BREAKING: FPC Condemns Proposed ATF Rule As Unlawful Attack on Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[Charlie T Waite]

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 7, 2021) — Today, the Department of Justice officially released a notice of proposed rulemaking announcing a new ATF rule which would, among other attacks on firearm owners, builders, and dealers, redefine the terms “receiver” and “frame.” FPC previously issued a statement regarding a leaked, draft version of the new rule in mid-April. The full text of the new rule can be found here.

According to the Department of Justice, the new rule was constructed to close a so-called “regulatory loophole associated with . . . un-serialized privately made firearms.” After an initial review of the finalized notice of proposed rulemaking, FPC Law noted that Proposed Rule 2021R-05 will severely infringe upon the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, as well as give the ATF new powers beyond the law enacted by Congress, particularly with respect to self-built firearms.

The FPC Law team is currently conducting an in-depth analysis of the final proposed Rule for both regulatory and pre-litigation purposes. FPC strongly condemns the ATF’s proposed new rule, and is committed to mounting an aggressive legal, regulatory, and grassroots response. As was the case when the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice entered into rulemaking to declare that bump-stocks were machine guns, FPC will use every available resource to defend the People’s human right to keep and bear arms. We stand ready to defend the People and human liberty in the rulemaking process and beyond.

Further information and analysis will be made available at FPCLaw.org.

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

• A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
• A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
• A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones) 
• A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
• A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
• A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
• A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
• A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
• Challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Calif. Att’y General) 
• A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
• A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)