enforcing<\/em>\u00a0them.<\/p>\nThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided just that last November, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter. In the ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.<\/p>\n
\u201cATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to \u2018do something\u2019 with respect to gun control,\u201d Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion. \u201cBut it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Engelhardt further wrote that the Final Rule \u201cflouts clear statutory text\u201d and \u201cexceeds the legislatively imposed limits\u201d on agency authority.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature\u2019s will,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cUnless and until Congress acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text\u2019s existing limits.\u201d<\/p>\n
The lawsuit was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of itself, two individual FPC members and Tactical Machining LLC.\u00a0In a brief filed by the FPC in June, the organization spelled out exactly what the court needs to consider.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe questions presented are: 1. Whether \u2018a 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,\u2019 is a \u2018firearm\u2019 regulated by the Act,\u201d the brief stated. \u201c2. Whether \u2018a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver\u2019 that is \u2018designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,\u2019 is a \u2018frame or receiver\u2019 regulated by the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case involving so-called \u201cghost guns\u201d on Tuesday. The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, challenges the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including \u201cfirearm,\u201d \u201creceiver\u201d and \u201cframe,\u201d making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3844,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3995","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3995\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![<\/a><\/div>\nThe U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case involving so-called \u201cghost guns\u201d on Tuesday.<\/p>\nThe case, Garland v. VanDerStok<\/a>, challenges the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including \u201cfirearm,\u201d \u201creceiver\u201d and \u201cframe,\u201d making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.<\/p>\nAt issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and overstepping their bounds by\u00a0making<\/em>\u00a0laws instead of\u00a0enforcing<\/em>\u00a0them.<\/p>\nThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided just that last November, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter. In the ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.<\/p>\n\u201cATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to \u2018do something\u2019 with respect to gun control,\u201d Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion. \u201cBut it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.\u201d<\/p>\nJudge Engelhardt further wrote that the Final Rule \u201cflouts clear statutory text\u201d and \u201cexceeds the legislatively imposed limits\u201d on agency authority.<\/p>\n\u201cBecause Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature\u2019s will,\u201d the judge wrote. \u201cUnless and until Congress acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text\u2019s existing limits.\u201d<\/p>\nThe lawsuit was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of itself, two individual FPC members and Tactical Machining LLC.\u00a0In a brief filed by the FPC in June, the organization spelled out exactly what the court needs to consider.<\/p>\n\u201cThe questions presented are: 1. Whether \u2018a 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,\u2019 is a \u2018firearm\u2019 regulated by the Act,\u201d the brief stated. \u201c2. Whether \u2018a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver\u2019 that is \u2018designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,\u2019 is a \u2018frame or receiver\u2019 regulated by the Act.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case involving so-called \u201cghost guns\u201d on Tuesday. The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, challenges the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including \u201cfirearm,\u201d \u201creceiver\u201d and \u201cframe,\u201d making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3844,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3995","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-reviews"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3995","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3995"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3995\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/3844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gunsandpride.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/07\/Spectre-Polymer80-Compact-Textured_Tactical20Grey-03-1.jpg\"){kind=link}