THE FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS CONTINUES
Important Update Regarding ATF Regulations and Easy Jig Sales
Due to recent changes in ATF regulations, 80% Arms can no longer sell or support jigs directly.
Support and Warranty Service: For all Easy Jig customers, modulusarms.com will now handle support. Modulus Arms will honor warranty services, provide technical support, and offer replacement tools and parts for all Easy Jig products.
Manufacturing and Sales: While Easy Jigs will continue to be manufactured by 80% Arms, all sales must now be conducted through our independent dealers to comply with the new regulation. We are no longer permitted to sell jigs or distribute manuals via our website under these new ATF rules.
Legal Challenges: We are actively challenging this government overreach in court. We are optimistic about a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court in 2024, as both the District Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled decisively in our favor.
Availability through Dealers: In the meantime, our jigs are still available through our dealers, despite our inability to sell them directly.
We appreciate your understanding and continued support during these changes.
October 8th, 2024: Supreme Court Hears Arguments Challenging ATF's Overreach on Firearm Parts
Today was a pivotal day for us at 80 Percent Arms and for supporters of the Second Amendment nationwide. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in our lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its authority to regulate unfinished firearm parts and kits.
Questioning the ATF's Expanding Authority
Justice Thomas opened the session by highlighting a critical point we've been making: certain firearm components weren't regulated until recently, even though the government claims that the laws governing them have been in place for decades. This discrepancy underscores our argument that the ATF is overstepping its statutory authority by reinterpreting long-standing laws to encompass items they were never meant to regulate.
What Defines a "Weapon"?
A central point of contention is the definition of a "weapon" under federal law. Justice Samuel Alito pressed the government on this, and their reliance on a broad dictionary definition didn't seem to satisfy the Court. To illustrate the flaw in the government's logic, Justice Alito used some relatable analogies:
- The Grocery List Analogy: He asked if simply owning a pad and a pen makes it a grocery list. The government's stance would imply that possessing the components equates to having the finished product, which doesn't hold up in everyday experience.
- The Omelette Analogy: Justice Alito went further, asking if owning eggs and peppers means you have a western omelette. The government responded that since these items have other uses, they don't necessarily constitute the final dish.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett built on this analogy by asking if ordering a meal kit from a service like HelloFresh changes things. The government conceded that it might, suggesting that a kit designed specifically to produce an end product is more analogous to the firearm kits in question. This exchange supports our position that unfinished parts requiring significant effort to assemble shouldn't be treated the same as completed firearms.
The "Readily Converted" Debate
Justice Gorsuch noted that parts of the law don't include the "readily converted" language the government is leaning on. We've argued that when Congress intended to regulate items that could "readily" become firearms, it explicitly included that language. The government's suggestion that the statute should be read to include this language anyway is a stretch and undermines the principle of separation of powers.
Consistency in the Government's Position
Justice Gorsuch also pointed out that the government had previously argued in court that these objects aren't firearms. This flip-flopping highlights the arbitrary nature of the ATF's current position. We've maintained that the ATF's sudden change in interpretation without new legislation is both unjust and unlawful.
Concerns About Legal Implications for Citizens
Justice Kavanaugh raised important concerns about mens rea—the knowledge of wrongdoing. He asked whether individuals who genuinely believe they're complying with the law could still face charges. The government's admission that they could be prosecuted is alarming. It puts law-abiding citizens at risk of criminal charges for activities they reasonably believe are legal.
Clarifying Industry Practices
Justice Thomas inquired about the "80% rule," an industry term for items that are partially completed and require significant work to become functional firearms. We explained that these items have traditionally not been classified as firearms precisely because they aren't readily convertible without additional machining and expertise. The ATF's attempt to redefine these terms disrupts settled industry practices and legal expectations.
The Slippery Slope of Regulatory Overreach
Justice Sotomayor suggested that since all firearm parts eventually become part of a gun, the ATF should decide where regulation begins. While we respect the concern for public safety, this perspective could lead to an unchecked expansion of regulatory power. If accepted, it could allow the ATF to regulate raw materials like blocks of metal or even common tools, which is beyond the scope of federal law.
