The left is constantly seeking ways to undermine our Second Amendment rights and we must always be vigilant to thwart their efforts.
On Friday, July 28, 2023, the ongoing drama involving frames and receivers took a new twist.
A little explainer:
According to the ATF, “The term “frame” now means the part of a handgun or “variants” that provides housing or a structure for the sear or equivalent—that part that holds back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar component prior to firing.”
And, “The term “receiver” means the part of a rifle, shotgun, or projectile weapon … that provides housing or a structure for the bolt, breechblock or other primary component designed to block or seal the breech prior to firing.”
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay a decision made by a lower court in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, which “is a federal court case brought by several plaintiffs from the firearms parts industry challenging the 2021 Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) regulatory revisions of the Gun Control Act definitions of firearm, firearm frame and receiver.”
The DOJ immediately filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the Supreme Court has resisted interfering in cases before lower courts since NYSRPA v. Bruen U.S., in this case, they did grant an administrative stay of the judgment until August 4, 2023.
Garland requested the top court’s intervention on July 27, 2023.
The Second Amendment Foundation promised to oppose the delay request that was ultimately granted. Second Amendment coalitions are participating in the legal proceedings.
The Second Amendment Foundation and its attorney, Chad Flores, are preparing a response to an application to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to stay a ruling which vacated the “final rule” defining gun parts kits as firearms in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the ruling, and the government wants a stay pending appeal to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF was allowed to intervene in the case. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit 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.
The high court needs responses by August 2nd, so even with the present administrative stay that Justice Alito imposed on Friday, Garland’s “victory” might not last long.
Order issued by Justice Alito: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the June 30, 2023 order and July 5, 2023 final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, are hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, August 4, 2023. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, August 2, 2023, by 5 p.m. (EDT).
The frames and receiver rule is only one of a number of illegal actions that the ATF and other agencies have done, and the agency is currently engaged in blatant executive abuse.
SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb issued a statement regarding the challenge of the stay in which he declared, “This case ultimately challenges the authority of the ATF to simply change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority.” Gottlieb reiterated his views, saying, “We will vigorously pursue this issue through the courts.”
The SAF’s executive director, Adam Kraut, added his perspective to the discussion:
“The Fifth Circuit last week issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut recalled. “We expect to prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged, which the government wants to enforce while this case winds its way through the courts, despite the fact that the court found ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, which bodes well for SAF and its members.”
Just hours before Justice Alito’s order, Gottlieb and Kraut made their statements. However, Gottlieb emphasized that filing was likely to happen within the next week; given the current deadline, we can infer as much. “The government is saying that a kit to make a firearm should be treated the same as a firearm and that an incomplete firearm is also a firearm,” Gottlieb said. “Their position is simply nonsense.”
Considering the timetable set forth by Alito, there may be a significant decision as soon as possible. Given their previous reluctance to interfere with lower courts’ decisions regarding cases involving weapons, the fact that the Supreme Court intervened at this level may come as a surprise.
The corollary to all of this is that Biden and others like him win politically regardless of the outcome and have less at stake. Either they appear to have won or they actually did win thanks to an unlikely decision in their favor. More talking points about a purportedly misbehaving Supreme Court and how the government is doing all possible to fight alleged gun violence will be available for those wanting to take our guns. While the mainstream media continues to create the case that there has been a degree of judicial wrongdoing with regard to certain of the justices’ actions, that troublesome court simply continues to muck things up.
In March of this year, Senate Republicans proposed legislation codifying the Supreme Court’s landmark self-defense ruling of 2022.
“The legislation, backed by all GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, would codify the high court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The 6-3 decision, issued last June, was authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said New York’s gun-licensing requirement that a person must show proper need to carry a firearm ran afoul of the Second Amendment right to self-defense,” according to the Washington Times.
In order to protect future Supreme Court decisions, Senate Republicans want to codify the ruling.
“We have a Bill of Rights and it is not an a la carte menu. Every right as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court matters,” Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy said.
“With this bill, we are ensuring that the rights affirmed by the Supreme Court are part of the federal code — and preventing a future Supreme Court from reversing this decision. The Respect for the Second Amendment Act will memorialize the holdings in these landmark Supreme Court cases and provide further protection to the Second Amendment,” South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham declared.
“In February, a federal appeals court struck down a measure banning the possession of a firearm by anyone under a court order for domestic violence, such as stalking, harassing, or threatening an intimate partner,” reported Conservative Brief.
“I can’t square that decision with the actual danger that women and police officers face from armed domestic abusers, and I don’t believe the founders of our nation would want courts to ignore this danger when applying the Constitution they wrote,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, on Wednesday.
“The chaos the Bruen decision has caused is predictable,” he added.
Last year, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 to uphold a statute in California banning magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.
Furthermore, the justices remanded a Maryland case that challenged the state’s banning of 45 types of so-called “assault” weapons back to an appeals court. The Supreme Court had previously rejected a challenge to that law in 2017.
Additional source: SAF