By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
A federal district judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the federal government’s enforcement of the “Final Rule” regarding how the government can regulate partially manufactured firearm parts and kits in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland.
The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed, a Texas-based firm, successfully petitioned to intervene in the case last year. Judge O’Connor’s preliminary injunction applies only to Defense Distributed. He denied SAF’s preliminary injunction motion, but reasoned that SAF members could purchase affected products from Defense Distributed or similar firms.
The case challenges the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms. According to the ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, ATF exceeded its statutory authority.
Still, SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb was pleased.
“This is a huge victory,” he said in a prepared statement. “The court’s preliminary determination is pretty straightforward, and it notes that SAF and Defense Distributed are likely to succeed on the merits of their case against the receiver rule.”
“We are pleased with the Courts ruling, which correctly finds we are likely to succeed on our claims,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Judge O’Connor agrees that ATF’s final rule expanded the agency’s authority over parts that may be ‘readily converted’ into frames or receivers, which surpasses the authority granted by Congress. Even more compelling is that the judge agrees that ATF’s rule unlawfully treats parts kits as firearms. It is refreshing to see rogue administrative agencies being reined in by the checks and balances of our system of government.”
The initial lawsuit alleges that the agencies did not follow the Administrative Procedures Act.
Last August, ATF promulgated its “Final Rule” purporting to regulate partially-manufactured firearm parts and parts kits, departing from almost 45 years of precedent, during which the agency declined to interpret the term “firearms” as noted in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to apply to partially-manufactured frames and receivers. The government flip-flopped in December, asserting that certain products are considered “frames” and are therefore firearms. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed challenging the legality of the “Final Rule” on the grounds that the regulation exceeds the scope of ATF’s statutory authority.
In his ruling, Judge O’Connor observe, “Because Defense Distributed and SAF challenge the Final Rule on those grounds (Count One), the Court holds that they have shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of that claim.
“As with its analysis of likely success on the merits,” the judge added, “the Court’s prior reasoning with respect to the balance of equities and competing public interests largely applies to the instant motion for injunctive relief. This Court previously held that any injury to the Government’s general interest in law enforcement and public safety is appreciably undermined by the Court’s preliminary determination that the Final Rule is likely unlawful.”
The injunction takes effect immediately.
