<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The case of Garland v. VanDerStok<\/em> has caught national attention as several states are stepping up to challenge the ATF\u2019s recent attempts to regulate gun parts kits and unfinished frames as firearms. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a brief<\/a> filed by 27 state attorneys general, including West Virginia and Montana, the states argue that the ATF is once again overreaching its statutory authority by expanding the Gun Control Act\u2019s (GCA) definition of \u201cfirearm\u201d to include parts kits and incomplete frames. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The states are urging the Supreme Court to rein in the ATF, arguing that such a move infringes on 2A rights and ignores the original intent of Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This isn\u2019t the first time the ATF has tried to push the boundaries of its rule-making authority, and the states make that clear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n They point to past actions where the ATF has stretched the meaning of laws to fit political agendas\u2014like classifying bump stocks<\/a> as machine guns and regulating stabilizing braces<\/a> as short-barreled rifles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Both of these moves have already faced heavy legal challenges, with courts striking down or questioning the ATF\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\nATF\u2019s Pattern of Overreach<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n