Texas court rejects rules regarding unfinished frames & receivers

[kkb]

U.S. District Judge in Texas putting a halt to the ATF’s rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as if they’re firearms themselves.

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1688171832

Appeals aside, does this do away with the 80% rule?

[Aguila Blanca]

Verrrrry interesting ...

As the Court previously explained, the issue in this case is whether ATF may properly regulate a component as a “frame or receiver” even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver.69 It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.
...
A part that has yet to be completed or converted to function as frame or receiver is not 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.

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.

BOOM!

Thus, the Court applies the default remedy and the Final Rule on grounds that the agency acted beyond the scope of its legitimate statutory authority in promulgating it.

Further, for the reasons discussed, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ and Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ Motions for Summary Judgment, DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion, and VACATES the Final Rule.

I don't think this does away with the 80% rule. It might be used as an argument in a later suit to set aside the 80% rule but this decision explains that vacating an unlawful rule resets matters to the status prior to the adoption of the new rule. That would appear to leave the old 80% "rule" intact.

[44 AMP]

Glad to see it happen, though the will to do so comes about close to a half century late...

While I recognize that regulatory agencies must set official definitions, in order to ensure equal treatment under the law, I don't believe they should be allowed to apply a definition more than one way, or to define things that are not regulated as regulated because they could be made into something that is regulated.

Might as well give the ATF the authority over raw ore in the ground, it seems to be what their end desire is....though I think there are several other govt agencies that would object to that, as it infringes on their "kingoms"

[Metal god]

It’s my understanding this ruling prohibits the ATF from regulating any part of a firearm which congress has not specifically gave them the authority to do so . So pistol braces can’t be regulated, any parts kits …. Hmm triggers ????

Ok so in theory they can’t regulate triggers ? Outside the receiver no ? Inside the receiver yes ?

Many triggers including full auto triggers can be broken down to there individual parts . Does this mean a disassembled full auto trigger can be sold as a parts kit ?


I suspect this ruling is going to get some major push back , looking forward to seeing this play out over the next 10 years

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

While I recognize that regulatory agencies must set official definitions, in order to ensure equal treatment under the law, I don't believe they should be allowed to apply a definition more than one way, or to define things that are not regulated as regulated because they could be made into something that is regulated.

There is a hierarchy in our legal system. Statutes trump regulations. Just as the President can't issue an executive order that does something not authorized by Congress, a regulation can't do something authorized by the governing statute. And where a statute includes definitions, a regulation that is subservient to the statute can't add to or modify the definitions in the statute.

[44 AMP]

Does this mean a disassembled full auto trigger can be sold as a parts kit ?

If it is defined that way. And, that's part of the problem, who defines what something is?? The people who made it??? (the most commonly used definition) or the people who's job it is to regulate it? (the ATF/govt definitions)

You can call it bureaucratic overreach, or mission creep, or even kingdom making, but never forget that the people who make the regulations and define and enforce them do so because it is their JOB, and therefore, have a personal stake in the matter.

So, everything that increases their area of responsibility is a good thing, FOR THEM. But usually not so much for the rest of us.

So, back to the trigger. DEFINE a "full auto trigger" please.

Can you? I know a fair bit about how firearms and even full auto firearms work, and I can't define a "full auto" trigger, and be honest about it.

And that is yet another part of the problem. One could say "its a full auto trigger, because it came out of a full auto weapon", but that is glaringly simplistic and while grammatically correct, its not mechanically correct, generally.

Yes, there are systems where the is some mechanicial difference between the trigger of the select fire and semi auto only variants, but none that alter the function of the trigger, only its ability to interact with other parts needed to function as a full auto. Absent ALL those other parts (and this includes the "housing" to position them correctly), you don't get full auto fire.

The LAW defines a machine gun by function. REGULATIONs define "machine gun parts" by what ever definition gives the defining agency the most authority.

Back in the 80s the ATF decided that the M16 auto sear was, in and of itself, legally a machine gun. They even had a cut off date (1986) when it went into effect, and any auto sear made after that date, was all by itself a machine gun, and required the same tax and registration as an operable machine gun. Get that? ONE LITTLE PART without any other parts, a part incapable of doing anything by itself, that one part was regulated as a machine gun.

The LAW defines machine gun as being capable of firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. The ATF seems to define it as any thing we say it is, so we can regulate it.

The ATF should have been spanked (and hard) back then, but they weren't, and they have been extending, widening, and repaving that road ever since.

NOW, we are getting a few court rulings, here and there, that essentially say, "you can't do that". Hopefully this will continue, creating the potential for righting the wrongs of the past, or at least preventing those wrongs from being perpetuated in the future. We'll see where it goes.

[JohnKSa]

Many triggers including full auto triggers can be broken down to there individual parts . Does this mean a disassembled full auto trigger can be sold as a parts kit ?

No. Federal law defines machinegun quite broadly.

(b)Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

So even if one could come up with a full auto trigger made up of combination of parts that are all common items, used for other purposes, it would still fall under the definition of machinegun since it is a "combination of parts from which a <full auto trigger> can be assembled" and a full auto trigger is a clearly a "combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun" which is defined to be a machinegun under federal law.

