MNGunTalk.com

On Friday, September 2, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction to Tactical Machining, one of the plaintiffs represented by CKBA in the VanDerStok case. The order blocks the ATF and the Department of Justice from enforcing against Tactical Machining a new set of regulations that unlawfully redefine the term “firearm.”

We were thrilled to read these words from the District Court’s Opinion and Order: “Covered by the injunction, Tactical Machining can operate its business as it has, free from the threat of enforcement of the Final Rule’s unlawful redefinitions.”

Contrary to the text of the Gun Control Act, the ATF’s new rule improperly defines a range of inert objects as “firearms.” With this effort to rewrite the law, the DOJ and ATF are exceeding their authority, and causing unprecedented difficulties for those involved in the lawful self-manufacture of firearms for personal use.

III. ANALYSIS
A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Plaintiffs must first show a substantial likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their claims. Daniels Health Servs., 710 F.3d at 582. “To show a likelihood of success, the plaintiff must present a prima facie case, but need not prove that he is entitled to summary judgment.” Id. Plaintiffs have shown a strong likelihood that they will succeed on the merits of their claims that ATF’s new definitions are inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.

1. The Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the plain language of the Gun Control Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). Plaintiffs argue the Final Rule exceeds ATF’s statutory authority under the Gun Control Act in two ways. First, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule expands ATF’s authority over parts that may be “readily converted” into frames or receivers, when Congress limited ATF’s authority to “frames or receivers” as such. Second, Plaintiffs argue that the Final Rule unlawfully treats weapon parts kits as firearms. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on both claims.

a. Parts that may become receivers are not receivers.

[...]

b. A weapon parts kit is not a firearm.

[...]