Implications for the Future
This case isn't just about unfinished firearm parts; it's about preventing federal agencies from exceeding their legal authority. The ATF's reinterpretation of the law threatens not only our business but also the rights of countless Americans who engage in lawful activities like building personal firearms—a tradition that dates back to the founding of our nation.
Our Commitment to Upholding the Law
We at 80 Percent Arms are committed to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that any regulations are enacted through proper legislative processes, not through administrative overreach. We believe that the law is on our side, and we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legislative intent and agency interpretation.
Conclusion
Today's oral arguments shed light on the critical issues at stake. The Justices raised thoughtful questions about the limits of agency power, the importance of clear legislative language, and the rights of individuals. We remain optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of preserving the rule of law and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.
We want to thank all our supporters who have stood by us throughout this legal battle. Your commitment to safeguarding our freedoms is what drives us forward. We'll continue to keep you updated as the case progresses.
April 22nd, 2024: Supreme Court Agrees to Review ATF Rule on 80% Receivers.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear our lawsuit and could decide whether the 3 letter agencies such as the ATF can continue to bypass Congress and if the Biden administration can regulate 80% frames and receivers. The administration hopes to impose rules previously invalidated by a lower court but is temporarily in effect during ongoing legal battles.
The rules in question were issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2022, which classified the components of 80% Lowers as firearms under federal law.
However, we alongside Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) challenged these regulations in court and last year, a Texas judge ruled in our favor, arguing that the ATF overstepped its bounds since Congress hasn't specifically authorized such an expansion of firearm regulations.
As we await a final decision from the Supreme Court , staying informed and pushing back against these restrictive regulations is crucial.
A District Court agreed with us.
The 5th Circuit agreed with us.
And NOW WE FACE THE SUPREME COURT!
The next steps in the process include:
- Submitting our briefs to the Court
- Oral arguments
- Justices deliberate on the case before making their decision
The outcome of the Supreme Court will be a key moment for our Second Amendment rights and could set important precedents regarding government overreach.
Every purchase is a direct contribution towards our lawsuit against the ATF’s Frame and Receiver Rule. You’re not only purchasing from us, you are participating in the fight against government overreach.
April 19th, 2024: The Supreme Court is scheduled to review our and Firearms Policy Coalition's lawsuit against the ATF's Frame and Receiver Rule TODAY
If the Court sides with the ATF, it would indefinitely ban the sale of jigs and lowers together and 80% pistol frames. It would also set a precedent that allows federal agencies to operate without Congressional oversight. THIS WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT YOUR FREEDOM TO MANUFACTURE FIREARMS, placing new limits on your ability to produce them without government interference.
Given the potential ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision, which could reshape firearm manufacturing regulations, we urge you to stock up now as the ATF is already being sued by the State of California to ban AR 80 lowers. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the ATF, it's likely that their next step will be to implement a rule specifically targeting 80% lowers, rather than just focusing on 80% pistol frames and build kits.
February 8th, 2024: At 80% Arms, our commitment extends beyond providing high-quality products; we also aim to inform our community about legal proceedings that can significantly impact the firearms industry and to encourage grassroots activism to reverse and oppose such ill-conceived regulations.
The recent documents filed with the Supreme Court by the Biden Administration have propelled a critical debate on the Gun Control Act of 1968, focusing on the regulation of firearm parts kits. This new filing by the Biden Administration, a petition for a writ of certiorari, is a formal appeal to the Supreme Court to review and potentially reverse the lower court's decision. We’ve already obtained favorable rulings against the ATF in both the district court and the appellate court, so this is another desperate move by the ATF to hold onto their new regulations that the courts have already ruled as unlawful.
The ATF's 2022 regulations, which broadened the definition of firearms to include build kits that include both a jig and a lower, have raised significant concerns within our community. The language used in this regulation is purposefully ambiguous and has introduced uncertainty, deterring enthusiasts from engaging with 80% lowers, despite their legality. This ambiguity also presents challenges for manufacturers of 80% products to comply with the capricious and arbitrary requirements restricting how our products can be sold, supported, and even advertised.
The Biden administration's push to regulate the right to privately manufacture firearms through this Supreme Court intervention is yet another encroachment on our constitutional rights, sidestepping Congressional authority. This action aimed at destroying the 80% industry and community, infringes on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens under the guise of public safety. This marks a critical pivot, moving towards increased governmental intrusion without voter approval or Congressional oversight, by using a regulatory agency to make changes to law which only Congress is allowed to do. We're diligently tracking these shifts, and adjusting our operations under the ever-changing legal landscape, as we continue to challenge the ATF in court each step of the way. We will continue to protect our customers' interests and the future of our industry while upholding the principles valued by our community.
November 9th, 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision in VanDerStok v. Garland, overturning the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule and marking another significant victory for 80 Percent Arms. The court criticized the ATF for overstepping its regulatory authority, effectively accusing it of rewriting the law without proper legal basis. The court creatively used the “cakes that look like food” internet trend as an analogy to illustrate its point on gun regulation by drawing a parallel between a cake that looks like a hamburger, or like a gun, is not a hamburger or a gun. This comparison highlighted the ATF's flawed approach, where regulations were applied not just to genuine frames and receivers, but also to items that merely resembled them.
Judge Oldham wrote an opinion supplementing the majority's findings in order to explore additional problems with the Final Rule, where he says “The Final Rule is limitless… The GCA allows none of this.” Judge Kurt Engelhardt, also supporting the majority opinion stated, "The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy." He further clarified that the expansion of firearm regulation and the criminalization of actions that were previously legal are not sanctioned by Congress, rendering the proposed rule an unlawful agency action that goes against legislative intent.
The court firmly concludes that until Congress modifies the Gun Control Act, the ATF must adhere to the existing statutory limits. The Final Rule, according to the court, crosses those boundaries, resulting in the ATF essentially rewriting the law, a move that is not permissible, particularly when it leads to the broad imposition of criminal liability without legislative input.
However, it's important to note that despite the court's ruling, the "frame or receiver" rule remains active due to a stay by the Supreme Court from August 8th. The Supreme Court's intervention means that the Final Rule will remain in effect until the legal proceedings are concluded. In all likelihood, the ATF will appeal again to the Supreme Court, where the court can either refuse to hear the case or agree to review it. If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it will involve a thorough examination of the legal and factual aspects as presented in the lower court's records and additional briefings submitted to the Supreme Court. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court would issue a binding final judgment.
Despite this victory, at 80 Percent Arms, we recognize the ongoing challenges ahead, particularly with the Supreme Court's stay keeping the 'frame or receiver' rule active during the litigation. We remain undeterred, committed to continuing our fight against government overreach, and ready to confront the ATF's likely appeal to the Supreme Court. Our team is prepared to put forward a vigorous legal battle, should the Supreme Court choose to review the case. Our steadfast commitment and determination to uphold the rights and interests of our community and industry remains resolute.
October 16th, 2023: In the face of unprecedented challenges to our Second Amendment rights, 80 Percent Arms and Defense Distributed are at the forefront of a pivotal legal struggle to safeguard these fundamental freedoms. Despite a recent Supreme Court decision allowing a contentious ATF rule to remain active during litigation—a rule dubiously expanding the definition of "firearms"—we remain resolute in accepting and processing orders. Your purchases and contributions are crucial, directly empowering our ongoing quest for justice and liberty.
While global trends show nations enhancing their citizens' firearm rights in response to security concerns, the U.S. seems to be diverging with increased regulatory oversteps. These include the ATF's attempts to bypass congressional authority and alarming calls from political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris for stringent gun control measures. Such steps not only erode our basic rights to self-defense but also represent significant governmental overreach.
Our fight is twofold: we are standing against the unjust expansion of bureaucratic power while ardently defending our constitutional right to bear arms. The current ATF rule intrusively includes "unfinished frames and receivers" within the scope of regulated firearms, an overextension that blatantly disregards congressional prerogatives and disrupts the balance of constitutional powers.
