Montana and West Virginia led a group of 27 states to submit an argument to the Supreme Court opposing a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives rule that redefines gun parts.
The states urged the court to rule in U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok that the ATF overstepped its authority when it redefined a gun’s “frame or receiver” to include disassembled and incomplete parts, as well as kits.
Garland signed the new rule in 2022, and VanDerStok sued him later that year, claiming the bureau exceeded its authority in creating gun regulations. A district court ruled in favor of VanDerStok, but the decision was stayed at the appellate level. The Supreme Court docketed the case in July 2023.
The states that submitted the amicus brief argued in favor of the district court’s decision, claiming the rule was an overreach.
“Some might suggest that ATF’s limits-testing approach is justified because of the stakes. And certainly, in the wrong hands, firearms can be dangerous,” the brief reads. “But short of constitutional constraints, Congress is the body that gets to decide how to address any risks that might arise from a particular product.”
The ATF can decide whether regulations need changes, but it must describe and respond to public comments when issuing the final rule, as required by the Administrative Procedure Act. The states claimed the bureau has not shown “great respect” for the law and urged the Supreme Court to consider its relevant history.
“ATF has done more than just ignore the statute’s text — it’s also played games with the notice-and-comment process, depriving commenters like the states from having the chance to speak up about the flaws in ATF’s thinking,” they wrote.
“If anything, the agency’s recent history suggests that the Court should approach this case with a skeptical eye,” the states added.
They pointed to the ATF’s efforts to clarify whether it can define guns as rifles when equipped with shoulder-stabilizing braces, as well as the bureau’s rule broadening the definition of when a person is considered a firearms dealer.
ATF has prioritized private interests ahead of its stated purpose, according to the states.
“Though some might try to excuse a bit of administrative corner-cutting because of the purported interests at stake, that kind of policy-first approach won’t work, either,” the brief reads. “The Court must remain firmly focused on what Congress commanded, not what certain political interest groups might prefer or what ATF might wish for.”
Content from The National Desk is provided by Sinclair, the parent company of FOX45 News.
