FPC Tells ATF to Withdraw “Unconstitutional” Firearm Rule


WASHINGTON, DC (August 19, 2021) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of the organization’s official comment in opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) Proposed Rule 2021R-05, “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms.” FPC’s opposition brief can be found at FPCLegal.org.

“From the very beginning of this assault on gun owners, FPC has aggressively engaged its members, supporters, and the general public to participate in the rulemaking process. Today, FPC Law filed a comment in opposition to the ATF’s unlawful and unconstitutional Proposed Rule, which clearly shows why the government must not proceed with this outrageous executive abuse,” said FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations, Adam Kraut. “Should ATF refuse to abandon this assault on gun owners and the law, FPC stands ready and willing to take further legal action to defend the rights of our members, supporters, and the People. If President Biden wants a fight, he’ll get one from us.”

FPC’s arguments begin by highlighting how the Proposed Rule exceeds the statutes and authority delegated to the ATF, effectively expanding criminal law far beyond that enacted by Congress. Moreover, the comment explains, if “eight words of the [Gun Control Act]—‘the frame or receiver of any such weapon’—cannot be understood without cross-references to other areas of the law and a range of its own vague sub-definitions, then the statute itself would be void for vagueness.”

“With respect to privately made firearms,” the brief says, “ATF has no authority under the GCA or NFA to require the serialization of PMFs, much less to compel FFLs to modify the lawfully owned private property of their customers.”

In addition, FPC’s comment points out ATF’s “reliance on palpably false claims” underlying the Biden administration’s attempt to unlawfully expand the GCA, and notes that the agency “declined to make public any necessary supporting documents.” Thus, FPC argued, a “rulemaking based on patently false information is arbitrary and capricious.”

FPC’s brief further argues that the agency improperly denied the public the opportunity to submit comments anonymously, and because of that, “we have no way of knowing what information would have been presented [in opposition to the Proposed Rule] absent the speech restriction.”

Ultimately, FPC said, the “Proposed Rule is inconsistent with the relevant statutory language, makes no principled distinction between precursor materials and manufactured frames or receivers, was adopted in a procedurally improper fashion, and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can submit their own comment before August 19, 2021 at 11:59 pm EDT at FightATF.com, and become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
  • A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
  • A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
  • A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
  • A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
  • A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
  • A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones
  • A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
  • A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.





Source link

Author: Joey Webster

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *