Federal Court Dismantles ATF Tyranny & Power To Regulate Frames/Receivers!!!

[John Stark]

Once the dust settles on cases dealing with unfinished frames and receivers, the permanent end of gun control will be in sight as a matter of law.

Free men who make their own Arms without a permission slip (including FedGov BGCs) puts the Second Amendment out of reach of the jackboot.


The great thing about this is that it kicks FedGov right in the nuts, and its a self inflicted wound for the jackboots. So many go along to get along types in the 2A "movement" sure do love their permission slips, which is exactly what the Fed background check is (as well as being an illegal registry of Arms). If the Feds had just left well enough alone, its likely the push back against permits of all sorts might not have been as strong as it is. The repeated threats and laws passed or proposed to ban/restrict long guns and hand guns of all sorts at both the Fed and State level have finally gotten enough of the people who didn't care about NICS off the wrong side of that fence, and gave us Heller, McDonald, Cetano, and Bruen to boot.

This is the fight every supporter of the RKBA needs to get behind, so the jackwagons who make a living Infringing our Rights find they have nothing left to do and lose their jobs.

FUATF
FUNICS
FUNY
FUKH
FUJB
FUAC

 

[Saltwater60]

Nice. I’ll watch tomorrow.

 

[Acer-m14]

ATF ..

Alcohol .. Prohibition failed .. but they can hit you for making moonshine ..

not a Right .. or could it be .. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

Tobacco ... failed .. we go shop at the reservations ..

the same .. what tobacco Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

LOL ..

and now the FIREARMS PART .. FULLY A RIGHT ..

 

[John Stark]

Another very interesting angle on citizen made weaponry is how it takes the FFLs out of the loop, sidesteps 4473, NICS, record keeping, and the entire tyrannical scheme to make everyone get a FedGov permit (NICS check and attending paperwork) by cutting out the Fed mandated gatekeepers (FFLs), assuming we can get serious traction on this.

Is there "history, text, and tradition" that shows a restriction on anyone (except felons and traitors) from making their own Arms for lawful self-defense, militia, hunting/sport, and so on? Good fucking luck finding laws on that in the Founding era. Our Founders promoted technological advancement, invention, competition, achievement, and so on, and its even enshrined in our Constitution. Not only were Arms advancements accelerating in the run up to the Revolution and during the Founding era (the British learned this the hard way), but great technological invention in the late 18th and the first half of 19th century were made in many fields of science and the arts, including weaponry, much of which was driven by inventors who were Free men and free to stretch their imagination and intellect. All of this is very well documented.

Article 1 Section 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Now of course business interests were involved, but I bet there isn't a single early (pre-Civil War) law anywhere on the books that prohibited Americans from making their own Arms. Remember, men in those days still made their own axes, knives, swords, as well as firearms. The only reason the States and the Fedcoats have the Arms they use against the People is because regular old American citizens invented them, designed them, engineered them, experimented with them, tested them, used them, and eventually sold them to both civilians and to the government!

ATF likes to do things like break up or even arrest people for having "build" parties, even among fellow enthusiasts and hobbyists who are not selling guns to one another. What is the basis for that in light of the Second Amendment and now 4 strong SCOTUS cases that have not only clearly stated that the 2A is no longer the redheaded stepchild of the Bill of Rights, but that it is in fact very broad and expansive and on par with our 1st Amendment Rights? How do bullshit ATF determinations that once said it was ok to make your own guns and suddenly whip lashed in an attempt to turn unfinished parts and home made Arms into another serialized weapon that falls under the terms of the Fed permitting scheme? There are businesses involved here who make unfinished parts who are having the entire basis of their enterprise put at risk by jackboots who can't make up their mind what is and is not "legal" according to their own extra-legal "regulations" that supposedly have the "force of law" which Congress supposedly ceded to that odious FedGov "bureau" in the first place.

The Feds cannot ban new means of printing and sharing written materials, so there is absolutely no argument with regards to the Second Amendment that new technology as it pertains to Arms is somehow not allowed for Americans. Just as the the old printing press has evovled and now even been partially superseded with the advent of digital means of "printing," writing, and sharing copy, so to has weapon technology.

So we have more than one rubric to go after this bullshit that we can't build our own weapons, or Keep and Bear them. If there is no "history, text, and tradition" of the People being barred from making their own weapons, then too bad ATF. If new tech is covered for reading and writing as a means of exercising our freedom of the "press," then that carries over to our other enumerated Rights.

For God's sake, even the Supremes were resorting to "virtual" conferences and hearings during the plandemic!

Technology and innovative advancement was CLEARLY promoted by our Founders and is enshrined in our Constitution, and if its good enough for the powers that be, its good enough for We the People.

After all, we're the ones who design, engineer, and build the goods that FedGov and State jackboots want to use to take ALL of our Rights away in the first place.

