West Virginia and Montana led 27 states in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, urging the court to “restrain” the Biden administration’s new policy. Frame or Receiver Rules.
The states, through their attorneys general, argued that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ new rules “go too far” by essentially expanding the definition of a “firearm” to include gun parts, such as frames and receivers.
“[W]”Courts should be wary when faced with new ATF regulations that offer creative solutions to long-standing problems,” the lawsuit states, which have also been described as a “ghost gun” crackdown.
“And in this report, the amici describe some of the specific tactics the ATF has used in the past to get the results it wanted: erasing ordinary meanings, taking words out of context, ignoring comments, short-circuiting APA requirements, and turning a blind eye to the real-life consequences of its actions.”
WATCH: Lawmakers Invoke Hunter Biden and the Second Amendment to Defend Gun Control Laws
ATF agents continue to investigate a FedEx facility after an explosion occurred in Schertz, Texas on March 20, 2018. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, after submitting the report, said states must step up their response if the federal government politicizes regulations.
“If the Biden administration continues to use federal agencies to advance its political agenda, states can rest assured that they will take action to prevent these abhorrent abuses of power,” he said.
“This is yet another example of the Biden Administration using its bureaucratic arm, this time the ATF, as a law-making body rather than enforcing the laws passed by Congress.”
Morrissey, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and the other plaintiffs acknowledge in defense briefs that guns can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they say it is up to Congress to set policy and address the risks of specific products.
“Neither the ATF nor this court can enforce arbitrary policy favoritism, especially on an issue as important as this one,” added Morrissey, who is also a Republican candidate for governor running against Huntington Mayor Steven Williams.
Rubio: Obama’s gun rulings help left blur citizenship lines
Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Department of Justice on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 4, 2024. (AP/Jacqueline Martin)
Meanwhile, Knudsen added that the ATF rule is “another blatant attack on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.”
“The Biden-Harris Administration is determined to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens and is unlawfully using the ATF to do so. As Attorney General, I will continue to fight abuses of federal power and protect the rights of Montanans.”
Morrissey added in a statement that the new rules “are designed to further this Administration’s anti-Second Amendment agenda and exceed the bounds of our authority.”
Previously, federal Judge Reed O’Connor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, sided with plaintiff Jennifer Vanderstock in 2022 and issued a preliminary injunction against the rule.
The Supreme Court ultimately issued a stay of the injunction, allowing the rule to remain in effect while the litigation continues.
According to the Mountain States Legal Foundation, Vanderstock is a magazine reporter and former law enforcement officer who argued in his column that before guns were mass-produced, guns were often made by the user.
Click here to get the FOX News app
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (Patrick Smith/Getty Images)
“The right to manufacture and customize firearms allows one to decide what weapons to ‘keep and bear,'” the column argued, citing the Second Amendment.
“Our rights do not change because of changes in technology, and Americans still have a natural, constitutionally protected right to manufacture and customize their own guns,” he added.
Critics also argue that the ATF’s new rules misinterpret the 1968 Gun Control Act.
The Supreme Court previously announced that it would now hear the case en banc.
The Justice Department declined to comment, and the ATF did not respond to a separate inquiry.
