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

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."
Click to expand...

Yep that's How I see the wording . emphasis mine .

. ATF says the “term ‘frame’ means the part of a handgun . . . that provides housing or a structure for the component (i.e., sear or equivalent) designed to hold back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar primary energized component prior to initiation of the firing sequence.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(a)(1). ATF defines “receiver” similarly, though it says the term refers to a “rifle, shotgun, or projectile weapon other than a handgun.” Id. § 478.12(a)(2). Plaintiffs do not take issue with those definitions, which appear to be updated, more precise versions of ATF’s 1978 interpretation. But the Final Rule did not merely update ATF’s terminology. ATF added an entirely new section expanding its jurisdiction to include “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver.” Id. § 478.12(c). ATF now claims authority to regulate parts that are “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.” Id. The parts must be “clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.” Id. In deciding whether something is a partially complete frame or receiver, ATF may consider other materials such as molds, instructions, and marketing materials “that are sold, distributed, or possessed with the item or kit.” Id. The Final Rule’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning. The definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically “the frame or receiver of any such weapon” that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver. Congress could have included firearm parts that “may readily be converted” to frames or receivers, as it did with “weapons” that “may readily be converted” to fire a projectile. But it omitted that language when talking about frames and receivers. “[W]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, .......

Section 478.12(c) is thus facially unlawful because it describes only parts that Congress intentionally excluded from its definition of “firearm.” It is purely an expansion of authority beyond the statutory language.
Click to expand...
 
So, what it appears we have here is the ATF creating new definitions expanding their authority beyond what Congress put in the statute.

Seems to me that, if you're hired to count chickens and your contract does not specifically say you get to count eggs, and you count eggs because, you know, someday, some of them will be chickens, you're operating outside your authority.

Some of those eggs might become chickens, someday, but some will be omlets and never be chickens, so its wrong to count your chickens before they're hatched....;)
 
The NFA does specifically cover suppressors, but without going back and reading it in detail, I don't think it addresses parts that are not assembled into a suppressor as suppressors.

I think the ATF's dominion over wipes, washers, even tubes AS PARTS is the result of "mission creep" and being a very niche thing, no one (not enough people) cared or legally challenged it.

For a long, long time, too many people have been ok with the ways that "constructive possession" have been applied in various laws. In some cases, we actually applaud its use, but it is a terrible double edged blade without guard or hilt.

Everybody is happy, when they bust the radical bomb maker before he sets off the bomb, or often before its even completed, cause, you know, bombs are bad things....

And (as far as I know) no one is raising a fuss over the fact that in many places the law considers having ammunition in the same compartment of a vehicle as a firearm (but NOT in the gun) equals a loaded firearm.

Nobody is running around the country busting Suzy Homemaker for having bomb making supplies, but nearly every household in the nation does have them. Got a car with airbags? Congrats, you possess explosives!!

BUt if you have a chunk of metal, some tools and a book, (or internet access) OMG, you COULD have a gun, so we HAVE to regulate them, AND YOU!!!

Reminds me of the old joke about the cowboy with wire cutters in his back pocket, having a drink at the saloon, whe the sheriff comes in, and says "sorry Bill, but I gotta arrest you for cattle rustling. Fences have been cut, and cattle rustled, and you got wire cutters in your pocket."

Bill agrees to go peaceably, but tells the Sheriff,
"I didn't steal no cattle, but go ahead...and while you're at it, you might as well arrest me for rape, too!"
Sheriff replys "why rape?"
Bill says "well, I didn't do that, neither, but I dang sure got the equipment for it, too!"
:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top