Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
California and the Giffords Law Center just hit a major roadblock in their effort to force the ATF into regulating more unfinished firearm receivers.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California and Giffords lacked standing to bring their lawsuit. The judges sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.
In plain English, the plaintiffs failed to show that the part of the ATF rule they challenged actually caused the harm they claimed.
The case centered on the ATF’s 2022 “Frame or Receiver” Final Rule. That rule expanded federal firearm regulations to cover certain partially completed, disassembled or nonfunctional frames and receivers.
California and Giffords were not trying to strike down the entire rule. They argued that it did not go far enough.
More specifically, they challenged what the rule calls “Example 4.” That example says an early-stage AR-15 receiver billet or blank is not considered a receiver when critical interior areas have not been machined or marked and it is not sold with the instructions, jigs, templates, tools or equipment needed to readily complete it.
California and Giffords wanted federal regulations to reach further into those early stages of manufacturing.
A federal district court had previously sided with them on part of the case. It declared Example 4 unlawful, tossed it out and sent the issue back to the ATF.
The Ninth Circuit panel wiped out that decision.
SEE ALSO: Streamlight VIR Pro Review: IR Power for $248
The appeals court did not decide whether Example 4 represents good or bad gun policy. It did not settle the larger political fight over privately made firearms, either. Instead, the panel stopped at a more basic question: Did California and Giffords prove they had the legal right to bring this particular challenge?
The court said no.
California argued that the ATF’s rule forced the state to spend more money implementing its own firearm laws and training law enforcement personnel to deal with so-called “ghost guns.”
Giffords made a similar argument. The organization said the federal rule frustrated its mission and caused it to redirect money and other resources toward addressing privately made firearms and related violence.
The panel found a major hole in both arguments. Most of the evidence involved “ghost guns” generally, rather than the specific unfinished products left outside federal regulation by Example 4.
Much of the spending cited by the plaintiffs also occurred before the ATF adopted the Final Rule. That made it difficult to claim Example 4 caused those expenses.
The court noted that the limited post-rule data supplied by California did not help its case. According to the opinion, the percentage of recovered firearms classified as “ghost guns” in Los Angeles County dropped from 9% in July 2021 to between 5% and 8% per month from 2022 through January 2023.
That did not prove Example 4 was responsible for the decline. However, it certainly did not support California’s argument that the provision predictably increased the problem.
The panel concluded that the plaintiffs’ theory depended on predicting how manufacturers, sellers and potential criminals might behave in the future.
Courts require something more concrete.
SEE ALSO: ZCO ZC210 Review: The 2-10x Do-It-All Scope
“We cannot endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote for the panel, especially when the theory depends on “future unlawful conduct.”
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb welcomed the ruling.
“You can’t litigate based on speculation about possible future unlawful conduct,” Gottlieb said. He also called the gun-control movement’s focus on “ghost guns” a political “bogeyman.”
Gottlieb noted that the unanimous decision came from the Ninth Circuit, a court long viewed skeptically by many Second Amendment advocates. He also acknowledged that the case could still receive further review by a larger en banc panel.
For now, though, the lower court’s victory for California and Giffords is gone. The lawsuit must be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the door is not necessarily locked forever if the plaintiffs can establish standing in a future case.
The immediate takeaway is much simpler: California and Giffords wanted the ATF to regulate more unfinished receivers, but the Ninth Circuit found that they had not presented enough concrete evidence showing that the existing rule caused their claimed injuries.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.