In a significant victory for Second Amendment rights, a federal judge dealt a blow to the Biden administration’s gun control policy by overturning the ATF’s ban on so-called “ghost guns.” Texas-based United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF had overstepped its authority by attempting to regulate unfinished gun parts as firearms, contrary to federal law.
Judge O’Connor’s order pointed out the logical contradiction in the ATF’s argument, where they sought to classify a gun component both as a “frame or receiver” and not one at the same time. The court concluded that the government’s attempt to regulate these components exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, leading to the invalidation of the ATF’s final rule.
Pro-Second Amendment groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, hailed the ruling as a victory against the Biden administration’s attempts to impose restrictive gun control measures through federal rulemaking. They emphasized that the ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule had gone beyond the agency’s lawful authority, and the court’s decision rightly struck it down.
While gun control advocates, such as Everytown Research, lauded the Biden administration’s efforts to address “ghost guns,” pro-firearms groups argued that such measures infringed on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. They emphasized that the issue of “ghost guns” was not as widespread as claimed and that criminals, rather than legal gun owners, were the primary users of these firearms.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), which is likely to appeal the case, has not yet provided a public comment on the ruling. The ATF’s final rule on defining a “frame or receiver” was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in April, but this ruling has put its implementation on hold pending the appeal process.
In summary, this ruling represents a win for conservative proponents of Second Amendment rights, who argue for the protection of law-abiding citizens’ ability to own and bear arms without unnecessary government intrusion. It underscores the importance of adhering to the boundaries of statutory jurisdiction when regulating firearms and firearm components.
