As some background, from the NRA:
During the Biden-Harris administration, ATF, relying on its rule-making authority (“to make rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out” the GCA), expanded upon the terms “firearm” and “frame or receiver” to sweep in new classes of partially complete and nonfunctional frames or receivers and parts kits that contained such items.
The new Rule’s definition of a “firearm” includes “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. In deciding whether a kit “may readily be converted” into a working gun, ATF will consider several factors, including the time, ease, expertise, and equipment required to complete a weapon, as well as the availability of other necessary parts. Likewise, the expanded definition of “frame or receiver” covers “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver;” 27 C.F.R. § 478.12. While that definition does not apply until an object has “reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon,” and excludes an “unformed block of metal” or liquid polymer, the Rule otherwise allows the ATF Director to consider extrinsic factors when determining whether an object is a “frame or receiver.”
The ATF explained the purpose behind the rule:
Technological advances, the agency claimed, made it easier for companies to sell such items to unlicensed persons “without maintaining any records or conducting a background check,” leading (so the argument went) to a proliferation of so-called “ghost guns” and “difficult[y] for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured, and to whom they were sold or otherwise transferred.”
In other words, the purpose of the rule was to better allow surveillance of the populace and allow for law enforcement to have a data base they could consult when they encountered home manufactured weapons.
The challenge over the Rule want all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the majority sided with the ATF. And for those hoping that the Trump administration will get rid of the Rule, don't hold your breath. The Firearms Policy Coalition explains:
On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” It sounded promising, but it has since proven to be little more than empty rhetoric.
The following month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision upholding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” rule, a relic of the Biden Administration. Rather than dismissing the appeal or withdrawing the Biden ATF regulation before the Court ruled, the Trump Administration chose to continue defending the gun control rule, allowing the Court to issue a decision that preserved President Biden’s regulatory overreach.
In May 2025, FPC provided the Trump White House, DOJ, and ATF with a complete, print-ready proposed rule to address the Court’s decision following months of dialogue with key officials. But the Administration has since sat on its hands.
Adding insult to injury, the Administration informed us yesterday that “At this time, the [Trump Administration] has decided to maintain the current definition of firearm ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ contained in that final [Biden Administration] rule.”
Whoever is steering the Trump Administration is aiming the Titanic directly at the iceberg.
To put this latest disappointment in context, FPC has provided the Trump Administration, the White House, DOJ, and ATF, with dozens of lawful actions that could be taken to protect peaceable gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. Nearly all of those proposals have been ignored.
Instead, in case after case, the Trump Administration has adopted authoritarian, anti-American positions to restrict Second Amendment rights and prosecute those who exercise them. Worse still, the Administration is actively fighting to restrict or eliminate the injunctive relief that FPC and other organizations obtain to protect people from government abuses.
The primary point to keep in mind is that these laws are intended to protect the government and its power, not the people. Thus, such as in this instance, where there is a tension between surveillance and gathering information about the public versus protecting civil rights, the the surveillance and government databases will almost always win.
That same primary point--protecting the government--applies to other firearms laws. The NFA was passed in order to protect the government against a population that had grown restive in those early years of the Great Depression. Its purpose was to restrict the population from possessing arms that would give it a fighting chance against a military force (i.e., destructive devices and automatic weapons) or assassinate public figures (which at that time were almost always carried out using concealable weapons). It was for that reason that the original bill for the NFA also included handguns in addition to short barreled rifles and shotguns. And it is why the feds will always fight tooth and nail against loosening the restrictions under the NFA while also going after things that would emulate a prohibited weapon.
Pffft.
ReplyDelete