Our October 11th, 2023, detailed response to the Supreme Court highlights this overreach, emphasizing that the rule defies the ATF's statutory boundaries and, critically, the democratic principles underpinning our nation's governance structure. This battle transcends the issue of firearms; it's about curbing administrative excesses and preserving the nation's foundational tenets.
Despite setbacks, our resolve remains unshaken. Our plea for an injunction is a plea for justice, a rallying cry to uphold the universal principles and rights intrinsic to our nation's identity. As we navigate these trials, our commitment to the Second Amendment and to those affected by overregulation is unwavering.
Join us in this critical journey, as we press on with steadfastness and resolve, championing the constitutional principles that anchor America's enduring strength.
October 11th, 2023: BlackHawk Manufacturing (dba, 80 Percent Arms), in conjunction with Defense Distributed, officially submitted a comprehensive response to the Supreme Court in the ongoing battle against the ATF. We’re actively engaged in a significant legal standoff that has reached the Supreme Court to uphold Second Amendment freedoms challenging the unlawful new regulatory amendments issued by the ATF. The core issue stems from the ATF's 2022 ‘Frame and Receiver’ Rule, a precedent-setting expansion that redefines “firearms” to include "unfinished frames and receivers" as well as "frame and receiver part kits." This rule is not only an illegal overextension of the ATF's authority but also an infringement on our rights under the Second Amendment.
Our responses to the Supreme Court mark a significant step in our continued effort to safeguard not just the interests of our industry, but the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Americans. We remain dedicated to this cause and are prepared to engage fully in all forthcoming aspects of this legal challenge. You can support us during this fight by purchasing directly from us here.
As we've argued in our recent response, "The challenged Final Rule has its beginnings in an Executive Branch directive to the U.S. Attorney General to take action without regard to the lack of statutory authorization to do so." This position is more than a mere disagreement over regulatory interpretation; it stands for the principles of legislative authority and constitutional rights. Our position highlights a crucial aspect of American democracy: the separation of powers. Lawmaking is Congress's responsibility, to ensure that laws reflect the people's voice. When the ATF enforces rules not based on actual legislation, it oversteps its role and infringes on Congress's territory, upsetting the constitutional balance. This isn't only about protecting our industry; it's also about defending the rule of law and the constitutional rights, including the clear mandates of the Second Amendment, that are central to American identity.
Our fight is not just about the right to manufacture, sell, or own firearms. It's about the broader implications of bureaucratic overreach. By administrative regulation, ATF’s 'ghost gun' rule tries to criminalize what Congress did not actually and could not constitutionally criminalize. This rule, we argue, goes beyond the bounds of the ATF's statutory authority, attempting to enforce laws not enacted by our legislative representatives.
Defense Distributed and 80 Percent Arms are entitled to the injunction pending appeal, not as a matter of special privilege, but as a matter of legal right and principle. The same principle applies to all other entities standing against this rule.
At 80 Percent Arms, we stand strong and won’t back down. We fight for the rights promised to us in the Second Amendment and for fair play in our courts and laws. We stand shoulder to shoulder with everyday people and businesses who are feeling the pressure and burden of regulations that have gone too far. And we stand firm for the rule of law, making sure that our rights, and the rights of all Americans, are kept safe and respected.
Let’s move forward together, standing tall under our flag of freedom, and keep protecting the values that make our nation truly great.
You can also learn more about our fight by watching the videos below
October 6th, 2023: The Supreme Court, an institution we hold in the highest regard, cast a shadow on our freedom. They are temporarily halting protections from the District Court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, enabling the Biden Administration's enforcement of the new frame and receivers regulations. Justice Samuel Alito granted the Government a stay on our injunction until October 16th, 5 PM EDT, allowing time for a more detailed court review of our case.
DESPITE THIS RULING, WE ARE STILL ACCEPTING AND PROCESSING ORDERS.
