A federal district judge in Texas ruled on June 30, 2023, that the ATF’s administrative rule which substantially expanded the Congressional phrase “frame or receiver” was unconstitutional and “vacated” the rule. See, Vanderstok, et al. v. Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, et al. v. Merrick Garland, et al. 4:22-cv-00691-O (N. D. Texas June 30, 2023).
The ATF’s “frame and receiver” regulation was a direct attack on rights protected by the Second Amendment. Further, it was a violation of the separation of powers doctrine because a federal agency was attempting to materially alter and expand the definition of a term that Congress had included in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The district court introduced the issue and summarized its conclusion in this introductory statement:
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.
Vanderstok, p. 3
In addressing the matter, the Court discusses how ATF exceeded its constitutional authority by promulgating rules, regulations and/or interpretations of the law that clearly were unsupported by the plain and common understanding of the words that Congress used in the statute itself.
Ultimately, the court vacated – a ruling having nation wide impact – the ATF’s 2022 frame and receiver regulation. That regulation not only generally reclassified “80%” lowers and kits as firearms, but it also addressed the issue of whether ATF’s insistence that “parts” and “parts kits” are firearms as well. The Court stated
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.
Vanderstok, p. 35
Interestingly, ATF tried to convince the court that it should only grant relief – if it did so – to the specific parties in the case. The court fortunately rejected that silly argument by the ATF, as it had others.
Defendants argue that any vacatur should only be applied to the parties before the Court while citing no binding authority in support. But such a remedy is more akin to an injunction that would prohibit the agencies from enforcing their unlawful Final Rule against only certain individuals. And indeed, “[t]here are meaningful differences between an injunction, which is a ‘drastic and extraordinary remedy,’ and vacatur, which is ‘a less drastic remedy.’” Id. at 219 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 165 (2010)) (assuming the availability of vacatur under the APA)). “[A] vacatur does nothing but re-establish the status quo absent the unlawful agency action. Apart from the . . . statutory basis on which the court invalidated an agency action, vacatur neither compels nor restrains further agency decision-making.” Id. at 220. Thus, the Court applies the default remedy and VACATES the Final Rule on grounds that the agency acted beyond the scope of its legitimate statutory authority in promulgating it.
Vanderstok, p. 37 (footnote omitted)
This kind of litigation would never have been required if Congress, and those in control of Congress, would have honored their constitutional oaths and taken action, long before now, to either limit the abuses of the DOJ and the ATF and/or simply eliminated the ATF entirely, which many citizens would champion since the agency’s purpose exists nowhere among the enumerated powers set forth in the Constitution.
This kind of litigation is one of the reasons that the Tennessee Firearms Association has increasingly invested efforts and money, significant amounts of money, if litigating 2nd Amendment issues in Tennessee and nationally. If you want to support efforts like this, please consider joining the Tennessee Firearms Association as a member. If you are already a member, please consider making regular supplemental donations to help TFA fund its increasing litigation program.
It is also one of the reasons that the Tennessee Firearms Foundation was formed in May 2023 and which it will pursue further once the IRS reviews and hopefully grants the TFF charitable status as a 501(c)(3) entity. Although that entity is not soliciting funds prior to IRS action on its application for charitable 501(c)(3) status, you can look forward to the day that its charitable status is hopefully approved.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.