I don't recall that part in the US Constitution that allows the government to say, "technology for me, but not for thee."

Obviously this case has a long way to go, and nothing is sure yet. However, the genie is out of the bottle now, both in the legal sense because the Second Amendment has FINALLY been "incorporated" to the states under the 14th Amendment, requires strict scrutiny now, must be treated like our other fundamental rights; and because the technology cat is out of the bag!

I really hate to sound hopeful after decades of jackbooted tyranny on the Second Amendment, and I know court cases get tossed, overturned, and ignored. I'm just speaking here off the cuff as I consider the implications. Controlling the means of production is a hallmark of jackboot commie regimes, and is the lynch pin FedGov has used through the gatekeeper FFLs for decades to put the boot on the neck of the People when it comes to lawfully procuring Arms for their own self-defense. Smashing that linchpin is a game breaker, and the Fedcoats and State scum know it.

I hope the ATF assholes are choking on their fucking donuts and coffee Monday morning.

 

[spat]

ATF ..

Alcohol .. Prohibition failed .. but they can hit you for making moonshine ..

not a Right .. or could it be .. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

Tobacco ... failed .. we go shop at the reservations ..

the same .. what tobacco Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

LOL ..

and now the FIREARMS PART .. FULLY A RIGHT ..

The ATF was literally born from prohibition.

All that bureaucracy and the jack booted thugs that enforced it were never going go just go away when their reason for being ceased to exist.

They were guaranteed to find *something* to justify their existence.

That's what really makes be worried about the end of the war on drugs. It needs to end, but it won't, it'll just find a new focus.

 

[GOYABEAN]

C'mon man keep pushing that

ATF Issues Advisory on Frame/Receiver Final Rule, Warns Against Willful Violations

ATF published a public safety Advisory related to possible willful efforts to violate GCA requirements implemented by Final Rule 2021R-05F.

orchidadvisors.com

 

[FP1201]

ATF ..

Alcohol .. Prohibition failed .. but they can hit you for making moonshine ..

not a Right .. or could it be .. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

Tobacco ... failed .. we go shop at the reservations ..

the same .. what tobacco Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ?

LOL ..

and now the FIREARMS PART .. FULLY A RIGHT ..

I'm tracking... say, isn't there a big "E" on the end of batfe?

 

[Defilade]

‘All-Out War’: Biden’s Budget Would Balloon ATF Funding To Nearly $2 Billion, Up 50% From Obama Admin

President Joe Biden is seeking to beef up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) budget to $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2024.

dailycaller.com

 

[Defilade]

ATF Attempting To Dictate Policy & Law - Sheriff Mark Lamb Isn't Having It - Chad Caton [VIDEO]

Check out all of Chad Caton's content on Red Voice Media: https://redvoicemedia.com/imfiredup Real news and great shows: https://redvoicemedia.com Go

www.redvoicemedia.com

 

[Acer-m14]

 

[Acer-m14]

C'mon man keep pushing that

ATF Issues Advisory on Frame/Receiver Final Rule, Warns Against Willful Violations

ATF published a public safety Advisory related to possible willful efforts to violate GCA requirements implemented by Final Rule 2021R-05F.

orchidadvisors.com

sound like a retaliation threat to P80 and there Customers from the ATF

 

[John Stark]

Made a quick and dirty transcript of this shitshow:

Plaintiff attorney talks about how ATF is saying firearms do not have to have frames or receivers. Argues The statute that defines a firearm says its either a weapon or the frame or receiver of a weapon. Makes the point that the statute clearly states the frame or receiver is where you mark (serialize) it. Says purpose of '68 Gun Control Act move away from regulating all gun parts.

One judge said that "The statute doesn't define a frame or receiver," to which the plaintiff attorney responds, "That is correct." Same judge asks "Why doesn't ATF get some Chevron deference or something along those lines." Plaintiff points to another decision and talks about how something that is not a frame or receiver becomes one of its it can be "readily" with the idea that if it can be made into a frame or receiver, that makes its a firearm. Different judge asks, "Did you think the statute does define a firearm to include a frame or receiver?" Plaintiff says, "Section says A weapon, Section B says a frame or receiver of any weapon." Judge asks, "A frame or receiver is a weapon?" (i.e., by definition in the statute), and plaintiff responds, "Frame or receiver is a firearm, correct." Judge responds, "But a firearm is also a weapon, any weapon?" Plaintiff says, "That's correct your honor." Judge says, "Those are separate." Plaintiff says, "Separate things." Judge says, "Separate meanings of firearms." Plaintiff says, "They are." Judge says "ok." Plaintiff essentially goes on to point out that ATF has basically muddied the waters on what a frame or receiver in its recent rules and legal arguments, that ATF says definitions now apply on a case by case basis instead of as a hard and fast rubric, and ATF is saying they can't come up with a definition that covers all firearms.

