On Tuesday Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.”
In April 2022, the ATF published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects.
In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects,” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms — a constitutionally protected tradition.
In December 2022, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed to intervene in an existing lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas known as VanDerStok v. Garland. The case challenged the lawfulness of ATF’s regulatory re-definition of a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF scored a major victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated significant portions of the Rule. The Biden/Harris Department of Justice sought to resurrect the rule before the Supreme Court.
SAF is joined in the case by Defense Distributed and Not an LLC (doing business as JSD Supply). SAF and its partners are represented by attorneys Charles R. Flores and Josh Blackman of Houston, and SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.
