Washington Gun Law

Firearms Policy Coalition Challenges ATF's Rule on Frames and Receivers

Video Highlights

  • Firearms Policy Coalition successfully challenged ATF's rule on frames and receivers
  • United States government requests a stay of the ruling
  • Government claims irreparable harm due to the need for retraining
  • Plaintiffs argue that they can still purchase regulated products under new rules
  • Government seeks immediate review in the fifth circuit if stay is denied

Video Summary

In a significant victory for gun rights advocates, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has successfully challenged the ATF's rule on frames and receivers in the case of vanderstock V Garland. As a result, the rule, known as 2021 r-05f, has been vacated, effectively nullifying it. However, the United States government has now requested a stay of the ruling, seeking to halt its implementation while they pursue an appeal.


To justify their request for a stay, the government must demonstrate irreparable harm and a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Surprisingly, the government claims that the harm they would suffer is the need for retraining and the potential confusion within the agency and law enforcement. They argue that the ATF has already devoted substantial resources to training and implementation of the rule, and any adjustment would require additional resources and risk confusion among their personnel.


On the other hand, the government characterizes the harm to gun owners as minimal or non-existent. They argue that the plaintiffs can still purchase regulated products as long as they comply with the new rules. Essentially, the government asserts that there is no irreparable harm to gun owners if they are required to follow an unconstitutional rule.


If the court denies the government's request for a stay, they plan to seek immediate review in the fifth circuit. This indicates that the government is seeking a timeout from the legal battle they have been facing from the Firearms Policy Coalition.


The case of vanderstock V Garland is an important one to watch for gun rights advocates. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the interpretation and enforcement of firearm regulations. Washington gun law will continue to follow the developments in this case and provide updates as they occur.


In the meantime, it is crucial for gun owners to understand the law and how it applies to them. Being a responsible gun owner means knowing and complying with the regulations in every situation. If you have any questions about this case or any other matters related to our Second Amendment rights, please do not hesitate to contact Washington gun law for more information.


Stay safe and informed, and remember to exercise your rights responsibly.