A Federal Judge has granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in the Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) Frames & Receivers Rule. Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF overstepped its bounds in promulgating the rule and ordered it vacated immediately. This is a big win for the pro-Second Amendment community and could have far-reaching effects as similar cases move forward regarding pistol braces.
What is Summary Judgement?
The plaintiffs in VanDerStok v. Garland, Jennifer VanDerStok and FPC, moved for summary judgment, which Judge O’Connor granted. Either party in such cases can so move on grounds that the evidence clearly shows they will win, even if the opposing party’s evidence is correct. This is done before an actual verdict is reached. The evidence in question must be crystal clear, which it apparently was in this case.
FPC moved for summary judgment, weakly opposed by the ATF’s attorneys. The judge based his decision on the premise that the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicts language in the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), upon which the rule is purportedly based. This contradiction of Congress’ clear decisions meant the ATF had no leg upon which to stand regarding the rule’s legitimacy. That conclusion led the judge to grant summary judgment in favor of VanDerStok and FPC.
The Plaintiff’s Claim
We’ll take this directly from the decision, as written by Judge O’Connor, to ensure accuracy. “The Court begins with the Plaintiffs’ shared claim that, in attempting to regulate products that are not yet a ‘frame of receiver,’ and therefore not a ‘firearm’ for purposes of the Gun Control Act, the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction. As they argued at the preliminary injunction stage, Plaintiff’s maintain that the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority in two primary ways. First, they argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers when Congress limited ATF’s authority to ‘frames or receivers’ as such. Second, they argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats component parts of a weapon in the aggregate (i.e., a weapon parts kit) as the equivalent of a firearm. The Court agrees with the Plaintiffs.”
The Court’s Analysis
The judge notes that the Court previously concluded that “ATF has no general authority to regulate weapon parts.” The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) granted the government such authority, but that language was replaced by the GCA. The new language authorized the government, now represented by the ATF, to regulate only “the frame and receiver of any such weapon” defined by Congress as a firearm. The Final Rule, however, purports to regulate weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”
Judge O’Connor drilled down into the GCA’s language, saying its “precise wording demands precise application.”
“Congress,” he wrote, “could have [emphasis in original] described a firearm as ‘any combination of parts’ that would produce a weapon that could fire a projectile. It used that language elsewhere in the definition. Congress could have described a firearm as any part ‘designed’ to be part of a weapon. It used that language too. Congress could have described a firearm as a set of parts that ‘may be readily assembled’ into a weapon, as it did for ‘destructive device.’ Congress could have written all those things, and the very definition of ‘firearm’ demonstrates that Congress knew the words that would accomplish those ends. But Congress did not regulate firearm parts as such, let alone aggregations of parts that are ‘designed to or may readily be completed, assembled restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” as the Final Rule claims to do. “Accordingly,” wrote the judge, “the Final Rule’s attempt to regulate weapon parts kits lacks statutory support.”
The ATF’s Counter Argument Falls Flat
ATF’s attorneys tried parsing the definition by saying that “the Final Rule’s amended definition treats a component as a frame or receiver only when ATF has determined that the component is [emphasis in original] a frame or receiver.” In other words, the ATF reserves the right to call a part a “frame or receiver” at their discretion, as opposed to Congress’ clear definition in the GCA.
Judge O’Connor quickly shot that argument down. “Again,” wrote the judge, “a plain reading of the Final Rule’s text belies this objection. A part that has yet to be completed or converted to function as a frame or receiver is not [emphasis in original] a frame or receiver. ATF’s declaration that a component is a ‘frame or receiver’ does not make it so if, at the time of evaluation, the component does not yet accord with the ordinary public meaning of those terms.”
“To be a receiver,” he continued, “’within the meaning of the statute,’ requires that the particular component possess all the attributes of a receiver as commonly understood (i.e., the component must ‘provide housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel’) at the point of evaluation, not ‘readily’ in the near term.” Simply put, ATF cannot call something a “receiver” unless it already possesses all the attributes of a completed receiver. They cannot call it so because it could be a receiver in the future.
