August 2, 2023
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay in its case challenging the government’s attempt to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms.”
The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, and last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule which SAF successfully challenged. SAF has intervened in the case.
“With our attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, we’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly.”
SAF maintains the district court acted properly when it held the administration’s new “firearm” definition in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF contends in its opposition brief that while no stay should occur, the high court should grant certiorari so the court may deem the new definition to be illegal.
“The Biden administration’s new definition is in direct contradiction to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and they know it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The administration is attempting to literally re-define what constitutes a firearm. We contend that District Judge Reed O’Connor’s summary judgment in this case was spot-on, and we are hopeful Justice Alito will understand and concur with our position.”
SAF notes that the administration wants to re-define what constitutes a firearm, without any Congressional action. If allowed to go forward, it would create a situation where the White House can make law and simply bypass Congress.
“This kind of a power grab simply cannot be allowed,” Gottlieb said.