The State of California sued the ATF over it's "frames and receivers" rule and the judge sided with California. This has a lot of people confused. Why would the state challenge the rule since its in alignment with their ideals? Well, it's because California doesn't believe they went far enough.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got one that's going to make you shake your head in disbelief. There are a lot of people that are confused here, but I'm sure even by the title, you're wondering what the hell is going on. Well, it's true. California and Gords sued the ATF over their frame and receiver Rule, and you're probably asking yourself why would they do that? What the ATF has done is pretty much in perfect alignment with what California and Gords wants, so what's going on here? Well, today I want to try and clear up some of that because the judge has just issued an order in this case, and it's got a lot of people asking what's going on. So let's talk about it.

Now, real quick before we get started, if you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button. We're really trying to get this Pro-Constitution message out there, and when you hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification, it really helps us do that. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us out a lot. So in advance, I just want to say thank you for subscribing. Okay, so let's go and talk about the state of California vs. ATF.

Now, this can seem very confusing because on the surface, it just looks like the state of California is challenging the ATF on the frame and receiver Rule and on the APA (Administrative Procedures Act). People are wondering why would they do that because again, it seems like the state of California and the ATF are in pretty much perfect alignment here, so why would there be any type of challenge at all? Well, I'm sure you guys know by now what the frame and receiver rule is and what it bans. Basically, it stops people from sending out any type of kit that includes a jig or a template or anything that is milled enough to where it could be considered a frame or receiver. Right? If it's easy to convert, then the ATF basically considers it a frame or receiver. On the other hand, if it doesn't come with a jig or a template and it hasn't been milled out to a certain extent, then it's not considered a frame or receiver. And that's basically due to the fact that if it was considered a frame or receiver, that means that they could basically ban blocks of aluminum or chunks of plastic that haven't been converted at all. So again, there had to be some type of way to consider whether something is a frame or receiver or not, and that's where California comes in.

So, let's just take a quick look at this case and what they're saying here. Now, I should mention real quick that both parties, the state of California and the ATF, asked the judge for a summary judgment, and the judge actually granted both sides summary judgment in part. So we'll talk a little bit more about that too, but let's first get into why California is even attempting to challenge the ATF.

Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to read directly from the judge's order, and this perfectly explains why California has challenged and essentially won its case against the ATF. So it says right here:

"The final rule also gives examples of what is and what is not a frame or receiver. Example one to paragraph C: 'frame or receiver: a frame or receiver parts kit containing partially completed disassembled Billet or blank of a frame or receiver that is sold distributed or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame receiver.' Now that was example one. If we move down to example four to paragraph C: 'not a receiver: a Billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed machined or formed that is not sold distributed or possessed with instructions jigs templates equipment or tools such that it may be readily completed is not a receiver.' Just below that is where the judge basically says that it's example number four to paragraph C that this entire lawsuit is about, where it says: 'as reflected by the party's briefs, the party's current dispute essentially boils down to example four and related determinations.'"

So basically, what it comes down to—and this is the easiest explanation possible—is that California actually sued the ATF to tell them that they didn't go far enough when it comes to example four of paragraph C. What is considered not a frame or receiver? California does not like that example. They believe that those things should still be considered frames or receivers and basically sued the ATF to have that part changed, to have that example changed. California wants a chunk of metal or a chunk of plastic on its own to be considered a frame or receiver, and so that's basically what this whole thing boils down to. They're telling the ATF, "Hey, you guys impose some gun control, that's great, we like that, but you didn't impose enough gun control. So, we're going to sue you." Now, like I said in the beginning, the judge actually granted a summary judgment really for both parties. So, they granted in part, denied in part for the plaintiffs, granted in part and denied in part for the defendants in this case. So, the plaintiffs in this case are going to be the state of California. So let's go and read what the judge's decision on this was because this could have a drastic impact on the ATF's final rule or what is supposed to be their final rule and what they're going to have to do about it.

So, it says here in conclusion:

"For the foregoing reason, the court hereby grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. The court rejects plaintiff's challenge to ATF's use of the8 in measurement with respect to the Fire Control cavity. However, the court agrees with the plaintiffs that ATF's actions related to example four are arbitrary and capricious in failing to take into account all eight factors related to the term readily assessment, in particular time, and failing to address the impact of easily availability of jigs, tools, and sources other than from the seller distributor of the incomplete receiver. The court therefore declares one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions to be unlawful and enjoins defendants from enforcing them, vacates one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions, and remands to ATF for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion."

So basically what the judge said there is that yes, he is going to grant and deny in part for both parties, but specifically for the State of California, he has declared that that example four is unlawful. So where the ATF says that these are not considered frames or receivers because they don't come with all these different things, the judge says that that now is unlawful. So he enjoined that, that is no longer enforceable by the ATF, and basically that means that as of right now, there is no example of what is not considered one of those parts. There's no example. Example four has been deemed unlawful by this judge, and so he remanded that back to the ATF to basically redo example four of what is not considered. So now, the ATF, at least if this stands, and I'm sure the ATF will appeal it, but if this stands, the ATF is going to have to rewrite that part of what is not considered. That's basically what is at hand here.

The state of California and the agency both won, but the state of California won the biggest. They basically forced the ATF to come up with even more gun control. It's hard to fathom that the ATF would come out with this final rule, and somebody out there said, "Hey, look, that's not enough, you haven't gone far enough, we're going to challenge you to make it even worse." But that's what you get out of California. That's what you get out of these politicians who have basically looked at every portion of what they're doing and said, "We can make it worse." People of the State of California, the politicians of the State of California, we think that it should be worse, and that's what we want you to do. And unfortunately, the judges in that state were on their side and said the same thing and said, "Hey, make it worse." And so they're forcing the ATF to do just that.

So anyway, I wanted to share that with you, try to clear up some of the confusion. It's all about what's not considered in this case. This is a doozy, let me tell you. And what the ATF's going to do from here, I'm not sure, but we're going to stay on top of it. Again, this is California vs. ATF. Thank you very much for watching, I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.