Different judge says he wants to go back to the question from another judge. "The statute doesn't define a frame or receiver," @6:01; and plaintiff attorney states the ATF did define frame/receiver in 1970 that "didn't work, so they're trying to update the definition." Judge says "So they're trying to update the definition. We all agree that's ok to do that.... But you don't like that update." "Plaintiff says, "That's correct (he doesn't like the updated definition." Judge says, "Is the update so out of the bounds of rational government rule making that we should enter an injunction on a temporary basis, is that what you are saying?" Plaintiff goes on about how people sent letters in to ask if a metal water bottle could be turned into a frame or receiver, and whether, with parts added to it, that would become a firearm. Says ATF stated metal water bottle might become a firearm or even a restricted machine gun under NFA, but can't be sure. Talks about silencers again. Ends his arguments to save time for rebuttal.

Plaintiffs attorney made a monumental blunder here. He's obviously dealing with people who don't know jack about guns, who also don't seem to grasp what ATF rulings have meant for a long time. Obviously the plaintiff attorney screwed up when he agreed that the statute doesn't define a frame or receiver. Its been clearly defined for a long time. However, another judge corrected that and plaintiff (I think without realizing his first mistake in his oral argument) got back on track and stated that frames and receivers ARE defined. Ok, perhaps no harm no foul, people misspeak, and the one judge was fair to get that clarified even if it seemed the plaintiff didn't realize his mistake.

However, when it came time to talk about the definition of firearm, plaintiffs attorney screwed the pooch. Here's the money quote:

"Did you think the statute does define a firearm to include a frame or receiver?" Plaintiff says, "Section says A weapon, Section B says a frame or receiver of any weapon." Judge asks, "A frame or receiver is a weapon?" (i.e., by definition in the statute), and plaintiff responds, "Frame or receiver is a firearm, correct." Judge responds, "But a firearm is also a weapon, any weapon?" Plaintiff says, "That's correct your honor." Judge says, "Those are separate." Plaintiff says, "Separate things." Judge says, "Separate meanings of firearms." Plaintiff says, "They are." Judge says "ok."

Those are NOT separate things. You can have a barrel, a stock, sights, magazines, grips, slings, muzzle brakes, flash suppressors, and all kinds of other parts, rails, etc., and still NOT have a firearm because... there is no receiver or frame. A "firearm" only becomes a "weapon" (using the judge's imprecise lingo here) when it is completed by putting all of those parts together with a frame or receiver. Obviously a completed weapon that has all the parts including the frame or receiver falls under the definition of "firearm," because a frame or receiver IS a firearm all by themselves. No frame or receiver, and you've got maybe a barrel with a grip on it that could be used as a bludgeon. Oy!

Not stressing and enforcing that notion of "completeness" that has been the means of ATF enforcement since 1968 was a legal failure.

No one has been going to prison for having firearm parts without having a frame or receiver to actually make it a functioning gun. There may be some outlier cases where felons have copped to "constructive possession" because their lawyer sucked or because they got offered a sweet plea deal, even though they didn't have a frame or receiver. However enforcement on this bullshit has always come down to "illegally" possessing a frame or receiver (because it was unserialized or defaced, or the one in possession was a prohibited felon, or domestic abuser, or fugitive from the law) OR "illegally" possessing a completed firearm... which means parts attached to a functioning frame or receiver. No frame or receiver, no firearm.

Section A & B are separate definitions, but only because Section B describes (i.e., defines) a firearm as (merely) a frame or receiver (no other parts attached to it), while Section A essentially defines a firearm as one that is COMPLETED by the fact that the "fiream" (i.e., the frame of receiver) has other parts attached to it. Clearly the definition of a firearm depends on the presence of a frame or receiver, and has for 55 freaking years.

Further, what a "frame or receiver" is (by definition) was also designed by statute and in a technical manner, including things about how frames and receivers are able to accept a barrel, is where the action is, is the means by which they ammo is loaded into the chamber, and so on. This includes where the serialization goes.

The whole definition of a firearm at the Fed level absolutely hinges on the definition of what a receive or frame is, and essentially boils down to the mechanical parts that make the bang bang noises possible.

You can have a "firearm" with JUST a frame or receiver, but you certainly cannot have a "firearm" unless the frame or receiver is present no matter how many other parts you have. THAT distinction is the difference between enjoying you RKBA, or going to prison!

Geez! Inarticulate lawyers who are not quick on their feet suck!

ATF doesn't get to change the '68 Gun Control Act on a whim. That would require a new Act of Congress. Delegated regulatory authority ≠ lawmaking power...

Sorry for being pedantic, but I don't think I'm picking gnat shit out of pepper here.