Key Takeaways
- The Second Amendment Foundation has filed motions for summary judgment against the ATF’s frame and receiver rule and NFA registration requirements.
- The first motion challenges an ATF rule that broadens the definition of ‘firearm’ to include non-functional parts, affecting self-manufacturing rights.
- The second motion contests the NFA’s registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers, arguing the constitutional basis for these rules no longer exists.
- SAF believes this is a crucial moment to end what they see as a violation of Second Amendment rights regarding firearm ownership.
- The ongoing litigation aims to streamline lawful gun ownership and push back against federal overreach.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
The Second Amendment Foundation filed motions for summary judgment in two major federal lawsuits, advancing challenges to the ATF’s frame and receiver rule and to remaining National Firearms Act registration requirements for silencers and short-barreled firearms.
The first motion was filed in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, formerly known as VanDerStok v. Bondi. SAF and Defense Distributed are challenging an ATF Final Rule published in April 2022 that expanded the regulatory definition of “firearm” to cover certain precursor parts.
The Biden-era rule was promoted as a measure to address so-called “ghost guns.” In practice, it swept in non-functional objects that the agency redefined as firearms, contradicting the definition Congress set in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
“This rule was one of the primary attacks by the Biden Administration on the ability of peaceable citizens to acquire arms,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. He said self-manufacturing firearms for personal use is a long-standing tradition that remains entirely legal under federal law, and that the rule was written to make that practice so legally confusing as to dissuade Americans from exercising their rights.
SAF intervened in the case in December 2022, when it was filed in the Northern District of Texas as VanDerStok v. Garland. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later vacated significant portions of the rule. The Biden Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled on only a portion of the lawsuit. The new motion seeks vindication on the remaining claims.
“We would love for the current administration to pre-emptively rescind the Biden era rule and fix the problems it creates,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. He said the rule has major legal infirmities that need to be aired out in court if it is going to be left in place as written.
More from USA Carry:
The second motion was filed in Roberts v. ATF, one of three SAF-supported lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the NFA’s registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The NFA had imposed a $200 tax and registration scheme on those firearms, drawing on Congress’s taxing authority. President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which eliminated the $200 tax on those arms. SAF and its partners argue that without the tax, the registration regime no longer rests on a valid constitutional basis.
“As we’ve stated in each of our three National Firearms Act challenges, Congress lacks the authority to continue requiring the registration of protected arms under the NFA,” Sack said. He said the court has everything it needs to put the case to bed and end the infringement.
SAF is a named plaintiff in Brown v. ATF and is also backing Jensen v. ATF and this case, Roberts v. ATF. The named plaintiffs in Roberts include Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Center for Human Liberty, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Meridian Ordnance, and two private citizens.
“We have the best opportunity in almost a century to end the registration scheme for silencers and short-barreled rifles under the NFA,” Gottlieb said. He called the current moment a once-in-a-lifetime chance to lift what SAF views as a long-standing Second Amendment infringement.
Both filings speak to the same principle. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right, and pressure on the ATF’s frame rule and on NFA registration directly affects how lawful gun owners exercise that right. Building a firearm at home is a tradition Americans have practiced since before the founding, and owning a suppressor or short-barreled rifle is conduct squarely within the scope of the Second Amendment. Litigation that pares back federal overreach in either area moves lawful firearm ownership closer to its proper constitutional footing.
For more information, visit SAF.org.
