Tag: 80% lower

TFB: District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule

Washington State has its own law banning 80% receivers, but in this article The Firearms Blog talks about the recent ruling (June 30, 2023) where a court in the Northern District of Texas determined that the ATF, in its 80% receiver rule, had exceeded its statutory authority and vacated the Final Rule. Because the court relied on statutory authority, the court did not make any Constitutional determination on the law as related to the Second Amendment.

The hits just keep on coming in the lawsuits against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF took their most recent L on June 30th in the case VanDerStok v. Garland in the Northern District of Texas (case number 4:22-cv-00691-O). Let’s go through this decision, what it means, and what it may signal for other issues.

Background

If you are reading articles like this, you probably know the backstory, but here is a short refresher. Homemade guns have always been legal in the United States. The frame or received of a firearm is, according to US law, the regulated part. That is why it bears the serial number. 

Over the last dozen years or so there has been an expanding world of people who want to make their own guns. Rather than buying a complete, serialized receiver from an FFL, enthusiasts started converting so-called 80% receivers into complete receivers. Enterprising companies began selling 80% receivers with parts and jigs which made it easy to create a 100% receiver. Now, the ATF hates it when anything is easy, so it was only a matter of time until additional regulations arrived.

ATF Rule 2021R-05F purported to redefine “frame or receiver” by expanding that definition. Most importantly, it changed the definition to “make[] clear that the “frame” or “receiver” includes a partially complete frame or receiver, including a parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver[.]” This Rule was challenged in the courts, and (spoiler alert) it did not go well for ATF.

The Decision

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas heard the case and issued this decision. One of the first battles was over a preliminary injunction, which would prevent ATF from enforcing this rule during the lawsuit. The ATF lost that round. More plaintiffs joined in the fight and the scope of the preliminary injunction kept growing. 

Eventually, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. This motion says to the court “Even if you take all of the facts that the other side says are true, we would win, so you might as well just call it now and not have a trial.” Unsurprisingly, this went very badly indeed for the ATF.

District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule (Analysis)

The Court’s logic was pretty simple; a part cannot be both a receiver, and not yet a receiver at the same time. ATF’s entire premise of regulating an 80% lower when it is sold with jigs or tools as a completed receiver makes no sense because it is (by ATF’s own admission) still not actually a receiver.

“As the Court previously explained, the issue in this case is whether ATF may properly regulate a component as a “frame or receiver” even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver. It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.”

This decision did not need to reach other Constitutional issues presented. Courts must dispose of cases on grounds other than Constitutional ones when they can do so. In this particular case, the Court found ATF’s position so clearly wrong that no other Constitutional grounds needed to be addressed.

“Because the Court concludes that the ATF has clearly and without question acted in excess of its statutory authority and that this claim is dispositive, the Court declines to address the constitutional questions presented.”

Truth About Guns: ATF Brass Recommended Targeting Braces, 80% Lowers Under a Biden Administration

From The Truth About Guns comes this report, Confirmed: ATF Brass Recommended Targeting Braces, 80% Lowers Under a Biden Administration

Yesterday, John Crump published a report at Ammoland.com regarding a recent conference call between the ATF’s top brass and the “Biden transition team.” To be clear, no matter what you may read in the media, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. is not yet the president-elect. At least not yet. None of the 50 states have certified their election results and the electoral college isn’t due to vote until December 14.

That made the conference call in question both premature and inappropriate. We’ve talked to people with direct knowledge of what was discussed on the call and can confirm Crump’s report that the higher ups at the ATF told the Biden boys they want to target two items should their boss occupy the oval office in January. Number one on the hit list is pistol arm braces and number two is 80% lowers.

The people we’ve spoken to confirm that the push to ban these items is coming from the top two seats at the ATF — acting Director Regina Lombardo and Associate Deputy Marvin Richardson. Also on board with banning these items are three members of the bureau’s general counsel’s office — Chief Counsel Joel Roessner, Deputy Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks and Associate Chief Counsel James Vann.

Both of these items have, of course been legal for manufacture and sale to the public for years. The ATF itself approved the sale of pistol arm braces eight years ago. Since then, millions have been sold and hundreds of people in the industry have jobs that are based on the manufacture and sale of braces.

As for 80% lowers, it’s always been legal for Americans to build their own firearms for their own use. Only a couple of state require serialization and registration of home-built guns now.

An 80% lower is a partially-finished block of aluminum. The buyer is then required to drill and mill the lower to make it functional for use as part of a pistol or rifle. If 80% lowers are banned, would 75% lowers still be legal? How about 70%? Will we have to regulate the sale of all billet aluminum in the country in case someone decides to use it to fashion a gun?

To ban these items, the ATF would have to reverse itself, doing a 180 on scores of opinions and rulings it has been issuing regarding these items for years. Of course, that didn’t stop them when they were ordered by the Trump White House to regulate bump stocks the same way as they do machine guns.

What such a ban would look like is anyone’s guess at this point. They could ban only new sales of the items, letting current owners keep and use them. Or, they could ban their possession, as was done with bump stocks, requiring owners to turn them in or destroy them.

Either way, if Biden is inaugurated and orders the ATF to ban these items, it will touch off a new round of lawsuits from gun rights orgs and owners of the newly-verboten equipment. Thousands of them will soon be sitting on lake beds all across the country.

In the mean time the White House apparently has the detail of what was discussed between the ATF brass and the Bidenbots. The President would be well within his rights to clean house at the ATF, just as he’s recently done at the DOD.

That, of course, would be a calculated risk. If the court challenges and recounts go his way, he’d be able to install replacements that have more respect for the rule of law, not to mention the right to keep and bear arms. But if things don’t go his way and Biden takes office in January, the replacements could well be worse than the asses that are currently in those seats.

It’s a great time to be alive.