Restoring Gun Owner Rights One Lawsuit at a Time

Via SAF:


A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s enforcement of the final rule regarding partially manufactured firearm parts and kits in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland, which challenged the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

“We are pleased with the Courts ruling, which correctly finds we are likely to succeed on our claims,” said Adam Kraut, SAF’s Executive Director. “Judge O’Connor agrees that ATF’s final rule expanded the agency’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers, which surpasses the authority granted by Congress. Even more compelling is that the judge agrees that ATF’s rule unlawfully treats parts kits as firearms. It is refreshing to see rogue administrative agencies being reined in by the checks and balances of our system of government.”


5 thoughts on “Restoring Gun Owner Rights One Lawsuit at a Time

  1. I could see where the ATF got the idea. They’re just following how congress runs the “regulation of commerce clause.”
    Good on VanDerstok!

  2. I’m gleeful over the decision, but also concerned about what the anti-gunners will do (and have already started to do.) If an unregulated, 80% receiver, or a bump stock, or an unmounted brace, or even a standard Novak pistol sight, is not a “firearm” per se, then the anti-gunners will and have claimed that they have no protection under 2A, and can thus be regulated without concern. Of course, the answer to this would be that an Administrative Branch agency has no authority to make these rulings, with or without the 2A. But still, having 2A protection of “parts” would be better than not having it.

    • Ammunition is not a “firearm” but, I’m nearly certain, it has been considered protected. I would expect firearm components would also be found to be protected.

  3. This is an interesting development in the ongoing debate over firearm regulation. It raises the question of how much authority the ATF should have when it comes to regulating partially manufactured firearm parts and kits. Should they be able to regulate these items as if they were firearms, or should they be treated differently? It will be interesting to see how this case plays out and what impact it has on future firearm regulations. It’s important to strike a balance between protecting public safety and respecting Second Amendment rights, and it’s clear that there are differing opinions on the best way to do so. What do you think? Should the ATF have the authority to regulate partially manufactured firearm parts and kits, or is this overreach on their part?

Comments are closed.