Honest historical research and analysis still matter. The Bruen test, a legal standard the U.S. Supreme Court established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) for evaluating whether a firearm regulation complies with the Second Amendment, has put an exclamation mark on this point; but then, the high court’s Second Amendment decisions leading up to Bruen would not have been possible without the historic research done by the NRA and others before the Heller (2008) decision.
In a recent example, a paper titled “The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms” was cited by a court in an important ruling on frame-or-receiver litigation. This paper was written by Joe Greenlee, director of the Office of Litigation Counsel at the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
To discuss this case and related litigation, Greenlee came on to the NRA’s The Armed Citizen Podcast.
After being asking about the “engaged in the business” rule, which the Biden administration attempted to use to suppress the age-old practice of Americans making their own firearms, Greenlee said, “The ATF, under the Biden administration, promulgated several anti-gun rules designed to deter law-abiding citizens from engaging in lawful conduct by just keeping everything so vague that you didn’t want to risk engaging any of this activity. In the engaged in the business rule, you didn’t even have to sell a gun to be considered engaged in the business. They said if maybe even if you just advertise a gun, that would be enough. Which is a stark departure from the historical practice.
“And then another example is this frame or receiver rule, which was promulgated in 2022, which expanded the definition of firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include unfinished frames or receivers, including parts kits, and gave a really vague definition,” said Greenlee.
Greenlee explained there is still ongoing litigation in these areas. But, in the recent case in which his paper was cited, Greenlee said, “The Northern District of Texas said the rule’s actually unconstitutional because it violates the Second and Fifth Amendments. Specifically, it violates the Fifth Amendment because it’s so vague.”
After clearly explaining these issues, Greenlee responded to a question about whether he sees “things moving in the right direction or is there just a lot of work ahead?”
“Well, both,” said Greenlee. “A lot of work ahead certainly, but we are moving in a tremendous direction especially after Bruen … . Things are really going well, but it’s a long, frustrating process and there’s some losses along the way, but we’re making incredible ground.”
To keep up the momentum, NRA members need to stay involved and to inform like-minded friends and more with what is going on as we approach the Nov. 3 midterm election.
