Category: Lawsuit

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas has once again denied the ATFs arguments that FRTs are machineguns, this time denying the agency’s request for a stay of his summary judgment. You can read the order here.

This marks the sixth time the ATF has been denied on FRTs, though Judge O’Connor did extend the deadline for the ATF to return the triggers they have seized to February 22, 2025.

However, O’Connor stated:

“This extension does NOT apply to the Individual Plaintiffs or members of the Organizational Plaintiffs who specifically request the return of their FRT devices and provide sufficient documentation to the ATF. ATF shall return those as soon as is practicable following the specific request.”

As such, any members of NAGR or our affiliated groups that have had their FRT-15 or WOT devices stolen by the ATF should speak with an attorney about how to have your property returned.

The ATF has already appealed this case to the 5th Circuit, and we expect the agency to beg them for a stay as well. If that fails, they may go begging to the Supreme Court.

We will continue to fight the ATF at every step to protect our district court victory and put an end to the agency’s gross overreach on FRTs.

Much like the recent SCOTUS decision on bump stocks, this case is about the ATF exceeding their authority and creating law. It has become clear that the agency will not back down quietly, instead they will dig their heels in and claw at any shred of unlawful power they can hold on to.

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights looks forward to continuing to kick the ATF while they are down.

As always stay tuned to this lawsuit as changes could happen rapidly.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights has filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court in the case VanDerStok v. Garland, a challenge to the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule from the 5th Circuit. You can read our brief here.

This case is very similar to the recent Supreme Court decision on bump stocks in Cargill, the ATF effectively wrote a new law without a vote in Congress.

This time, the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule effectively rewrote the Gun Control Act of 1968 to consider unfinished frames and receivers to be the same as functional firearms.

As we point out in our amicus brief, this is the exact same violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) that saw the ATF’s ban on bump stocks overturned by the court.
Not only did this effectively rewrite the law, the ATF also did so in a way that is extremely vague to the average person.

As our attorneys state:

“The ATF’s Frame and Receiver Rule replaces clear, readily understood standards that prevailed for over half a century with vague multifactor tests and know-it-when-I-see-it standards.”

The ATF clearly structured this rule to be as vague as possible “as a feature, not a bug” to maximize its reach as far as possible and allow the agency to prosecute whoever they want.

As our attorneys point out this also creates a “chilling” effect as the average person enjoying their rights is likely to stop what they are doing for fear of prosecution because they don’t understand the rule.

This is plainly unlawful action on behalf of the ATF, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will view it the same way.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas District Court has just issued summary judgment and VACATED the ATF’s unlawful classification of FRTs as machineguns. You can read the ruling here.

This case was litigated over the ATF’s violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. In other words, the ATF effectively wrote a new definition of machinegun without congressional authority.

As Judge O’Connor stated in his ruling:

The crux of this case is that the executive branch has improperly usurped legislative authority by enacting criminal prohibitions that are beyond the scope of its legislatively granted authority. Now, Defendants seek to arrogate unto themselves the judicial authority as well by placing their actions beyond the reach of pre-enforcement judicial review. This is not and cannot be.

This decision was largely based on the recent Garland v. Cargill Supreme Court ruling striking down the ATF’s ban on bump stocks, which was determined on the same grounds.

Along with the vacatur of the ATF’s classification, Judge O’Connor has also ordered the agency return any FRTs it has confiscated to their lawful owners.

The courts have just handed another huge blow to the ATF’s executive overreach, but the rogue agency will fight tooth and nail to continue its violations of your rights.

The ATF will certainly appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they will likely ask for a stay of the district court’s decision while the case is litigated there.

If you are keeping track, this is the fourth time we have beaten the ATF on this issue. We previously won a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement against our members, and both the district court and the Fifth Circuit refused the ATF’s requests to suspend that order.

We are hopeful that the Fifth Circuit will once again deny the ATF’s requests.

We will continue to fight the ATF over this issue, even if it takes us all the way to the Supreme Court. The ATF will certainly appeal this decision soon, you can contribute to our legal war chest to continue this fight here.

A federal judge in the Colorado District Court has denied our motion for a preliminary injunction in our case against the state’s ban on homemade firearms. You can read his ruling here.

The American tradition of manufacturing firearms in the home is one that extends to the colonial period, well before we achieved our independence from the British Empire.

Not only does this tradition extend to the earliest days of our republic, the individual right to manufacture your own firearms at home was absolutely critical in liberating our great country from British rule.

Many parts of the commonly owned muskets at the time were difficult to manufacture from scratch. So rather than attempt this, American colonists regularly imported quality percussion locks, barrels, and other parts from Europe.

This is the exact same conduct a modern American engages in when ordering a firearm parts kit, and then manufacturing those parts into a commonly owned firearm of today.

None of our historical evidence mattered to Judge Gallagher, who ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply in this case at all, because the state’s ban merely “imposes a condition on the commercial sale of a firearm.”

This is yet another instance of a federal judge sidestepping any analysis under the Bruen standard to allow a state to infringe upon our God-given rights.

Your National Foundation for Gun Rights will not allow our rights to be stripped, especially with the District Court refusing to even hear this case on Second Amendment grounds.

That is why we have already filed our appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the judges will hopefully find the lower court’s decision just as outrageous as we did.

Click here to contribute to our legal war chest and help us continue to fight for the Second Amendment!