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.
