The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has taken a bold stand against the Biden administration’s attempt to redefine firearm regulations in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland. The controversy centers around the government’s move to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms,” a decision that SAF believes goes beyond the established statutory boundaries. In response to this, SAF recently filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay on the case and seeking to challenge the administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm.

Background of VanDerStok v. Garland:

Last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule that SAF had previously challenged successfully. The case revolves around SAF’s assertion that the Biden administration’s expanded definition of a firearm violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act.

SAF’s Legal Strategy:

SAF, led by its attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, is arguing that the administration’s attempt to redefine the term “firearm” constitutes an unlawful power grab, as it aims to bypass Congress and create a new definition without any Congressional action. The organization firmly believes that the district court was correct in holding the new “firearm” definition as illegal and in violation of established laws. In its opposition brief, SAF requests that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari, allowing the court to review and rule on the legality of the administration’s new definition.

“We’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries. 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” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF Founder, and Executive Vice President.

Adam Kraut, SAF Executive Director also stated, “The Biden administration’s new definition is in direct contradiction to the 1968 Gun Control Act, and they know it. The administration is attempting to literally redefine 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.”

Controversy Surrounding District Judge Nationwide Injunction:

It appears that this development has placed SAF in the position of supporting the concept of a district judge issuing a nationwide injunction. This is a controversial legal issue, considering that a significant proportion of district judges are considered Progressive, leading to concerns about concentrating too much power in their hands. However, it is anticipated that SAF, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition and Mountain States Legal Foundation, will eventually petition the Supreme Court to resolve this contentious matter.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s opposition to the Biden administration’s new definition of “firearm” is rooted in its commitment to preserving the integrity of the 1968 Gun Control Act and protecting the Second Amendment rights of American citizens. As the case of VanDerStok v. Garland progresses, it remains to be seen how the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly Associate Justice Samuel Alito, will approach and rule on this significant legal challenge. Ultimately, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for firearm regulations and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.

Keep an eye on this.

*****

Michael Infanzon is a political and government policy contributor at The Prickly Pear.

 Michael writes about government policies that affect millions of Americans, from their introduction in the legislature to their implementation and how policies impact our everyday freedoms.

 Michael is the Managing Partner for EPIC Policy Group, located in Phoenix, AZ. EPIC has clients ranging from motorcycle rights organizations, firearms organizations, 2A rights organizations, veterans advocacy, chambers of commerce to agricultural products and personal freedoms among other policy issues.

 You can follow Michael on Twitter (@infanzon) and email him at minfanzon@epicpolicygroup.com.