On Friday, June 30, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in VanDerStok v. Garland which Vacated ATF 2021R-05F in its entirety.  From the decision: “This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968. 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, Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24,652 (codified at 27 C.F.R. pts. 447, 478, and 479), is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.”

Notably, the decision Vacated the Final Rule without limitation.  ATF 2021R-05F had many provisions beyond the definitions of “Frame” and “Receiver.”  Addressed in the Rule:

• Identification of which silencer parts must be marked and serialized 
• Timing requirements for serialization 
• Location of Manufacturer and Importer’s markings on “new models” of firearms 
• Marking of “PMFs” by FFLs when such firearms are taken into inventory
• Licensing requirements with respect to companies engaged in providing services for firearms manufacturers (e.g., anodizing) 
• Elimination of ATF notification requirements when subcontractors perform manufacturing services for other firearms manufacturers 
• Destruction requirements 
• Records consolidation requirements 
• Permanent retention of records by dealers

We expect an ATF appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in the near future but have no estimate as of yet when that decision may be issued. Importantly, ATF has not issued any guidance, advisories or statements to what extent, if any, the court’s decision will have on the agency’s enforcement of 2021R-05F.

It is also important to note that other cases challenging 2021R-05F are pending in other Federal Courts setting up the potential for conflicting opinions.  The industry would be well-advised to monitor these cases to ensure that they are acting in line with applicable law. 

In closing we note that the Vacating of 2021R-05F has no effect on State laws that prohibit the manufacture, sale, importation, distribution, and transfer of parts kits and what are commonly referred to as “80%ers”.