The decision in VanDerStok v. Garland struck down the frame or receiver rule for being exactly what it is — an end-around for the Constitution’s clear designation of making laws to Congress.
The 80 percent rule, also called the partial frame rule, established the agency’s determination that these partially completed pistol frames are in fact firearms. They are commonly referred to as “80 percent frames.”
After controversy swirled around the rule when it took effect on Aug. 24, 2022, the ATF doubled down on its position that these incomplete frames are firearms.
As such, purchasing these hobby kits created the need for a background check.
The Texas court has now vacated the two primary provisions of the ATF rule. The successful case against the controversial federal agency was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition.
The reasoning of the Fifth Circuit is apparent. The judges strongly felt the ATF strove to act as lawmakers instead of enforcing the law as the executive branch is intended to do. The rules it propagated served as de facto laws, a violation of the U.S. system of government.
In a clear expression of the will of the court, Circuit Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt laid out the legal foundation for rejecting the frame or receiver rule.
“It has long been said — correctly — that the law is the expression of legislative will. As such, the best evidence of the legislature’s intent is the carefully chosen words placed purposefully into the text of a statute by our duly elected representatives. Critically, then, law-making power — the ability to transform policy into real-world obligations — lies solely with the legislative branch. Where an executive agency engages in what is, for all intents and purposes, “law-making,” the legislature is deprived of its primary function under the Constitution, and our citizens are robbed of their right to fair representation in government. This is especially true when the executive rule-turned-law criminalizes conduct without the say of the people who are subject to its penalties.”
Engelhardt’s logic presented the judicial basis for ruling the ATF’s proposed redefining of “frame or receiver” and “firearm” as illegal.
What was previously legal conduct by U.S. citizens would now be deemed illegal. Only, as the Fifth Circuit noted, this change would be made without constitutionally required legislative action.
The decision further noted that Congress “has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct.”
The ATF argument that changes were necessary to keep pace with modern technology fell flat.
The Fifth Circuit instead utilized the pathway laid out by the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision — it went back to the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the nation’s history of firearm regulation. The judges determined that the meanings of legislation do not “change with the times,” and the 1968 statute is the same law in 2023.
And for it to be changed requires another action by Congress, not unelected Washington bureaucrats.
The judges went further, buttressing the District Court’s determination that the ATF lacks the authority to regulate firearm parts. The agency justified its actions using the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.
This, however, was replaced by the Gun Control Act over half a century ago, and that statute removed the regulatory authority from the ATF. In other words, yet again it attempted to usurp power that it did not possess.
The Fifth Circuit expressed its belief that the ATF attempted to act out of frustration that Congress failed to enact legislation it felt was necessary.
“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation.”
And that is a perfect summation of yet another ATF overreach.
