ATF/Biden "Ghost Gun" rule vacated

[Styx]

In Vanderstok v. Garland which challenged the ATF's and President Joe Biden's rule change pertaining to 80% receivers aka "ghost guns" was overturned on June 30th of last week.

Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled:

Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule… is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.

Here is a link to Judge O’Connor's ruling. Vanderstok v. Garland

I first assumed that the ruling only allied to the 5th Circuit Court jurisdiction, but it's been reported by multiple sources that the ruling was vacated nationwide. Can any lawyers explain how and why they ruling applies nationally?

 

[Jeff62]

I’m not an attorney but I’ve been sued by several.......

I understand the big picture. The judge may have meant his ruling to benefit parties not represented. All concerned parties not present, therefore secondarily, nationwide

Article III of the Constitution outlines the duties/powers of the Federal court and it doesn’t say a judge can’t intend a ruling to cover absentee parties.

Like you, I’m looking forward to a for real attorney to weigh in. It has been years since I studied seriously.

 

[JTHunter]

Here's the "Guns & Gear" podcast about this.

 

[hso]

This is just the first round of the fight.
The Fed will appeal and the next decision will see if the decision holds or if we're off the SCOTUS.

 

[Styx]

This is just the first round of the fight.
The Fed will appeal and the next decision will see if the decision holds or if we're off the SCOTUS.

I can only go by what I read on other publications. I read that the ATF would mostly first appleal to the 5th Circuit for a preliminary injunction to halt the vacatur. If granted, the ATF rule change will go back into affect. If not, it could be a while before the appeal is heard and ruled on.

 

[CapnMac]

If granted, the ATF rule change will go back into affect.

Which is what they desire most, so that their regulation "represents" status quo ante during the deliberations.

Some of the language used in the Northern District ruling, wants to suggest against that, getting a lot of consideration, though.
Snip (emphasis added):

Delay ofproceedings, on its own, is not equivalent to prejudice. And the opponents to intervention have offered no explanation about how a purported delay of proceedings would be prejudicial. Instead,the opponents have claimed prejudice due to the resulting inconvenience associated with the intervenors’ subsequent participation in the lawsuit. That is not enough. “Any potential prejudice caused by the intervention itself is irrelevant, because it would have occurred regardless of whether the intervention was timely.”

Snip (emphasis added):

Among other procedural requirements, the APA requires agencies to provide “legislative”rules (i.e., substantive regulations) for public notice and comment, id. § 553(b), and to ensure that the final version of such a rule is a “logical outgrowth” of the agency’s initial regulatory proposal.
Huawei Techs. USA, Inc. v. FCC, 2 F.4th 421, 447 (5th Cir. 2021). The APA’s arbitrary and capricious standard requires that agency action be both “reasonable and reasonably explained,” FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, 1158 (2021), meaning agencies must not “rel[y] on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider” or “entirely fail[] to consider an important aspect of the problem” when issuing regulations. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

Making it up as you go needs an extremely high standard be met. Just being a regulatory agency is not enough--as seen in EPA losing its recent case for abusing Chevron Deference.

 

[LiveLife]

This is just the first round of the fight.
The Fed will appeal and the next decision will see if the decision holds or if we're off the SCOTUS.

I read that the ATF would mostly first appleal to the 5th Circuit

And 5th Circuit just ruled 3-0 against ATF that the Final Rule is unlawful - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf’s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12754936

 

[Styx]

And 5th Circuit just ruled 3-0 that the Final Rule is unlawful - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...n-80-percent-kits.908730/page-5#post-12754936

Now it will go to a full review most likely being reinstated in the meantime. Like @hso stated, it's far from over and can still go either way once the dust is settled once and for all.

 

[LiveLife]

Now it will go to a full review most likely being reinstated in the meantime. Like @hso stated, it's far from over and can still go either way once the dust is settled once and for all.

Did you actually read the recent rulings by district/circuit courts where courts found ATF in violation of APA and Second Amendment mandated requirement of "text and history ... tradition" post Bruen? https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12677350

With courts starting to rule in line with Bruen mandate, now the burden shifts to the state/government. Sure, appeals will be filed but with 5th Circuit's rulings, writing is on the wall how the Supreme Court will rule on these ATF overreach lawsuits.

 

[Styx]

Did you actually read the recent rulings by district/circuit courts where courts found ATF in violation of APA and Second Amendment mandated requirement of "text and history ... tradition" post Bruen? https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-14#post-12677350

With courts starting to rule in line with Bruen mandate, now the burden shifts to the state/government. Sure, appeals will be filed but with 5th Circuit's rulings, writing is on the wall how the Supreme Court will rule on these ATF overreach lawsuits.

What does that have to do with what I stated. You can continue to look at things through rose colored glasses and believe the war is over because a battle is won, but that will not make it so. I've seen this time and time again even after Bruin. It's a long process that's not over and can still go either way. I'm willing to bet that it's a matter of time before the ATF rule change is put back in place while everything still works it's way through the courts. That has been the status quo before and after Bruin.

It's far from over. There will probably be a few more years of litigation on the case.

 

[LiveLife]

It's a long process that's not over and can still go either way.

I disagree. Due to APA violation and Bruen's mandate of "Text, history ... tradition" with burden shifting to government, unlike other 2A cases, these ATF overreach cases will likely end up with pro 2A rulings in the 5th Circuit and certainly at the Supreme Court.

