gamer_jim
Podcaster
Big win!
Big win!
Or got a "free" tax stamp that allows them to do other things to their gun.Were fools.
What was the negative of the 1968 machine gun amnesty?You never truly get a free lunch with the government my friend. You'd do well to remember that. I stand by my statement.
SAF CHEERS 5th CIRCUIT VICTORY IN VANDERSTOK FRAME, RECEIVER CASE
July 24, 2023
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.
SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.
According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.
“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”
“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Could you give us a quick summary?
According to federal law the lower receiver for the AR-15 is not able to be classified as a firearm. A guy in Cali got off on all charges using that as his defense. CA and the ATF shit bricks the size of the Pacific Ocean and quietly dropped all charges.I'm sort of surprised SCOTUS is considering wading into a case that's a basic statutory construction issue, not really a constitutional issue. The lower courts enjoined enforcement based on the fact Congress gave a specific statutory definition of what constitutes a "firearm" in GCA 68, and ATF was trying to use a different definition of their own creation, outside what the law allows.
An AR-15 lower takes at least 45 minutes to mill out. Add on another 30 minutes or more for the LPK, and you're looking at least 75 minutes before slapping an assembled upper on it.ATF's response, filed Thursday, to the plaintiff's brief of Firearms Policy Coalition, referenced above:
Has anyone completed an 80% frame or receiver? The ATF makes it sound easy:
"ATF explained that the kit had allowed a user to “mill and assemble the kit’s
components into a complete pistol within 21 minutes,” and that the
kit therefore qualified as a “firearm” because it was “designed
to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action
of an explosive.” Id. at 71a, 76a."
… you're looking at least 75 minutes before slapping an assembled upper on it.