Court invalidates ATF’s new Frame and Receiver interpretation!

[oakdalecurtis]

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_and_fpcaf_win_federal_judge_vacates_atf_s_unla wful_frame_or_receiver_rule#:~:text=“Because%20the %20Court%20concludes%20that,Court%20vacates%20the% 20Final%20Rule.”

[HeavyDuty]

Isn’t that only applicable in the 5th?

[BillSWPA]

Isn’t that only applicable in the 5th?

As I read the opinion, the partially completed frame rule is vacated. Unlike an injunction, which prohibits enforcement of the rule against those protected by the injunction, vacating the rule means the rule no longer exists. If the rule no longer exists, that would apply nationwide.

[DDTSGM]

Isn’t that only applicable in the 5th?

Page 35 of this document:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64886994/227/vanderstok-v-garland/

Seems to say that this Judge has instructed the BATFE to vacate their new definitions and return to the old ones.

Seems that the remedy for DOJ/BATFE is to seek a writ of certiorari by the SCOTUS.

[HeavyDuty]

That’s good news, then - it was a serious overreach of BATFE authority.

[idahojess]

Page 35 of this document:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64886994/227/vanderstok-v-garland/

Seems to say that this Judge has instructed the BATFE to vacate their new definitions and return to the old ones.

Seems that the remedy for DOJ/BATFE is to seek a writ of certiorari by the SCOTUS.

Appeal would go to the Court of Appeals, which could stay the ruling.

[DDTSGM]

Appeal would go to the Court of Appeals, which could stay the ruling.

Absolutely correct, (hits head and says DUUUH!)

[BillSWPA]

Appeal would go to the Court of Appeals, which could stay the ruling.

This case in in the Northern District of Texas, which would put it in the 5th Circuit. A stay is possible but would completely surprise me.

[BillSWPA]

The judge in the Northern District of Texas denied a motion for stay during appeal but granted a 7 day stay so that ATF could seek a stay from the 5th Circuit. So, the rule is now at least temporarily back on to the extent that it is not blocked by other injunctions.

[BillSWPA]

The Fifth Circuit has declined to stay vacating the challenged portions of the incomplete frame rule. However, the rule included portions which were not challenged in the suit, and vacating those unchallenged portions of the rule was stayed. So, the critical portions of the rule remain vacated.

A hearing is scheduled for September.

[GyroF-16]

The Fifth Circuit has declined to stay vacating the challenged portions of the incomplete frame rule. However, the rule included portions which were not challenged in the suit, and vacating those unchallenged portions of the rule was stayed. So, the critical portions of the rule remain vacated.

A hearing is scheduled for September.

“ has declined to stay vacating the challenged portions…”. “ …vacating those unchallenged portions of the rule was stayed…”

I’m sorry- that got convoluted enough to hurt my brain.

Are the challenged portions still in force?
Are the unchallenged portions still in force?

[BillSWPA]

“ has declined to stay vacating the challenged portions…”. “ …vacating those unchallenged portions of the rule was stayed…”

I’m sorry- that got convoluted enough to hurt my brain.

Are the challenged portions still in force?
Are the unchallenged portions still in force?

The part of the rule that says an incomplete frame is a firearm is vacated. There were other minor changes which were not vacated.

[BillSWPA]

The district court order vacating the rule is now stayed by the US Supreme Court until 5 pm on Aug. 4. A response is due by Aug. 2.

Hopefully the tight due date means that the stay will not last long.

[BillSWPA]

The Supreme Court extended the administrative stay of vacating the rule until 5:00 pm on August 8.

[BillSWPA]

Surprisingly. the Supreme Court granted the stay throughout appeal and any petition for certiorari. The incomplete frame rule remains in effect for now.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application for stay.

[BillSWPA]

It should be pointed out that other cases addressing the frame or receiver rule are working their way through the courts. ATF remains enjoined from enforcing the rule against 80% Arms, Polymer80, and Defense Distributed. The injunction in favor of Polymer80 also covers direct customers.

https://www.ammoland.com/2023/08/scotus-lets-final-rule-on-frames-and-receivers-stay-in-effect/

[BillSWPA]

After the Supreme Court stayed vacating the rule, the District Court issued an injunction against enforcing the rule against the defendants, which was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court has now stayed that injunction until 5:00 pm on Oct. 16.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

This does not mean the Supreme Court would ultimately rule in ATF's favor. It does, however, seem to be part of a pattern of deference to the government.

Given some of the cases working their way through the courts, I would also not be surprised if we start to see the limits of the Supreme Court's view of the individual right to keep and bear arms.

[BillSWPA]

The Supreme Court has now vacated the injunction protecting the plaintiffs in this case.

Although a decision denying a preliminary injunction does not necessarily mean the plaintiffs cannot win, I hope this is not an indication of how the Supreme Court views the frame or receiver rule.

In light of this ruling, I wonder if the injunctions issued in other frame or receiver cases will remain in effect? I would not be surprised by motions to rescind them in light of this decision.

[BillSWPA]

The Fifth Circuit has now affirmed the District Court's summary judgment as to the two challenged parts of the rule, and reversed as to the unchallenged portions of the rule. The case was remanded to the District Court to determine the remedy, which will likely be vacating the two challenged portions of the rule.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1699567052/VanDerStok_v_Garland_208_Opinion.pdf?1699567052

Unfortunately ATF remains free to enforce the rule (at least to the extent that other injunctions in other cases do not prevent enforcement) until either a final determination by the Supreme Court, a refusal to take the case by the Supreme Court, or a failure to timely appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Fifth Circuit opinion is thorough in its reasoning, and includes a concurring opinion explaining other problems with the rule. The opinion makes it very clear that there is really no way that a well-informed court can find that the frame or receiver rule falls within ATF's statutory rulemaking authority. Predicting the actions of a third party is always hazardous, but my prediction at this point is that this rule will not last.

[BillSWPA]

The Fifth Circuit has now stayed the injunction in favor of Polymer80 based on the Supreme Court’s staying the injunction in VwnDerStok. ATF can enforce the rule against transfers of incomplete frames at least for now.