Federal Court Throws Out Biden Regime “Ghost Gun” Ban
Jose Nino
|
In the ruling, Reed determined that the ATF overstepped its powers when it decided to treat unfinished firearms parts in the same manner as completed firearms. The parts are usually used to construct homemade guns that detractors label as “ghost guns” owing to how they don’t have serial numbers. “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,” Judge O’Connor wrote in his ruling in Vanderstok v. Garland. “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.”
Judge O’Connor did not use Second Amendment argumentation in this case. In this instance, he sought to determine whether the ATF had the power under the Administrative Procedures Act to reinterpret the manner in which it enforces federal gun control laws to regulate unfinished firearms parts and whether that reinterpretation aligns with the law’s language. Based on his interpretation of the case, he ruled that the ATF’s actions were unconstitutional.
“[T]he definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act does not cover all firearm parts. It covers specifically ‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’ that Congress defined as a firearm,” he stated. “And that which may become or may be converted to a functional receiver is not itself a receiver. Congress could have included firearm parts that ‘may readily be converted’ to frames or receivers, as it did with ‘weapons’ that ‘may readily be converted’ to fire a projectile. But it omitted that language when talking about frames and receivers.”
As a result of this ruling, manufacturers can start selling unfinished parts again.
“Congress’s definition does not cover weapon parts, or aggregations of weapon parts, regardless of whether the parts may be readily assembled into something that may fire a projectile,” Judge O’Connor added. “To read § 921(a)(3)(A) as authorizing ATF to regulate any aggregation of weapon parts that may readily be converted into a weapon would render § 921(a)(3)(B) ‘s carveout for “frame[s] or receiver[s]” superfluous. Accepting Defendants’ interpretation would be to read the statute as authorizing regulation of (A) weapon parts generally, and (B) two specific weapon parts.”
Judge O’Connor made the following statement in his concluding remark for this case:
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.
This is a solid victory for gun rights. The ATF is an unconstitutional agency that operates in complete violation of the rule of law. That’s one of the many dangers of federal bureaucracies. They’re ultimately not accountable to voters and can get away with tyrannical actions without having to face voter pressure.
For that reason, among several others, the ATF and its ilk must be defunded and ultimately abolished.
Share: