to describe Justices Brandeis and Cardozo, and he refused to pose for portraits with them. He had the first female clerk on the court, and he drove her out with his openly sexist (even for the time) insults.
 
Metal god said:
I am Worried the antis are going to use the NFA as a tradition. No its not been law since to founding but has been on the books for many decades . That , and it does not appear it ever really was challenged . That seems to say many if not most in the country believe the NFA is acceptable . If the large majority of people except a proposition does that in itself make it traditional after 80+ years . IMHO something does not have to be implemented from the beginning in order for it to be a tradition . My point is I think there’s an argument that the NFA is now a tradition as a relates to the second amendment . Maybe the next question is, do laws written by the few constitute a tradition no matter how long they’ve been in place. Does a tradition need to be a natural thing or can you force a tradition upon the population ?
Click to expand...
Under Thomas's NYSRPA decision, the NFA and GCA are unconstitutional. I'm sure there are enterprising 2A attorneys looking for cases to overturn these infringements.
 
Under Thomas's NYSRPA decision, the NFA and GCA are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion, and while you, I, and others might think they should be, our wishing does not make it so. Like it or not, they are the established law of the land and will remain so, until legislative action repeals them, or the Supreme Court specifically rules them invalid.

And the Court ruled (badly-my opinion- but legally) on the NFA 34 before most of us were born.
 
Good news, but it's only an injunction. It's not a ruling on the constitutionality of the new rules.

Worth opening a can (or bottle) of beer, but I wouldn't uncork the champagne just yet.
 
It's not a ruling on the constitutionality of the new rules
Click to expand...

True, but at least it stops them from going into effect for a while.

what I'm wondering is, what is the most important issue here?

Is it the definitions the ATF created, or is it the lawful authority of the ATF to create such definitions, with such sweeping redefinition of long accepted and traditional terms, on their own authority??
 
Is it the definitions the ATF created, or is it the lawful authority of the ATF to create such definitions, with such sweeping redefinition of long accepted and traditional terms, on their own authority??
Click to expand...

It appears the judge pointed out the ATF does not have the authority to expand it's own authority sort of speak . So yes this seems to be about the ATF changing the definition of something congress had already clearly defined and without congress doing so again the ATF has over stepped it's authority here .
 
44 AMP said:
what I'm wondering is, what is the most important issue here?

Is it the definitions the ATF created, or is it the lawful authority of the ATF to create such definitions, with such sweeping redefinition of long accepted and traditional terms, on their own authority??
Click to expand...
After reading the order, I think it's clear that -- to this judge -- the issue is the ATF redefining terms that are defined in statute by the Congress by agency fiat. Basically, the judge seems to be saying "That which Congress hath defined, thou shalt not redefine."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top