Tag: receiver

What’s in a Word?

SAF FILES MOTION TO INTERVENE IN CHALLENGE OF NEW GOV’T. ‘FIREARM’ DEFINITION [More]

I posted the release in its entirety on my WOG Placeholder blog because I didn’t see it appearing on the SAF News page yet, and if I don’t address this now I’ll never get back to it– check there for all case announcements to see how many actions they’re involved in and what they’re doing.

A Certain Appeal

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States; Steven Dettelbach, in his official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the United States Department of Justice; and ATF hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the Court’s Opinion & Order on Scope of Preliminary Injunction entered on October 1, 2022… [More]

Of course they’re not giving up on unconstitutionally claiming authority to impose frame or receiver infringements. They enjoy unlimited resources.

FPC has the entire case with filings and orders indexed for us.

[Via Jess]

Clear as Mud

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is issuing this open letter to further assist the firearms industry and the public in understanding whether a “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” receiver of an AR-15/M-16 variant weapon has reached a stage of manufacture such that it “may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” to a functional receiver, and is therefore classified as a “frame or receiver” or “firearm” in accordance with the final rule titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms (Final Rule 2021R-05F), which became effective August 24, 2022. [More]

At least until they change the rules again.

Any questions?

[Via Jess]

VanDerStok v. Garland Challenge to ATF’s ‘Frame or Receiver’ Rule Update

Because the parties contest the utility of a completed classification request, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion and CLARIFIES that the current injunction precludes Defendants from concluding its classification determination with respect to Tactical’s product. [More]

My legally unqualified two cents: This is a hopeful development and it has the potential, in the end, to stop a lot of the Constitutionally-unauthorized tyrannical rule nonsense in its tracks, but it only applies to this limited case and there’s still a long way to go.

[Via Jess]

Rope-a-Dope

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed have teamed up to sue the State of California over its ban on CNC machines used for producing unserialized firearms and a law letting the State recover attorney fees from plaintiffs and their lawyers. [More]

You get the feeling that the state, with virtually unlimited resources, is forcing the gun groups to expend all of theirs on lawsuit after lawsuit, counting on exhausting and wearing them out until they’ve got nothing left to punch with.

[Via Jess]

So Much for ‘Shall Not be Infringed’…

ATF has posted the following corrections to the Final Rule which appeared in the Federal Register on April 26, 2022. The Final Rule, with these corrections, is effective in two days, August 24, 2022. This set of updates provides technical corrections to the Final Rule. [More]

What do you think the Founders would have had to say about this?

‘Shall Not be Infringed’ Except…

FPC Files New Lawsuit Challenging ATF “Frame or Receiver” Rule [More]

ATF knows they’re in the wrong. But what do they care? They’ve got unlimited plunder to tap into and none of them will face any personal repercussions.

And some of us don’t think Congress has legitimate authority to do this, either.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights