US: Vanderstok v Garland

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    My understanding of this case is superficial and quite possibly wrog but as I have grokked it:

    The ATF Came up with a rule that basically treated unfinished gun kits like firearms, I guess with felony consequences. A couple guys (Vanderstok, Andren) in Texas plus a company that manufactures such kits (Tactical Machining), and the Firearms Policy Coalition, filed a lawsuit in August? 2022 in the federal court of northern Texas asking for an injunction against this rule.

    In September judge initially granted in part an injunction against the ATF, ruling that the ATF is authorized to regulate firearms ONLY, 80% kits are not firearms yet, so hands off, kits are not in your wheelhouse. Somewhat peculiarly he also ruled that only tactical machining showed an immediate irreparable harm, So the individuals involved were not protected by the injunction. The judge did concede that under the injunction Tactical Machining could not be prosecuted for selling a kit to an individual, but the government might be able to prosecute the individual for buying it. The judge wanted more from the individuals before he would grant an injunction.

    Later he ”clarified” the injunction to cover customers of Tactical Machining, but it does not protect prohibited persons.

    The injunction covers only Tactical Machining and its customers, and I think only in the courts local jurisdiction, not nationwide.

    Now another kit manufacturer is seeking to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff and be covered by the protection of the injunction as well. Garland/ATF is fighting this. I don’t believe the judge has decided on this yet.

    Further info (the title of the video seems a stretch, but covers the other compny that wants in, and this is what steered me to the case):


     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    The judge granted the motion of the other kit manufactuer, Blackhawk manufacturing dba 80% Arms, to join the case as a plaintiff. The new plaintiff has filed more motions seeking to be covered by the injunction granted to Tactical Machining and its customers.
     

    Karl-just-Karl

    Retired
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 5, 2014
    1,205
    113
    NE
    I ask again, if 80% is close enough to be a "firearm, gun", what about a 79% ? What about 51 or 49 percent? What about 3lbs of raw steel billet?
    On the current trajectory it will be resolved by using "intent" as the benchmark. If no agreed upon point can be defined where a block of metal can be determined to be a regulated firearm, then they will retreat to using future crime as a reason.

    For 3lbs of billet (or any machinable stock) you will need a Purchase Order including a company letterhead as well as a Tax ID number to be recorded for the purchase. At some point you might also be required to submit a set of engineering drawings to be reviewed by a governing authority for the "worthiness" of your material consumption.

    That's my dystopian view.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    As I understand latest development:

    SAF (I think) is further beating on ATFwith two hammers called Bruen and APA (Administrative procedures Act).

    I hope Bruen is known to the Ingo crowd, but the APA is the law that specifies how agencies may promulgate federal rules like, oh, I dunno, say pistol braces, 80% kits, and the like.

    The APA says that an agency must consider relevant factors and data when promulgating a new rule. This would include court decisions. The Bruen decision came out on 22 June 2022, but the rule about 80% kits was not published until 24 August… and the ATF did not consider the Bruen ruling before publishing the rule.

    SAF moved to have the judge issue a summary judgment against the 80% kit rule because it was illegally promulgated.

     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    Daniel Defense and the SAF filed for injunctions against implementation of the rule against DD and members of SAF. Judge granted injunction in favor of DD, but not SAF. Judge says DD would be irreparably harmed by having their business choked off. Judge says SAF members are not irreparably harmed because they can now buy 80% kits from DD, or one of the manufacturers that previously obtained an injunction against ATF.

    See 2 March entry here
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    Last edited:

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    Federal District Court in North Texas vacates ATF’s Final Rule.

    :)


    V. CONCLUSION

    In sum, the Court GRANTS Original Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion for Leave to Provide
    Supplemental Authority, and the Court DENIES JSD Supply’s proposed Motion for Injunction as prematurely filed. The Court GRANTS Intervenor-Plaintiffs JSD Supply’s and Polymer80’s Motions to Intervene. 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. Separate final judgment shall issue as to the appropriate parties and claims. As discussed, Polymer80 may move for summary judgment on its unique claims to the extent those remaining claims are not mooted by this decision.

    SO ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2023.
     

    Ingomike

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    28,176
    113
    North Central
    I wonder what part of " the ATF cannot make laws" do people not understand? To me, that makes the entire 80% thing null and void. No Federal law against manufacturing, selling, buying or, owning a 80% part. IT'S NOT A FIREARM.
    The problem is, no penalty for infringements of our rights. They often get years of infringements free while we peasants wait for the courts make it right…
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,161
    113
    Indiana
    I read slogged through the entire 38 page decision and opinion. The court noted Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) are plaintiffs representing their membership -- which includes their entire membership being given relief by the court vacating the rule in addition to the other named plaintiffs. The big beneficiaries are the companies making and selling the incomplete frames and lowers, and the tools/jigs encompassed by the vacatur:
    • Tactical Machining
    • Blackhawk Manufacturing (aka 80 Percent Arms)
    • Defense Distributed
    • JSD Supply
    • Polymer80
    • 80% Lowers (member of FPC Constitution Alliance)
    I predict an appeal filing with the 5th Circuit requesting a stay on the vacatur issued by the District Court. The saga will continue. In the meantime, the above companies are back in business selling to those whose states don't have state laws banning "Ghost Guns" (e.g. California, Oregon, Washington, Wash D.C., etc.). I don't expect the 5th Circuit to be very friendly to Paulus von Dettelbach in this case (an apt appellation awarded him by @Kirk Freeman) given what has already occurred with Bump Stocks and Pistol Braces. It looks to me like double envelopment with nothing to stop complete encirclement. The 5th Circuit will take it up if appealed as it doesn't have much choice, but in my humble opinion, BATFE getting a stay on the District Court's vacatur order pending appeal is extremely doubtful.

    Note:
    There may be more companies like 80% Lowers that are encompassed by FPC or SAF.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom