Supreme Court Takes Up ATF Receiver Rule

October 4, 2024 | by richardjrod@gmail.com

Will the Supreme Court strike down the ATF AR-15 receiver rule and its criminalization of home gun builders?

In a huge step forward for the 2A community, the highest Court in the land will hear arguments next week in the Garland v. VanDerStok case regarding the ATF’s rules on 80% lower receivers, parts kits, and pistol frames.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s at stake and how President Biden’s ATF got us here.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court will decide if federal agencies can make rules without approval from congress.

Experts will dispute the ATF’s changing definition of “firearm.”

The Court’s decision will have far-reaching impacts beyond the ATF and the 2nd Amendment.

Key Terms

What Is A Lower Receiver?

Single piece of aluminum or polymer (stripped of all parts)

Stamped with a serial number
Houses the trigger, magazine, pistol grip, and small parts

What Is A Frame?

The structural part of a semi-automatic handgun
May or may not be stamped with a serial number
Houses the fire control unit and magazine

What Is A "Ghost Gun?"

Any item ATF deems “readily convertible” to a functional receiver or frame
80% lower receivers
Home-built lower receivers
Common vintage unserialized firearms
Any firearm, receiver, or frame without a serial number

What Is An 80% Lower Receiver?

Incomplete receiver requiring machining, drilling, or other modification to function
Cannot house the trigger or small parts in current state
Any item the ATF deems “readily convertible” to a functioning receiver

Case Background

2022

The ATF rewrites its definition of “firearm,” criminalizing home gun builders and parts kit manufacturers.

Retired LEO Jennifer VanDerStok fights for her right to manufacture firearms for personal use.

2023

Federal judge Reed O’Connor strikes down the ATF’s new rule and halts its enforcement nationwide.

Supreme Court pauses O’Connor’s order, pending the outcome of the case.

2024

Attorney General Merrick Garland brings the case to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court will rule on whether an incomplete frame, receiver, or parts kit is a “firearm.”

What is the ATF?

The ATF is a federal law enforcement and administrative agency under the U.S. Department of Justice and the president. That may sound scary, but the key word there is “enforcement.”

To put things in perspective, another federal law enforcement agency you may be less weary of is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), or even the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

As young Americans learn in high school, the executive branch of government is the law enforcement branch, not the law-making one. With the exception of the executive order, the president cannot pass laws.

The Gun Control Act of 1968

The Gun Control Act (GCA) modernized the gun control agenda and created many new regulations surrounding firearms ownership and commerce.

The GCA defined a “firearm” as any weapon that can expel a projectile via an explosion, and most importantly, any item that can “readily be converted” to do so, including frames and receivers.

Until 2022, the ATF did not regulate non-functioning frames and receivers.

The Core of the Case

While Garland v. VanDerStok is a big deal for any gun owner concerned about the ATF AR-15 receiver rule, the scope of the case is much broader than it seems and has nothing to do with civilian semi-auto rifles at all.

This is not a Second Amendment case, but an administrative law case questioning the ATF’s ability to implement rules without congressional legislation. It will deliver the final verdict on whether the ATF, or any agency, can write and enforce major rule changes on its own.

"Can an agency make rule changes without approval from congress?"

What's the Big Deal?

The ATF is no different than any other office tasked with enforcing laws passed by congress, yet they now think of themselves as something more than a law enforcement agency.

Congress gives rule-making authority to agencies when it passes laws, and this power is regulated by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). We have seen many cases touch on this dynamic and reel in agencies that run afoul of the laws they claim to enforce.

Case Example: Florida v. United States - 2021

The Department of Homeland Security was found in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA in its use of the Biden Administration’s ‘catch and release’ policy.

Agencies are always accountable to congress, and their enforcement authority is limited by a piece of legislation.

So if the USDA fines you for improper disposal of pesticides, it’s because the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act passed both the house and the senate, you are violating it, and the USDA is executing the provisions of that law appropriately.

Every federal law moves through the legislative branch before it’s enacted, and the agency that enforces it must answer to our elected representatives who passed it. What a concept, right? Unfortunately these checks and balances were bypassed to enact the ATF AR-15 receiver rule.

We Are All Jennifer VanDerStok

Whether a home builder directly impacted by the ATF’s rules, a handgun owner who doesn’t care about owning an AR-15, or a pacifist who doesn’t own guns at all, all American citizens have the same stake in this case.

That’s the silver lining of this dark time we’re living in: it unites every member of the 2A community and beyond because unchecked rulemaking by any law enforcement agency affects each and every one of us. It may be 80% lowers and parts kits today, but it could just as easily be your gas stove tomorrow, and criminalizing Americans whose possessions were legal yesterday is the ATF’s new favorite pastime.

So keep a close eye on Jennifer VanDerStok and consider donating to the organizations standing with her, including the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

While law-abiding gun owners wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in on the ATF AR-15 receiver rule, these good people are resisting a reckless government agency that wants to identify as the house, the senate, and the Oval Office all at once.

Two years in the making, the Garland v. Vanderstok case has the potential to keep millions of Americans out of prison.

View all