Challenges to ATF “Ghost Gun” Final Rule (ATF 2021R-05) Megathread

[DC-W]

Making this thread to capture all of the inevitable challenges to the ATF rule on the definition of frames or receivers and firearms.

Read the final rule here: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

The first challenge has been filed against the federal government. Division 80 v. Garland was filed in the US District Court Southern District of Texas.

Division 80 is a company that makes receiver blanks.

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1872141/gov.uscourts.txsd.1872141.1.0.pdf

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63295932/division-80-llc-v-garland/

 

[Chauchat]

As published in the Federal Register.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-04-26/pdf/2022-08026.pdf

 

[DC-W]

Gun Owners of America is preparing to file suit soon.

Without a trace: How the DOJ plans to track 'ghost guns' and keep communities safer

A new ruling from the Biden Administration could change how 'ghost guns' are bought. But, it already has strong opposition.

www.wusa9.com

 

[pcfixer]

JSD Supply was served with a cease & desist letter for selling 80% receivers & parts but is counter suing the ATF

 

[Bob A]

Gun Owners of America is preparing to file suit soon.

Without a trace: How the DOJ plans to track 'ghost guns' and keep communities safer

A new ruling from the Biden Administration could change how 'ghost guns' are bought. But, it already has strong opposition.

www.wusa9.com

According to the article, DC is operating a fired cartridge database. MD gave up on theirs because it was found to be useless, nonfunctional and expensive. (Seems like the description fits the MD GA as well!).

 

[DC-W]

FPC has brought a new suit against the rule.

VanDerStok v. Garland

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

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce, including ones that would treat non-frames and non-receivers as if they were actual frames and receivers of weapons.

www.firearmspolicy.org

 

[brianns]

According to the article, DC is operating a fired cartridge database. MD gave up on theirs because it was found to be useless, nonfunctional and expensive. (Seems like the description fits the MD GA as well!).

Maybe there’s a contractor that was able to sell the idea to the MPD after being abandoned elsewhere.

 

[pcfixer]

ATF Makes Huge Mistake & Admits To Having No Power To Regulate Parts!!!​

24th is Next Tuesday.

 

[DC-W]

Be careful with his takes. He hyperbolizes a lot.

 

[pcfixer]

Be careful with his takes. He hyperbolizes a lot.

Yes. I'd much prefer to see it in writing. Standby. 24th next week and might see some movements!

 

[pcfixer]

FPC has brought a new suit against the rule.

VanDerStok v. Garland

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

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce, including ones that would treat non-frames and non-receivers as if they were actual frames and receivers of weapons.

www.firearmspolicy.org

In your humble opinion or by discussion with other MSI & President--- Is this likely or possible?
"Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enjoin enforcement of the Final Rule, or postpone the effective date of the Final Rule"

 

[pcfixer]

Federal ‘ghost guns’ rule takes effect despite court challenges

Opponents of the rule denounced it as unconstitutional overreach. A federal lawsuit filed in North Dakota by plaintiffs including a gun store in the state; a group of Republican attorneys general; and Gun Owners of America, a gun lobbying group, said the rule “violates principles of federalism” and “will sow chaos within large segments of the firearms community.”

On Tuesday, Chief Judge Peter D. Welte of the District of North Dakota denied their requests for a preliminary or permanent injunction, writing that the Biden administration had acted within its authority in laying out the rule. Welte, nominated in 2019 by President Donald Trump, wrote that the new measure “was and remains constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

“Without a doubt, this case presents divisive issues that all parties care about deeply and that are of national concern and importance, as demonstrated by the participation of nearly every state in this country in this action,” he wrote in a 27-page order. “Nevertheless, the court’s role and responsibility remains the same — to apply the law to the facts (and not the arguments or policy) of each case.”

 

[Decoy]

 

[pcfixer]

Making this thread to capture all of the inevitable challenges to the ATF rule on the definition of frames or receivers and firearms.

Read the final rule here: https://www.marylandshallissue.org/...me-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms

The first challenge has been filed against the federal government. Division 80 v. Garland was filed in the US District Court Southern District of Texas.

Division 80 is a company that makes receiver blanks.

Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1872141/gov.uscourts.txsd.1872141.1.0.pdf

Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63295932/division-80-llc-v-garland/

well, this went sideways on Plaintiff Attorney's.

Division 80 LLC​

REPRESENTED BY

Cory Liu​

(512) 722-6310
Ashcroft Law Firm
919 Congress Ave
Ste 1325
Austin, TX 78701
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LEAD ATTORNEY

Michael J. Sullivan​

(617) 573-9400
Ashcroft Law Firm, LLC
200 State St.
7th Floor
Boston, MA 02109
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PRO HAC VICE

CONCLUSION
Injunctive relief is meant to be extraordinary relief. “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. A plaintiff must establish all four of those requirements, not just one or two. In this case, Division 80 seems convinced it has made a good case for its likelihood to succeed on the merits, and that that should be enough. But a court is not justified in exercising its equitable power without a showing of likely irreparable harm, that the equities favor the plaintiff, and that the injunction will serve the public interest. Because Division 80 failed to establish those elements, the court need not address its likelihood of success on the merit.

Aug 23, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 11 Opposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Signed by Judge Jeffrey V Brown) Parties notified.(GeorgeCardenas, 4)

 

[HaveBlue]

That looks like a miss to me. Maybe the strategy is to win later on appeal?

 

[pcfixer]

SCHEDULING ORDER The Court hereby establishes the following deadlines in this matter:
Deadline Date Defendants File Administrative Record October 14, 2022
Defendants File Response Pleading to Plaintiff’s Complaint December 2, 2022
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment February 10, 2023
Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment March 10, 2023
and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Its Motion and Opposition April 7,
2023 to Defendants’ Cross-Motion Defendants’ Reply in Support of Cross-Motion May 5, 2022

update..
United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED September 15, 2022 Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

 

[pcfixer]

BUMP-- updated 3 Oct FPC
FORT WORTH, TX (October 3, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a federal judge has expanded the preliminary injunction in VanDerStok v. Garland, its lawsuit challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule. In addition to the injunction issued in September, the expanded injunction adds protection for the individual plaintiffs and plaintiff Tactical Machining’s customers. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“Having carefully considered the arguments, the evidence, and the law, the Court finds that Individual Plaintiffs… and Tactical Machining, LLC have demonstrated that each is subject to a substantial threat of irreparable harm,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “Individual Plaintiffs and Tactical Machining are therefore entitled to expanded preliminary injunctive relief. Enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the Final Rule against these Plaintiffs should alleviate their demonstrable injuries without burdening Defendants unnecessarily.”
“We’re pleased to report another important victory in this case,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation. “Not only has the Court found that the ATF’s attempt to redefine ‘firearm’ and ‘frame or receiver’ is likely unlawful, but the Court has found that our clients deserve protection from its implementation. As a result, both Tactical Machining and its customers are now protected from enforcement of the rule’s redefinition of ‘firearm.’”
In a prior order, the Court ordered “that Defendants compile and produce the complete Administrative Record no later than October 24, 2022.” FPC expects that the case will proceed to the merits and dispositive motions this fall.
Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutionally protected rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.
FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.

"The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘frame or receiver’ conflicts with the statute’s plain meaning," wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. "The definition of 'firearm' in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically 'the frame or receiver of any such weapon' that Congress defined as a firearm. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B). That which may become a receiver is not itself a receiver."

​

 

[pcfixer]

VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 - CourtListener.com

Docket for VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs request the following relief from this Honorable Court:
1. Holding unlawful and setting aside the Final Rule;
2. Issuing preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing the Final Rule;
3. Postponing the effective date of the Final Rule;
4. Awarding Plaintiffs the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees; and
5. Awarding Plaintiffs such other relief as is just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, R. Brent Cooper (TX Bar No. 04783250) Benjamin D. Passey (TX Bar No. 24125681) COOPER & SCULLY, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202

 

[pcfixer]

MSN

Quoted from article.
Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.

 

[Allen65]

MSN

Quoted from article.
Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.

Well, WV is in 4CA, so if this gets appealed and upheld, it becomes binding precedent in the same appellate district MD is in.