So pistol braces can’t be regulated...

Correct. However, that doesn't mean that once the pistol brace is assembled to a firearm, the firearm is guaranteed to be a legal configuration. For example, there's no rule that says you can't have a 14" barrel since 14" barrels are not regulated. But if you put that barrel onto a gun that fits the definition of a rifle per federal law, then the resulting firearm will be an NFA regulated firearm and if you don't have the proper paperwork you are in violation of federal law.

It does appear that parts kits can't be regulated by the BATF unless they specifically fit a definition in federal law (like the example above with full auto trigger parts kits) or unless they contain an item that is clearly regulated under federal law, like a firearm receiver or a silencer part.

[Metal god]

Thanks John , I figured there was likely something in the NFA that would narrow this ruling down a bit but didn’t have the text in front of me during my first post .

This ruling is interesting in another way as it relates to parts as well . The AWB in CA currently waiting a ruling is the case in point . The state argued that firearm parts like pistol grips , muzzle devices , high cap detachable mags don’t fall under the scope of the 2nd amendment because they are not the firearm or an integral part of the firearm operation therefore can be regulated or banned. This ruling although not binding in CA seems to go against that argument correct ?

[armoredman]

I wonder how this may affect "constructive possession" as I have heard it is applied to firearm parts by ATFE.

[Aguila Blanca]

If'n you want an extreme example of "constructive possession" ...

At one of my Conus duty stations when I was in the U.S. Army our issued weapon was the M1 Carbine. My first sergeant showed me how to use a [very] short length of dog tag chain to convert our semi-auto M1s to full auto.

And, with due respect to the retired general, I am not talking about "fully semi-automatic."

[armoredman]

You got me by a few years, I think - the rifles aboard ship were M14s, and only two were select fire.

[BobCat45]

AB, this story is almost 20 years old but might be related to your dog tag chain scenario.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/20...g-machine-gun/

I do not know any more than is on the web site, but do recall thinking (back then) that it might be prudent to get rid of all shoe laces and stray pieces of string, if I intended to keep any semi-automatic rifles.

Just shows I did not, and do not, truly understand the nuances of "constructive possession".

[Metal god]

I don’t know the specifics either but would assume that what ever part they want to charge you for constructive possession would need to be intended for that purpose .

In my mind it’s similar to permanent , nothing is permanent just like block of steal can be a trigger , receiver , barrel shroud etc . You only need the tools to make what ever you want . So a hunk a steal , grinder and file , now you are in constructive procession of a full auto trigger ? No don’t think so just like having string and or a belt loop does mean you have violated the NFA because you can simulate full auto fire with your semi auto rifle .

I’m sure there must be some sort of design intent involved with the constructive procession definition .

[44 AMP]

I’m sure there must be some sort of design intent involved with the constructive procession definition .

This is a yes and no thing. There are a great many things in this world that can be used in some fashion other than their designed intent.

AND there are things you might be charged with violating the law just by having them, and not using them in their intended designed manner.

Part of which is which depends on the wording of the law you might be charged under. Constructive possession charges are, essentially a leap of faith on the part of the prosecution, and sometimes that's enough for a conviction, other times, its not. The assumption is, that since you have the materials, you intend to use them in an illegal manner. Sometimes, that is the case. Other times, its not.

We hear lots about people being charged, a lot less about them being convicted under constructive possession. Mostly, I think, it boils down to the specifics of the individual cases.

People have been convicted for making silencers that didn't work, and bombs that didn't go off. IN those cases it was their intent to violate the law that was the crime. The fact that what they made didn't work didn't matter.

Other times, people have been charged, but not convicted because the govt could not sufficiently establish that their intent was to break the law.

Almost every household in the country has enough "household chemicals" to make a bomb. There are "bomb detonators" in every car that has airbags.

Few people (in the US) have the knowledge to use these materials to construct a bomb, and fewer still have any intent to do so.

But, should the govt choose to do so, nearly all of us could be charged, under current law. I think conviction by a jury of our peers would be a significantly different matter, though.

[JohnKSa]

Constructive possession says that if you possess a combination of parts that can ONLY be used to assemble an illegal configuration then you don't actually have to put them together to break the law.

The idea is that the lack of any legal way to assemble the parts is considered to be evidence of intent to break the law.

One can argue as to whether or not that's legal over-reach (personally, I think it is over-reach), but in practice it's not really such a terrible standard as it is often made out to be and most of the "examples" given to try to prove how awful it is are pure nonsense.

[BobCat45]

JohnKSa said:

Constructive possession says that if you possess a combination of parts that can ONLY be used to assemble an illegal configuration then you don't actually have to put them together to break the law.

The idea is that the lack of any legal way to assemble the parts is considered to be evidence of intent to break the law.

Now that is extremely helpful! And clarifies the situation immensely!
Thanks.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Constructive possession says that if you possess a combination of parts that can ONLY be used to assemble an illegal configuration then you don't actually have to put them together to break the law.

The idea is that the lack of any legal way to assemble the parts is considered to be evidence of intent to break the law.

