Some in the pro-gun rights community continue to be hopeful that the Trump Administration will finally back away from enforcing the Biden Administration’s Final Rule on what constitutes a “firearm.” Others, however, remain somewhat hopeful but continue to pursue the demise of the so-called “Frame & Receiver” rule in the courtroom.
As we reported a couple of weeks ago, on April 8, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) announced it would “maintain the current definition of ‘firearm’ and ‘receiver.’” However, after heavy pushback from gun-rights groups, the DOJ, less than a week later, informed plaintiffs’ counsel in cases challenging the Final Rule that a new rule is forthcoming, and that it has asked the courts to continue the stays while the rulemaking process unfolds.
Unsure of what the future holds with the alleged “new” Final Rule, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is pressing forward with its legal challenge. In the case Defense Distributed v. Blanche, SAF and Defense Industries have filed a motion for summary judgment in the “ghost gun” litigation.
As background, in April 2022, the ATF published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, could become functional firearms frames or receivers, but in their current state were non-functional—and critically, non-firearm—objects. In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects,” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms—a constitutionally protected tradition.
“This rule was one of the primary attacks by the Biden Administration on the ability of peaceable citizens to acquire arms,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in a news release announcing the filing. “Self-manufacturing firearms for personal use is a time-honored tradition that countless citizens still practice, and one that is entirely legal under federal law. The frame and receiver rule that we have challenged here was promulgated with the goal of making self-manufacture so legally confusing as to dissuade Americans from exercising their rights.”
In late 2022, SAF filed to intervene in an existing lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, then known as VanDerStok v. Garland. The case challenged the lawfulness of ATF’s regulatory re-definition of a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act.
SAF scored a major victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated significant portions of the Rule. The Biden Department of Justice, however, appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled on only a portion of the lawsuit. The recent motion for summary judgment seeks vindication on the remaining claims.
“We would love for the current administration to pre-emptively rescind the Biden era rule and fix the problems it creates,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president. “But unless and until the ATF acts of its own accord, we have a duty to our members and supporters to push these claims full steam ahead. The rule, as it stands, has major legal infirmities that need to be aired out in court if the rule is going to be left in place as written.”
