➡ Senator Eric Schmidt has written a letter to the ATF Deputy Director, Robert Cicada, urging him to repeal three controversial gun rules from the Biden era. These rules, which include the frame and receiver rule, the stabilizing brace rule, and the engage in the business rule, are seen as burdensome to law-abiding gun owners and a violation of the Second Amendment. Despite a previous executive order from Donald Trump to review these regulations, they have not been permanently repealed. Schmidt’s letter is a formal demand for action, arguing that these rules exceed statutory authority and could potentially turn law-abiding citizens into felons.
➡ U.S. Senator Eric S. Schmidt has formally requested a review of certain gun regulations under the Biden administration, with the aim of repealing rules that burden lawful gun owners and undermine the Second Amendment. Despite a year since the call for review, these regulations remain in place, causing uncertainty and affecting lawful Americans. The Senator emphasizes the need for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to focus on fighting violent crime and protecting the Second Amendment rights, rather than creating laws. He promises to continue monitoring the situation and holding the agencies accountable.

Hey, Patriots, welcome back. About a year ago, you remember Donald Trump penned that Second Amendment executive order, telling Pam Bonny the DOJ, go back and look at everything that Biden did, and anything that violates the Second Amendment, rip it up, shred it, get rid of it. Well, we’re a year into that, and it hasn’t really happened. They’ve kind of taken the easy way out and kind of asked for things to be dismissed and stuff like that. Well, Senator Eric Schmidt out of Missouri just penned a letter to the ATF and Robert Cicada looking to fix a couple things.

Today, with this document in my hand, I think this could help push it over the edge. I know that Robert Cicada is a collector of NFA things. He’s kind of one of us. I don’t think he can really be a member of the ATF and really be one of us, but… Better than the last guy is something, any time I push against anybody in the administration, there’s always better than the last one, and would you rather have Kamala Harris? So I guess I’ll use your own. He’s better than the last guy. But this could directly impact millions of law-abiding gun owners across the country.

This was penned on February 26th by U.S. Senator Eric Schmidt to ATF Deputy Director Robert Cicada urging the immediate repeal of three of the most controversial Biden-era ATF rules. The frame and receiver rule? Yep, still around. Not being enforced, but it’s still there. The stabilizing brace rule? Yep, still there. I guess Pam Bonney couldn’t see that that was anti-2A. And then the so-called engage in the business rule. Yep, guess the DOJ couldn’t find that either. But this isn’t a press release. It’s not media spin. This is a formal, on-the-record demand for action. In this letter, Senator Schmidt lays out point by point how these rules exceeded statutory authority, ignored Congress, relied on now-defunct Chevron deference, and in his words, threatened to turn law-abiding Americans into felons overnight.

And here’s the part that should concern every single one of you, and I’ll read this to you. It has now been, like I said, a full year since Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14206, directing a review of these very same Biden-era regulations. And despite promises of reform, despite public statements about a new era at the ATF, these specific rules have not been permanently repealed. One year. No lasting action. Today, I’m going to read you this letter live right here, and I’ll break it down exactly what it says, what it means, and why the clock is ticking.

Before I read it, check out CMMG. If you’re looking for tools and quieting tubes, CMMG has them in stock. They’re priced ridiculously, and they are great supporters of this country and this channel. And just that alone, you should support them. And use GNG10. It’ll make you smile. All right, let’s get into this letter. It says, Dear Deputy Director Cicada, congratulations on your nomination to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Following up on our discussion during your nomination hearing before the Judiciary Committee, I write to encourage the ATF under your leadership to revisit and repeal the three major Biden-era rules that substantially burden law-abiding gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and ran roughshod over the separation of powers.

Early in his second administration, President Trump issued his Executive Order on protecting Second Amendment rights. That Executive Order came in response to the Biden administration’s implementing several ATF policies and rules that deviated from congressionally enacted statutory authorities, violating the spirit, and if not the letter, of the Second Amendment. The Trump ATF has made commendable progress towards undoing the damage caused by the Biden ATF, but more work remains to be done. In particular, the ATF must implement President Trump’s directive to review all rules promulgated by the ATF during the Biden administration to ensure that all rules fairly implement congressional statutes rather than create entirely new laws by administrative order.

In the past, ATF often relied on Chevron deference to expand its regulatory remit and restrict the liberties of law-abiding Americans. But, thankfully, the era of deference to the administrative state is over. It is time for the ATF to adjust its regulations accordingly. I therefore strongly encourage the ATF to repeal the Biden-era frame or receiver rule, stabilizing brace rule, and engaged in the business rule. As I explained during the hearing, these rules exceeded the ATF’s statutory authority, threatened to turn law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight, and contained such vague standards that even those who tried to comply with them in good faith were left without sufficient notice of the scope of ATF’s mandates.

