\n<\/p>\n
Once again, a lawsuit against a rule made by the ATF is headed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Garland v. VanDerStok challenges the ATF\u2019s administrative rule that declared firearm kits and partially-manufactured receivers were firearms.\u00a0This follows hot on the heels of oral arguments in Cargill<\/a>, the case fighting the bump stock ban.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Laws and Regulations @ TFB:<\/strong><\/p>\n Before this case went to SCOTUS, it was heard at the district court and 5th Circuit appeals court. The plaintiffs challenging the ATF won at both of those levels. The Department of Justice appealed to SCOTUS to try and put the rule back in place after it was blocked by both lower courts. The process to get SCOTUS to is called a \u201cpetition of certiorari.\u201d The petition is accompanied by a brief that lays out the issues in the case and explains why they are important enough for SCOTUS to take on.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Supreme Court cases also include a succinct statement of the issues to be decided. Here is what they are looking at for this case:<\/p>\n Issues: (1) Whether \u201ca weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive\u201d under 27 C.F.R. \u00a7 478.11 is a \u201cfirearm\u201d regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether \u201ca partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver\u201d that is \u201cdesigned to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver\u201d under 27 C.F.R. \u00a7 478.12(c) is a \u201cframe or receiver\u201d regulated by the act.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n VanDerStok was initially filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition<\/a> on behalf of two individuals and a business. The Second Amendment Foundation intervened<\/a> in the case later on behalf of one of its members. Before long, a who\u2019s-who of the 80% industry intervened in this case to protect their interests.<\/p>\n It will be a while before we get a final decision on this case, so stay tuned.<\/p>\n Slide from the ATF showing that an AR-15 forging is not a receiver<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Statement from FPC:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n