The judge concluded by saying that “Because the Final Rule purports to regulate both firearm components that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver’ and aggregations of weapon parts not otherwise subject to its statutory authority, the Court holds that the ATF has acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction by promulgating it.”
The Final Rule is Vacated
When a rule is vacated, the law treats it as if it never existed. In this case, Judge O’Connor wrote that “Vacatur [Latin for ‘it is vacant.’ A legal term referring to vacating a rule or judgment] is appropriate given the Court’s conclusion that the ATF has exceeded its statutory authority. An illegitimate agency action is void ab initio [from the beginning] and therefore cannot be remanded as there is nothing for the agency to justify.”
Courts sometimes remand a case to a lower court if they find a procedural error that may change the outcome. Judge O’Connor quashed that notion by writing “Defendants tacitly acknowledge this [previous paragraph], noting that ‘if vacatur is authorized under the APA [Administrative Procedures Act], it is not warranted here in the event that Plaintiffs succeed on the merits of any procedural claim [emphasis in original], because the agency [ATF] can likely correct any such error on remand.” This is the judge confirming that the rule’s problems are not just clerical or procedural errors. The rule itself, and the premise upon which it is based, is illegal.
“Moreover,” continued the judge, “vacating the unlawful assertion of the agency’s authority would be minimally disruptive because vacatur simply ‘establish[es] the status quo’ that existed for decades prior to the agency’s issuance of the Final Rule last year.” So, we now revert to how things were had the Frames & Receivers Rule never been issued in the first place.
What Now?
Well, that depends on the Justice Department. Attorney General Merrick Garland can direct the ATF to appeal the vacatur, in which case it goes to the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. As of right now, there is no Frames & Receivers Rule for the ATF to enforce. It’s as if the rule never existed. It will stay that way unless and until the 5th Circuit takes action.
If the ATF appeals, it will likely ask the 5th Circuit for a preliminary injunction to halt the vacatur. If the 5th Circuit agrees, the Final Rule would likely take effect once again, pending the appeal. But courts only grant preliminary injunctions if they believe the requesting party stands a good chance to prevail on their case’s merits. Given Judge O’Connor’s analysis, that may be a tough hurdle to clear.
If no preliminary injunction is forthcoming, the vacatur will remain in place until the 5th Circuit renders a verdict. Who knows how long that could take? Any appeal would likely be heard, initially, by a three-judge panel. If the ATF lost there, they would appeal for an en banque hearing before the entire 5th Circuit. That hearing could go either way, but it would take Judge O’Connor’s ruling into account.
I fully expect the ATF to appeal the vacatur, meaning the next question is whether the 5th Circuit grants a preliminary injunction. That will give us a clue as to how they might eventually rule. I can’t predict that one way or the other.
Interestingly, the 5th Circuit is currently hearing the case against the ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule. It’s very likely that each of these cases could influence the other. I’m cautiously optimistic, especially given Judge O’Connor’s meticulous examination of the GCA’s deliberate language.
But judges don’t always adhere to the law’s plain language. Many are accustomed to “interest balancing,” especially regarding Second Amendment cases. Interest balancing means they weigh nebulous concepts like “public safety” against clear statutory language and even the Second Amendment itself. Last year’s Bruen decision forbids them from doing so, but several judges have done it anyway. We’ll just have to wait and see.
If ATF ultimately loses in court, it will fall to Congress to update the GCA or pass an entirely new law dealing with frames and receivers. I can’t predict how much appetite Congress would have for such an endeavor. But for now, the Final Rule on Frames & Receivers is no more. Hopefully, we can preserve that win and build on it. If this decision holds, good days are ahead for gun rights in the face of the ATF’s recent onslaught.
You can read the decision for yourself at assets.nationbuilder.com. Search for VanDerStok v. Garland.