IMHO, we have a way better chance of win than 50/50.

 

[HKGuns]

I disagree. Due to APA violation and Bruen's mandate of "Text, history ... tradition" with burden shifting to government, unlike other 2A cases, these ATF overreach cases will likely end up with pro 2A rulings in the 5th Circuit and certainly at the Supreme Court.

IMHO, we have a way better chance of win than 50/50.

I agree completely. Its more like 95%. The SCOTUS at least understands the Constitution and may be the only entity left who do.

 

[LiveLife]

I agree completely. Its more like 95%. The SCOTUS at least understands the Constitution and may be the only entity left who do.

Yes.

When these frame or receiver/"ghost gun" cases were filed, I wondered why they primarily focused on APA violation instead of 2A but as I learned about APA, key to winning these cases hinged on whether ATF or an executive branch agency went beyond authority delegated by Congress, which ATF clearly did as told by Congress when ATF director was grilled during pistol brace/80 percent hearings:

• VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule)
• Morehouse/GOA/GOF v Garland (ATF redefinition of firearm)
• Division 80 v Garland (Biden "ghost gun" kits)

With courts ruling (Latest 5th Circuit is 3-0 ruling) that ATF indeed unlawfully went beyond authority delegated by Congress and courts adding the Bruen mandate of "Text and history ... tradition", it is becoming more and more challenging for ATF to make their case as they cannot undo what was done in violating APA and as well demonstrated by CA lawyers for Duncan/Miller when they could not produce historical analogue, ATF won't be able to produce historical analogue because such "modern" types of arms did not exist in colonial times.

My sentiment is VanDerStok case ruling at 5th Circuit could now be referenced by other district/circuit courts as these cases have distinction of APA violation that other 2A cases do not have.

That's why I am more hopeful about outcome of these ATF cases.

 

[HKGuns]

Yes.

When these frame or receiver/"ghost gun" cases were filed, I wondered why they primarily focused on APA violation instead of 2A but as I learned about APA, key to winning these cases hinged on whether ATF or an executive branch agency went beyond authority delegated by Congress, which ATF clearly did as told by Congress when ATF director was grilled during pistol brace/80 percent hearings:

• VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule)
• Morehouse/GOA/GOF v Garland (ATF redefinition of firearm)
• Division 80 v Garland (Biden "ghost gun" kits)

With courts ruling (Latest 5th Circuit is 3-0 ruling) that ATF indeed unlawfully went beyond authority delegated by Congress and courts adding the Bruen mandate of "Text and history ... tradition", it is becoming more and more challenging for ATF to make their case as they cannot undo what was done in violating APA and as well demonstrated by CA lawyers for Duncan/Miller when they could not produce historical analogue, ATF won't be able to produce historical analogue because such "modern" types of arms did not exist in colonial times.

My sentiment is VanDerStok case ruling at 5th Circuit could now be referenced by other district/circuit courts as these cases have distinction of APA violation that other 2A cases do not have.

That's why I am more hopeful about outcome of these ATF cases.

I'll take it a step further, the SCOTUS rulings also make the actual AWB ban "laws" unconstitutional as well. To the extent I no longer worry much about such things.

 

[Styx]

I disagree. Due to APA violation and Bruen's mandate of "Text, history ... tradition" with burden shifting to government, unlike other 2A cases, these ATF overreach cases will likely end up with pro 2A rulings in the 5th Circuit and certainly at the Supreme Court.

IMHO, we have a way better chance of win than 50/50.

You can disagree all you want to and have your own personal take, but your take is irrelevant. What's relevant is how judges rule on the case which could go either way depending on which judge(s) the case is in front of going forward. It may very well end in our favor when it's all said and done, but there is still a long road ahead.

 

[lilguy]

This^^^
I'm in illinois and have seen 180 degree swings from court to court over single issues. I’m under no delusion that my gun rights will be restored by court order.
I plan complying to all laws and hope for the best.

 

[kje54]

Yes.

When these frame or receiver/"ghost gun" cases were filed, I wondered why they primarily focused on APA violation instead of 2A but as I learned about APA, key to winning these cases hinged on whether ATF or an executive branch agency went beyond authority delegated by Congress, which ATF clearly did as told by Congress when ATF director was grilled during pistol brace/80 percent hearings:

• VanDerStok v. Garland (ATF frame or receiver rule)
• Morehouse/GOA/GOF v Garland (ATF redefinition of firearm)
• Division 80 v Garland (Biden "ghost gun" kits)

With courts ruling (Latest 5th Circuit is 3-0 ruling) that ATF indeed unlawfully went beyond authority delegated by Congress and courts adding the Bruen mandate of "Text and history ... tradition", it is becoming more and more challenging for ATF to make their case as they cannot undo what was done in violating APA and as well demonstrated by CA lawyers for Duncan/Miller when they could not produce historical analogue, ATF won't be able to produce historical analogue because such "modern" types of arms did not exist in colonial times.

My sentiment is VanDerStok case ruling at 5th Circuit could now be referenced by other district/circuit courts as these cases have distinction of APA violation that other 2A cases do not have.

That's why I am more hopeful about outcome of these ATF cases.

Based on what I'm seeing today the AFT's frame and receiver rule has been struck through the heart with a wooden stake. It's dead.