The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.
The Second Amendment Foundation had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court yesterday refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.
According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective.
This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.
“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”
“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland 2023-07-24-CA5 Stay Order
Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Eating popcorn and watching with great interest. No where in the laws set up by Congress and signed into law does it say anything about “readily convertible”. This was a rule made by the ATF to expand their powers. Under the law, a 99.99% finished receiver that isn’t functional is still not a receiver and hence is outside the domain of the ATFs control.
The NRA only fights some legislation. I was a member of the NRA in 1971… They goofed it up and lost my loyalty that year. Kenyon Ballew ring any bells?
despite SAF’s claim, the NRA is the still oldest 2A organization of record. yes, SAF does good work but is limited in scope. and yes, the longer WLP stays on board the NRA, the more he tarnishes the whole organization. sadly, Wayne has gone from a driving asset…. to a wrecking ball liability.
Few will come to the NRA’s defense these days. Including me. They are the oldest however… regardless of how much they fail to consistently deliver and frequently aid gun grabbers. As someone who is interested in 80 percent projects, I have to hesitate to invest because it’s obvious the gubmint has set it’s sights on home built firearms. milling out a pocket in that slug would be a challenge for me that I can’t imagine run of the mill criminals frequently overcome. What are the numbers of home build firearms used in crimes?
my family got out in 1968 when they helped write revision to 1934 act because scotus had found enough of it to be unconstitutional that it was headed to scrap heap
Technically speaking, there is no such thing as a “firearm”, it’s a made up term that is used to confuse people and distract them from the truth! Under the NFA, even just one little screw or spring that is used in a gun of any kind, can be considered to be a “firearm”. That means the Void For Vagueness Doctrine kicks in, because there’s no specificity as to what is being addressed. This line of reasoning follows along with The Seven Elements Of Jurisdiction. But the ultimate undercut in facts and logic regarding the legal system, which is being used… Read more »