One can argue as to whether or not that's legal over-reach (personally, I think it is over-reach), but in practice it's not really such a terrible standard as it is often made out to be and most of the "examples" given to try to prove how awful it is are pure nonsense.

It's not so terrible unless you happen to own a shoelace and semi-automatic rifle.

[JohnKSa]

If we are talking about constructive possession, that's not about getting caught with the system actually assembled and functioning as an illegal firearm. That would be a clear violation, not constructive possession.

For it to be constructive possession, there would have to be a combination of parts (not already assembled) that could not be used in any other way other than to assemble an illegal firearm.

If the "shoelace" were found, already configured so that there was no other reasonable use than to convert a firearm to full auto, in the possession of a person who also had a firearm that it would fit, that would be constructive possession.

But that is hardly the same thing as just happening to own a shoelace. There are clearly many other legal uses for shoelaces. To lace up shoes, for example.

So no, just "happening to own" a shoelace and a semi-automatic rifle is not constructive possession.

[44 AMP]

Even with the clarifier that "there is no other use than to construct an illegal device" we're still at the basic premise that it's what they SAY you can do with it, vs. what you actually have done with it.

To my mind this is in the same fantasy (and its the law in some places) where, if you, the ammunition and the firearm are in the same compartment of a vehicle, the gun is considered "loaded".

something that is not, but could be made to be, is considered the same as if it were made to be.

I fail to see the logic in that.

OF course, when talking regulations/law, logic isn't always the prime consideration, now is it?

[JohnKSa]

...we're still at the basic premise that it's what they SAY you can do with it, vs. what you actually have done with it.

Correct. They support that premise with the "evidence" that it's the ONLY thing you could possibly do with it.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing in favor of it, so I'm not trying to justify it, just pointing what it actually is and isn't.

[44 AMP]

more than a bit of a double standard, wouldn't you say?

[JohnKSa]

Are you saying that I should lie about it to make it sound worse than it is if I don't agree with it?

To my mind this is in the same fantasy (and its the law in some places) where, if you, the ammunition and the firearm are in the same compartment of a vehicle, the gun is considered "loaded".

If the law defines "loaded" in that way, then that's what the law says and that's how it will be enforced unless it is challenged and struck down. That's not a fantasy, that's just the reality of how the law works. They aren't saying that the gun is 'loaded' in the sense of the common definition of 'loaded', they are merely defining a particular legal offense in a particular way using legal terms that have been given a special legal definition.

You don't have to accept the legal definition as the new common definition, but you do need to understand how the law defines it if you want to avoid committing the defined offense.

Legal definitions are sometimes different from common definitions and when there's a difference, then the legal definition is what needs to be considered from a legal standpoint.

Constructive possession is an offense defined in a particular way. You can disagree with the premise of constructive possession (I do) but disagreement doesn't change how it is defined or how it is enforced. If you want to avoid committing the offense, then whether you agree with the premise of the law or not, it's important to understand how the offense is defined. It doesn't help anyone or change anything to make up other definitions or give incorrect examples that cloud the issue.

[Metal god]

Yeah , I believe the 9 circuit defined an unloaded firearm with ammo near by as a fully functioning firearm and believe it is still good precedent . You know like a car with all its tires removed is a fully functioning vehicle or maybe better said with no gas It was in relation to CA now banned open carry but unloaded rule where you could carry a firearm but only openly and unloaded .

The state thought that would allow them to ban conceal carry and nobody would want to open carry unloaded. Haha wrong , people started open carrying and the ultra anti’s freaked out seeing guns on hips at the stores etc . That ordinance didn’t last very long.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If we are talking about constructive possession, that's not about getting caught with the system actually assembled and functioning as an illegal firearm. That would be a clear violation, not constructive possession.

For it to be constructive possession, there would have to be a combination of parts (not already assembled) that could not be used in any other way other than to assemble an illegal firearm.

If the "shoelace" were found, already configured so that there was no other reasonable use than to convert a firearm to full auto, in the possession of a person who also had a firearm that it would fit, that would be constructive possession.

But that is hardly the same thing as just happening to own a shoelace. There are clearly many other legal uses for shoelaces. To lace up shoes, for example.

So no, just "happening to own" a shoelace and a semi-automatic rifle is not constructive possession.

That's the way it should be -- if you're going to allow "constructive possession" at all -- but history tells us that's not how the BATFE operates.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/wh...a-machine-gun/

(Former ATF official Robert E. Sanders) noted that ATF once issued a letter ruling saying a 14-inch shoestring was a machine gun because it could be used to convert a semi-automatic rifle into an automatic weapon. The letter was later rescinded.

[44 AMP]

Clarification on my use of "fantasy".

The law can define a fish as a bumblebee, and use that definition in enforcing the law. That is not a fantasy. The law actually does it, so it is a real thing.
And, stupidly written or not, if it is the law, we obey or face the consequences.
Until it is not the law, anymore.

Believing that a fish actually is a bumblebee, is fantasy. Understanding that the law says a fish is a bumblebee is not fantasy, it is a sad reality.