- A federal court has ruled that the ATF's rule on frames and receivers is invalid and exceeds their authority.
- The case, Vanderstock V Garland, was decided by a Texas Federal District Court judge.
- The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacated the frames and receivers rule nationwide.
- The ATF has received a temporary administrative stay to request a stay from the fifth circuit and seek an appeal.
- Plaintiffs have filed emergency motions for injunctions pending the appeal.
- Judge O'Connor granted a preliminary injunction against the ATF prior to the summary judgment ruling.
- The ATF requested a stay of the judgment, but Judge O'Connor denied the request.
- Plaintiffs are arguing that the prior injunctions should remain in effect during the appeal.
- The battle over the frames and receivers rule is ongoing.
The ATF's rule on frames and receivers has been struck down as invalid and beyond the ATF's authority in a recent federal court ruling. The case, Vanderstock V Garland, was decided by a Texas Federal District Court judge, Judge Reed O'Connor. The plaintiffs in the case, represented by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), sought a motion for summary judgment against the ATF and their new rule on frames and receivers that went into effect last August. Judge O'Connor ruled that the frames and receivers rule is invalid and exceeds the ATF's authority, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacating the rule nationwide.
This ruling was a major win for the plaintiffs, as it struck down the ATF's frames and receivers rule nationwide. However, the ATF is not willing to accept this loss. They have recently received a temporary administrative stay from the court, allowing them to request a stay from the fifth circuit and seek an appeal.
In response to the court's decision to vacate the frames and receivers rule, the plaintiffs have fired back with their own motions. Defense Distributed, one of the plaintiffs, along with SAF and GSD Supply, have filed for emergency motions for injunctions pending the appeal. These motions seek clarification from the court on whether the prior preliminary injunctions issued by Judge O'Connor remain in effect during the appeal. The plaintiffs argue that the preliminary injunctions should kick back in and protect them during the appeal, ensuring that they are not put in a worse position than before the summary judgment ruling.
The battle over the frames and receivers rule is ongoing, with the ATF seeking to stay the judgment and the plaintiffs fighting to ensure that the preliminary injunctions remain in effect. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the regulation of firearms components and related products. Stay tuned for updates on this dynamic situation and don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe to support the channel and help spread the word about this important issue.