On August 24, 2022, the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Final Rule went into effect. The definition of a firearm was changed to include parts kits and partially machined pieces of metal or plastic that are not functional firearms. These parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers are sometimes called "ghost guns" or "privately made firearms".
On November 9, 2023, the 5th Circuit Court ruled:
"ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature".
“It (the Final Rule) purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this".
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines “firearm” for the purposes of the Gun Control Act (GCA) as follows:
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
In Garland v. VanDerStok, the questions are:
1. Whether an item that is not a functional frame or receiver but merely may be manufactured into one by a purchaser is a “firearm” under federal law.
2. Whether a “weapon parts kit” may be considered a firearm even though Congress expressly excluded from its definition any “weapon parts” other than a frame or receiver and the newly regulated kits lack a frame or receiver.
On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and should hear the oral arguments in October.
On November 9, 2023, the 5th Circuit Court ruled:
"ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control. But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature".
“It (the Final Rule) purports to regulate any piece of metal or plastic that has been machined beyond its primordial state for fear that it might one day be turned into a gun, a gun frame, or a gun receiver. And it doesn’t stop regulating the metal or plastic until it’s melted back down to ooze. The GCA allows none of this".
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines “firearm” for the purposes of the Gun Control Act (GCA) as follows:
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
In Garland v. VanDerStok, the questions are:
1. Whether an item that is not a functional frame or receiver but merely may be manufactured into one by a purchaser is a “firearm” under federal law.
2. Whether a “weapon parts kit” may be considered a firearm even though Congress expressly excluded from its definition any “weapon parts” other than a frame or receiver and the newly regulated kits lack a frame or receiver.
On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and should hear the oral arguments in October.