By Dave Workman
A federal district court judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the Biden-era “Final Rule” on Frames and Receivers as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The case is known as Defense Distributed v Blanche (formerly known as VanDerStok v. Bondi).
In his 29-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas writes, “The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues. It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing. Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation…
“Thus, the Court ENJOINS Defendants from enforcing 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) against Defense Distributed, SAF, or any of SAF’s current or future members with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.”
According to a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) news release announcing the ruling—SAF was a plaintiff in the case—”The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the Court granted.”
A jubilant SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb stated, “It was obvious from the outset that the Biden ATF’s definition of a ‘firearm’ was intentionally vague and provided no clear guidance to the average law-abiding American as to what was actually legal.
“As it stood previously,” he continued, “the updated definition, in essence, made a law-abiding citizen a criminal for nothing more than owning a piece of plastic that could be converted into a firearm. That isn’t how it works. Congress set the definition and the ATF can’t unilaterally trump up a revised version to suit their political agenda. The ruling also affirms that you are indeed allowed make firearms in your own home without fear of prosecution.”
In his ruling, Judge O’Connor—a 2007 George W. Bush appointee—criticized the ATF’s Final Rule for using “abstract and vague language.”
“In April 2022,” the judge wrote, “ATF published the Final Rule changing, among other things, the 1978 definition of ‘frame or receiver.’ ATF split the phrase into two parts, assigning the term ‘frame’ to handguns and the term ‘receiver’ to any firearm other than a handgun, such as rifles and shotguns. ATF then defined the terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ along the same lines as the 1978 rule, though with updated, more precise technical terminology.
“But ATF did not stop there,” Judge O’Connor continues. “Rather than merely updating the terminology, ATF decided to regulate partial frames and receivers. Under the new Final Rule, ‘[t]he terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ shall include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”
This was done during the second year of Joe Biden’s presidency, at a time the firearms community asserted the Biden administration was “weaponizing” ATF against gun owners and the Second Amendment.
“This rule was such a mess that it not only violated the Second Amendment but was so terribly drafted that it managed to be ruled unconstitutionally vague,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Court rightly held that the Biden ATF’s rule not only sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct but was written in such a vague and vaporous manner as to chill that protected conduct by making it impossible to even know what was legal and what wasn’t.”
This explains why Judge O’Connor declared, “Therefore, the Court determines that an injunction focused on enforcement and implementation remains necessary to wholly redress Plaintiffs’ injuries. Here, declaratory relief is not enough without the additional protection that flows from the clarity of permanent injunctive relief.”
Workman is editor-in-chief at TheGunMag.com
