Federal Judge Vacates ATF’s Unlawful “Frame or Receiver” Rule

[Kirk Freeman]

ok, so if the AFT can not regulate unfinished receivers then why stop at 80%? The same boobs at AFT decided that a 90% receiver is a receiver when it clearly can not (yet) function as one.

90% receiver is a firearm.

79% is a block of metal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

90% receiver is a firearm.

79% is a block of metal.

You can’t argue with logic like that.

 

[JAL]

Rhetorical Question:
Who decides what is 81% and therefore a "firearm", and what is 79% and therefore a "block of metal"? Is it measured by weight? By volume? By amount of milling time required? Will Chevron, an oil company, decide if we defer the decision to them as they're mysteriously deferred to for millions of decisions (who pays Chevron for this service or is it free)?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Rhetorical Question:
Who decides what is 81% and therefore a "firearm", and what is 79% and therefore a "block of metal"? Is it measured by weight? By volume? By amount of milling time required? Will Chevron, an oil company, decide if we defer the decision to them as they're mysteriously deferred to for millions of decisions (who pays Chevron for this service or is it free)?

Looper Bright Enterprises, a fish company, will decide so.

 

[JAL]

Rhetorical Question:
Who decides what is 81% and therefore a "firearm", and what is 79% and therefore a "block of metal"? Is it measured by weight? By volume? By amount of milling time required? Will Chevron, an oil company, decide if we defer the decision to them as they're mysteriously deferred to for millions of decisions (who pays Chevron for this service or is it free)?

Loper Bright Enterprises, a fish company, will decide so.

Very well played!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is your judge, jury and tackle box.

 

[Alamo]

BATFE Has also filed in District Court for a emergency stay of the Final Judgment while various appeals are made to the 5th.

VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 - CourtListener.com

Docket for VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

 

[JAL]

BATFE Has also filed in District Court for a emergency stay of the Final Judgment while various appeals are made to the 5th.

VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 - CourtListener.com

Docket for VanDerStok v. Garland, 4:22-cv-00691 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.

www.courtlistener.com

They've already filed the appeal to 5th Circuit. There's nothing yet beyond the initial filing. Expect more later this week or early next week.

 

[JAL]

District Court in Northern District of Texas temporarily stays its order vacating the ATF Rule for 7 days to allow BATFE to request an emergency stay from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals . . .

District Court Order Granting Stay for 7 Days (trigger warning: it's a PDF):
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145.238.0.pdf

Appeal in 5th Circuit Court of Appeals
Filed today: Motion for emergency stay by 5th Circuit, and if the court declines to issue stay pending completion of the appeal, they're demanding a 10 day temporary stay to allow for appeal to SCOTUS for a stay.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67608117/vanderstok-v-garland/

Stay tuned for more later this week and into next week as ATF pleads for a stay from the 5th Circuit. Motion already filed today . . .
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743/gov.uscourts.ca5.214743.9.0.pdf

BATFE is going after their loss in the District Court hammer and tongs . . . as it doesn't bode well for the pistol brace rule if they crash and burn on this one.

EDIT:
A couple emergency motions for injunctions made late today by parties that didn't have earlier injunctions (mooted by Court vacating ATF Rule which is now stayed for a week) . . . a flurry of paper flying in multiple directions.

 

[Alamo]

Some (all) of the plaintiffs have filed motions to continue the injunctive relief provided by the court earlier while the stay and appeal process are in effect.

The Empire the BATFE struck back arguing that the preliminary injunctions went away once final judgment was entered, and also that once an appeal is filed the district court loses jurisdiction to do anything so it can’t give any injunctive relief to the plaintiffs — although it apparently retains just enough jurisdiction to issue a stay. There’s a flurry of motions from the plaintiffs on this issue.

So, presumably, they are arguing that during the stay the frame and receiver rule is back in effect for everyone? And I would guess they’re arguing to the 5th that while it’s appealed the rule should remain in effect, although I haven’t delved into that court yet.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145.242.0.pdf

 

[Mgderf]

Some (all) of the plaintiffs have filed motions to continue the injunctive relief provided by the court earlier while the stay and appeal process are in effect.

The Empire the BATFE struck back arguing that the preliminary injunctions went away once final judgment was entered, and also that once an appeal is filed the district court loses jurisdiction to do anything so it can’t give any injunctive relief to the plaintiffs — although it apparently retains just enough jurisdiction to issue a stay. There’s a flurry of motions from the plaintiffs on this issue.

So, presumably, they are arguing that during the stay the frame and receiver rule is back in effect for everyone? And I would guess they’re arguing to the 5th that while it’s appealed the rule should remain in effect, although I haven’t delved into that court yet.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145/gov.uscourts.txnd.366145.242.0.pdf

Sounds to me like they're grasping at straws.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[JAL]

Important to note the last two sentences in the 5th Circuit's "unpublished" order:

"We sua sponte EXPEDITE the appeal to the next available oral argument calendar. To allow time for additional proceedings as appropriate, this order is administratively STAYED for 10 days."

The 5th Circuit's order refusing to stay most of the District Court's decision won't go into effect for 10 days (unless otherwise modified before then). It's effectively a time delay on the order going into effect. That means the stay on the District Court's decision remains in effect for another 10 days from the date of the 5th Circuit's order. That may disappoint some who want instant gratification, but the Circuit Court is covering its bases, taking care to avoid giving BATFE any grounds to claim the 5th Circuit isn't impartial. That puts it into the first week of August. From the order's wording, it looks bleak for BATFE winning much out of the 5th Circuit.

For the Latin challenged, "sua sponte" means the court is doing it on its own volition, not as the result of a motion, or portion of one made by any of the parties.

 

[BiscuitsandGravy]

 

[JAL]

Breaking News:

BATFE makes interlocutory appeal to SCOTUS to stay District Court Decision after 5th Circuit Court refused to stay said District Court decision. This is much different from a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case and render a decision. It would be highly unusual for SCOTUS to step into the middle of a civil case like this that's ongoing in the 5th Circuit. It has been handed off to Justice Samuel Alito for his consideration and action. He covers emergency appeals coming out of the 5th Circuit. I wouldn't expect much from him that would be favorable to what BATFE is requesting. Of course, BATFE could continue to weasel around with SCOTUS attempting to get one of the three activist justices to do something, but I don't believe that would succeed. SCOTUS doesn't drop everything to consider appeals like this, but will act quickly . . . likely in a week to ten days . . . with response from Justice Alito.

Appeal on SCOTUS' Docket:
(trigger warning: it's a PDF)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A82/273123/20230727162524236_VanDerStok%20Stay%20Application%20vf.pdf

SCOTUS Web Page for this Docket Number on which all action will be recorded:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a82.html#

Mark W. Smith's YouTube video discussing BATFE's interlocutory appeal:

 

[JAL]

Justice Alito Issues Temporary Stay on District Court Decision:

Jul 28 2023
Order issued by Justice Alito: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the June 30, 2023 order and July 5, 2023 final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 4:22-cv-691, are hereby administratively stayed until 5 p.m. (EDT) on Friday, August 4, 2023. It is further ordered that any response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, August 2, 2023, by 5 p.m. (EDT).

FPC and the other parties have until next Wednesday to respond to BATFE's emergency stay application. Expect Alito's ruling on a permanent stay to be published in a week. This reeks of Kbuki Theater for Administration Talking Points about how evil SCOTUS is, demanding voting in a Congress that will disarm the country for them.

 

[tmschuller]

I find Armed Scolar’s video titles to be click-baitish and annoying, but so far only commentary I’ve found on the appeal of the Final Judgment:

He’s hard to listen to most days and yes clickbait supreme.
Have you tried watching Langley outdoors academy?? Not a plug for him but you all decide.. lots of options out there for the same info

 

[BigRed]

@JAL

Excellent updates, JAL. Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I truly appreciate them.

 

[JAL]

Don't misconstrue anything about Samuel Alito's one-week stay. It was to be expected to give time for everyone to file with him including FPC by Wednesday. Expect Alito's ruling on ATF's application for a stay sometime on Friday, Aug 4th, when his temp stay expires. Note that the 5th Circuit already had a temp stay in place to allow ATF to appeal to SCOTUS and it expires on Thursday, Aug 3rd, one day before Alito's stay expires. Everything thus far is normal procedure.

As before, I don't believe BATFE will get any traction with Justice Alito. I'd bet big he tells BATFE to come back after 5th Circuit has rendered a final decision . . . if they don't like it . . . which I predict they won't.

 

[Alamo]

I just read that SCOTUS has accepted Loper, the Chevron Deference killer. I wonder if that will affect movement of the 80%/brace/bumpstock cases?

ETA: Whoops, Looks like I miss read that, they already accepted the case back in May or so I guess. What I was actually reading is that it a buttload of amicus curaie (sp?) submissions just landed on their clerks’ desks.