Stamboulieh Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 428, Olive Branch, MS 38654 | (601) 852-3440 | stephen@sdslaw.us
August 18, 2021
Attn: Andrew Lange Via Federal eRulemaking Portal
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
99 New York Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20226
ATTN: ATF 2021R-05
Re: ATF 2021R-05
Dear Mr. Lange:
I write this comment regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’
(“ATF”) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) (Docket No. ATF 2021R-05, Federal Register
No. 86 FR 27720) which proposes numerous changes to the Gun Control Act and the National
Firearms Act, and which is really just omnibus legislation dressed up as a NPRM.1
The most hysterical part of this entire NPRM is that the agency delves into the history of
“frame or receiver”, acknowledging that then-Senator Dodd (a different Senator Dodd) explained that
“[t]he present definition of this term includes ‘any part or parts’ of a firearm. It has been impractical
to treat each small part of a firearm as if it were a weapon. The revised definition substitutes the words
`frame or receiver' for the words ‘any part or parts.’” See 111 Cong. Rec. 5527 (March 22, 1965).”
But, the agency decided to rewrite “frame or receiver” to mean:
A part of a firearm that, when the complete weapon is assembled, is visible from the
exterior and provides housing or a structure designed to hold or integrate one or more
fire control components, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect
those components to the housing or structure. Any such part identified with a serial
number shall be presumed, absent an official determination by the Director or other
reliable evidence to the contrary, to be a frame or receiver. For purposes of this
definition, the term “fire control component” means a component necessary for the
firearm to initiate, complete, or continue the firing sequence, including any of the
1It should be spelled out whether the agency believes this new Rule constitutes an interpretive rule or legislative rule, and
whether or not the agency believes it should receive Chevron deference, or if not, why not. It is silent on both. Since the
agency believes that the district courts have previously interpreted the GCA (or your regulations) incorrectly, we don’t
want the district courts to analyze this newest pronouncement incorrectly.
Attn: Andrew Lange
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ATTN: ATF 2021R-05
Page 2 of 3
following: Hammer, bolt, bolt carrier, breechblock, cylinder, trigger mechanism, firing
pin, striker, or slide rails.
See proposed 478.11 “Meaning of Terms”. It appears that it is now targeting “parts.” Despite the
acknowledging Senator Dodd’s comment (and actual statutory language), why does the agency believe
it can just rewrite legislation? Probably because the courts (except the Sixth Circuit so far) have
allowed you to. But “Congress wrote the statute it wrote—meaning, a statute going so far and no
further.” See Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 794, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2033-34 (2014)
(citation and punctuation omitted).
Yet the agency takes the statute and expands it beyond its plain language meaning. Maybe the
courts go along with it because of “a simple four-letter word: guns.” Mai v. United States, 974 F.3d
1082, 1097 (9th Cir. 2020) (VanDyke, J., dissenting). But it is improper for an agency to do this and
the Supreme Court has already held that “Congress alone has the institutional competence, democratic
legitimacy, and (most importantly) constitutional authority to revise statutes in light of new social
problems and preferences. Until it exercises that power, the people may rely on the original meaning
of the written law.” Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2067, 2074 (2018). So, it seems an easy
test to determine whether congress wanted you, the agency, to regulate the “frame or receiver” or
“parts”, as you already acknowledged it didn’t. And if congress intended something else, then this
NPRM is plainly wrong.
The NPRM uses the term “ghost gun” thirty-two times. Ghost gun. This entire NPRM reads
as if it were written by an anti-gun group frothing at the mouth to further restrict the rights of the
people. Did the Founders have “ghost guns” because they did not have a serial number? No one
would seriously argue they did. Serial numbers may be helpful to law enforcement so that they can
catch the evil-doers committing illegal gun crime, like allowing firearms to cross international borders.
But it is also helpful for governments in creating gun registries and allowing governments to
go door to door in confiscating those firearms. I know, I know, it would never happen here.2 And no
one in congress would ever suggest turning in lawfully owned firearms…3 It is reminiscent of what
the Taliban is currently doing: “Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting
weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a
Taliban official said. ‘We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe.
We are not here to harm innocent civilians,’ the official told Reuters.”4 Well that settles it, and I’m
sure those citizens feel safer already.
2 https://scalise.house.gov/press-release/scalise-nra-new-orleans-settle-suit-over-katrina-gun-seizures
3 https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php
(Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States
for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it.") You
can also watch her say it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY. Yikes.
4https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/taliban-afghan-capital-kabul-start-collecting-weapons-civilians-2021-08-
16/
Attn: Andrew Lange
Office of Regulatory Affairs
Enforcement Programs and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ATTN: ATF 2021R-05
Page 3 of 3
Going back to “ghost gun”, the NPRM adds nothing of substance to the debate. The NPRM
adds a definition of “privately made firearm” to mean ‘‘[a] firearm, including a frame or receiver,
assembled or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial
number or other identifying markings placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was
produced.’’ So, essentially nothing has changed with respect to individuals continuing to
manufacture/make or otherwise complete his or her own firearm in the comfort of his or her own
home or machine shop. It doesn’t close the so-called “ghost gun loophole,” because a “ghost gun
loophole” doesn’t exist.
This entire rule for the most part constitutes unnecessary injections of ambiguity when
congress was clear in the statutes it wrote, and the president signed into law. That is how our system
is supposed to work. Not like this, where entire volumes of regulations consisting of bureaucratic and
special interest groups regulatory wish lists are written to infringe on enumerated fundamental rights.
Instead of treating the average person as a criminal from the start, the agency should revert to the
maxim that in the United States, we are innocent until proven guilty.5
Yours very truly,
5
You may wonder why I say this. The NPRM is written from the mindset that everyone is a potential
criminal. “The systematic tracking of firearms from the manufacturer or U.S. importer to the retail
purchaser also enables law enforcement agencies to identify suspects involved in criminal violations,
determine if a firearm is stolen, and provide other information relevant to a criminal investigation.”
Id. at 27739. And, “[t]he problem of untraceable firearms being acquired and used by violent criminals
and terrorists is international in scope.” Id. at 27723. If I could footnote this footnote, I would. As
we are watching in real-time in Afghanistan, the Taliban have taken the weapons the United States
supplied, and presumably they are all serialized. Does it really matter that they have serial numbers?
Are we going to get them back? I digress… And then, “Further, marks help prove in certain criminal
prosecutions that firearms used in a crime have travelled in interstate or foreign commerce.” Id. at
27724. Yet no one was held accountable for the ATF-sponsored trafficking of firearms into Mexico.
Maybe the agency could start there?
