In August 2022, the US federal agency ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) issued the so-called "final rule", which changed the interpretation of the existing regulations regarding the definition of what is a firearm, saying that a partialy machined frame of a weapon or a lower receiver (in the USA, the upper receiver with a barrel is not an essential part of a weapon) will be treated like a firearm. The ATF interpretation interfered with many definitions in federal law, including silencers, modular gun parts, and what could be considered a destroyed gun part.
Last week, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas overturned this interpretation, citing that the agency had no authority to enact such a law. Previously, at least two lawsuits questioning this principle were brought before the court, which unsuccessfully sought to issue court orders stop this interpretation from entering into force. But a lawsuit backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition finally led to an injunction against the ATF rules.
In his 38-page ruling issued on June 30, District Judge Reed O'Connor noted:
This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule… is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.
Furthermore, he held that the government's argument that the ATF had made such sweeping rule changes in the past without congressional approval was incorrect.
IDefendants contend, that ATF has previously regulated components that are not yet frames or receivers but could readily be converted into such items, then the historical practice does nothing more than confirm that the agency has, perhaps in multiple specific instances over several decades, exceeded the lawful bounds of its statutory jurisdiction.
The Second Amendment Foundation, which was allowed to intervene in the case last December, is also a party in this case.
"This case is one more example of the Biden administration’s ongoing effort to exceed its authority in an effort to place as many restrictions as possible on the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.
Sources: Guns.com, The Firearms Blog