Before the SCOTUS stay, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld our right to sell jigs and receivers, albeit with narrowed protection to only Blackhawk Manufacturing Group (dba 80 percent Arms) and Defense Distributed. The ATF, persistently seeking control, appealed this decision, bringing SCOTUS into play again.
Despite decades of precedent, determination letters, and lawful 80% product sales, the ATF aims to bankrupt our industry, insisting on immediate sales halt and weaving a hysteric narrative of business risk, while ignoring: a) the unlawfulness of their new rule; b) the historical significance of Privately Manufactured Firearms (PMFs); and c) the responsible use by the majority of PMF owners. They insist sales must cease immediately, refusing to allow for an orderly conclusion to the litigation to see who emerges victorious. They are acutely aware that bankrupting companies before the litigation concludes ensures their victory.
At 80 Percent Arms, we stand resilient, committed to providing Americans with firearm-building tools and defending 2nd Amendment rights. This fight is not just about parts; it's about safeguarding American freedom against the ATF’s attempts to label kits as "firearms" and circumvent Congress and the Gun Control Act. We prepare to take on the ATF in the Supreme Court, confident that, with the rule of law, the court will see through the Government’s deception and rule in our favor.
You can support the fight by purchasing from us or contributing to our legal fund, which fuels our ongoing litigation.
IS THE FIGHT OVER?
NO.
The Supreme Court recently decided to uphold the ATF's "ghost guns" rule- our fight is far from over. On October 16th, we're gearing up to defend your rights before the court.
Our position remains steadfast: the manufacturing, selling, and owning of 80% lowers should face no undue restrictions.
We appreciate every ounce of your support. We've faced challenges before, and with our collective determination, we are confident in our path ahead!
WHAT ROLE DOES 80 PERCENT ARMS PLAY IN THIS LEGAL BATTLE?
We joined the legal fight against the ATF and the Attorney General in September 2022 as an 'Intervenor-Plaintiff.' In this role, we are able to present legal arguments as to why the ATF’s actions are unlawful and unconstitutional. We are demonstrating why the legal manufacturing and distribution of 80 lower receivers and jigs should continue as had been the case for decades.
We hired the nation’s leading Constitutional and firearms lawyers to go head to head against the Biden DOJ, which had virtually unlimited resources and funding. While this litigation is extremely expensive, the future of 80 Percent Arms and the 80% industry is at stake.
We sincerely thank our customers who have contribute to our legal defense fund and who continue to stand with us during this challenging time.
WHAT CAN THE COMMUNITY EXPECT FROM 80 PERCENT ARMS MOVING FORWARD?
We're more determined than ever to stand up for our community's rights. While the Supreme Court's decision brings a new layer of complexity, our injunction remains in place, allowing you to continue purchasing 80 lowers and jigs from us.
We're heartened by the support from notable judiciary members and, as the upcoming battle on October 16th nears, know that we're on the frontlines, advocating for our community. This isn't just a legal tussle; it's a collective stand for our rights.
Your ongoing support is invaluable to us, and we're committed to providing top-quality 80 lower products and services, allowing individuals to exercise their Second Amendment rights. We promise to keep our community informed about any new developments that may affect these freedoms.
WHO ELSE IS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS FIGHT?
We would like to express our appreciation to our long-time friends at Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. FPC has been fighting alongside us against unconstitutional and oppressive laws for several years, in this lawsuit and others.
CAN I RESUME ORDERING EVEN THOUGH MY STATE HAS BANNED 80 LOWERS?
Overturning the ATF's rule doesn't stop states from keeping laws that could restrict your freedoms. We are on a mission to topple these laws by means of legal action and forging alliances with 2A organizations in court. In the meantime, you can bolster our legal efforts by purchasing products from our legal fund.
If you’re uncertain about whether we ship products to your state, we specify on each product which states we ship to. However, we are not attorneys so please do your own research, consult an attorney, and do not rely on this information as legal advice.
*Legal Disclaimer: We are not lawyers. The information provided here is not intended to be legal advice. Please do your own research, consult an attorney, and do not rely on the information here as legal advice.
**Subject to federal, state, and local laws