09-04-2022, 10:01 PM
I read the judge's ruling. He states (as part of determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction) that the plaintiffs have a prima facie case on the illegality of ATF's attempt to redefine weapon, receiver, and frame into "parts of..." the same, they have demonstrated that they will more than likely prevail. It still has a ways to go but the track seems to favor throwing out those parts of the rule, as being illegal over reach of the ATF.
"Parts of" a thing does not constitute the thing itself. Congress explicitly chose not to do so for firearms. ATF would have no authority to regulate parts of a receiver, or frame, if this carries through to the end of the case.
He even uses the '68 GCA to refute and knock down ATF's reasoning and new re-definitions.
Using their own devices against them. How sweet.
"Parts of" a thing does not constitute the thing itself. Congress explicitly chose not to do so for firearms. ATF would have no authority to regulate parts of a receiver, or frame, if this carries through to the end of the case.
He even uses the '68 GCA to refute and knock down ATF's reasoning and new re-definitions.
Using their own devices against them. How sweet.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"