1. Frame or receiver rule In the frame or receiver rule, the ATF reinterpreted the Gun Control Act to cover weapon parts kits that are designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile, as well as any partially complete disassembled or non-functional frame or receiver. That reinterpretation usurped Congress’s legislative power by effectively repealing the 1968 amendments to the Gun Control Act, and it threatened to turn law-abiding American gun owners into felons. The rule’s intermediate standards also failed to provide gun owners with adequate notice, raising due process concerns, and chilling the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.

For example, the rule severely burdened gunsmithing hobbyists, a practice with roots in colonial America. To stop this disastrous rule, I co-led a lawsuit against the frame and receiver rule when I was Attorney General of Missouri. While the Supreme Court upheld certain applications of the rule in Bondi v. Vanderstock, Justice Clarence Thomas persuasively argued in dissent that the rule clearly exceeded ATF authority. The frame or receiver rule is therefore a prime candidate for repeal. 2. Stabilizing brace rule In the Stabilizing Brace rule, the ATF reinterpreted rifle and short-barreled rifle under the National Firearms Act to include some pistols with stabilizing braces.

Because possession of a non-compliant short-barreled rifle bears significant regulatory consequences, this rule imposed a significant burden on American gun owners. Worse still, just like the frame or receiver rule, the Stabilizing Brace rule imposed those burdens through an amorphous standard of nested multi-factor tests, once again raising due process and notice concerns. Due to these legal and policy infirmities, I co-sponsored a joint resolution of disapproval to repeal the rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. The Stabilizing Brace rule also faced legal challenges, and the federal courts were not impressed with ATF’s handiwork.

For example, the Eighth Circuit found the ATF failed to provide an intelligible explanation justifying the rule rendering it arbitrary and capricious. I thus strongly encourage the ATF to repeal the Stabilizing Brace rule as well. 3. The Engaged in the Business rule In the Engaged in the Business rule, the ATF drastically expanded when an individual is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, and thus subject to the Gun Control Act’s regulations for licensed dealers. Under statute, a person is engaged in the business of firearms dealing when he devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.

But to ensure that everyday Americans who seek to develop a personal collection of firearms would not get caught up in the burdensome regulatory scheme intended for commercial dealers, Congress expressly provided that the definition of engaged in the business would not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby or who sells all or parts of his personal collection of firearms. Yet in the rule, the ATF ignored Congress’s clear instructions and expanded the definition to include even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction when combined with other evidence.

Once again, the ATF issued a rule contrary to a congressionally enacted statute and imposed a burden on gun owners through a vague, difficult to comply with regulation. And once again, the federal courts were unimpressed with ATF’s overreach, holding that the rule exceeded ATF’s statutory authority. Because of the rule’s legal and policy deficiencies, I cosponsored a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal it. The engaged in the business rule should therefore be rescinded too. No one disputes that violent criminals who misuse firearms should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The question is how best to deploy ATF’s authority to achieve that goal. Your goal on focusing the Bureau on its core law enforcement mission while ensuring its regulations stay within statutory bounds will make that work more effective. As these rules demonstrate, under the Biden administration, the ATF was focused primarily on adding red tape for gun owners rather than with fighting violent crime. As a result, many Americans, especially law abiding gun owners, lost trust in the ATF and came to view it not as a law enforcement agency, but as a weaponized bureaucracy zealously pursuing the ideological anti-Second Amendment agenda.

During your confirmation hearing, I was pleased to hear you indicate that you want to change the ATF’s direction, recognize the mistakes of the past, and provide reassurance that you understand the ATF’s mission is to fight violent crime, not to burden lawful gun owners, or undermine the Second Amendment. And I was encouraged to hear you commit to conducting a thorough review of all regulations issued under the Biden administration. When you conduct that review, repealing the frame or receiver, stabilizing brace, and engaging the business rules would be an excellent way to stop burdening lawful gun owners and undermining the Second Amendment, and return the ATF to its mission, fighting violent crime.

Having spent two decades at ATF, serving in field offices, leading major divisions, and now helping guide the Bureau’s day-to-day operations, you understand the agency from the ground up. Few people have your practical knowledge of how policy decisions affect agents in the field. I trust that experience will guide a careful, principled, and mission focused review. I look forward to working together to continue reorienting the ATF’s work towards fighting violent crime and protecting the Second Amendment rights of everyday American gun owners. I respect your judgment and look forward to your leadership in this new role.

Sincerely, Eric S. Schmidt, United States Senator. Alright, you just heard it directly from a sitting United States Senator. A formal request to repeal the frame or receiver rule, a formal request to repeal the stabilizing brace rule, and a formal request to repeal the engaged in the business rule. Yes, they’re still there. The legal arguments are there, and the statutory conflicts are laid out. The due process concerns are documented. Even federal courts have criticized aspects of these rules. And yet, here we are. A full year after Executive Order 14206 called for review. A full year after public comments were made about restoring trust and refocusing the ATF on violent crime.

And there has still been no permanent rescission of these policies. That matters. Because while Washington talks about reform, these regulations still sit on the books. They create uncertainty. They still affect lawful Americans. They still represent the broader question. Does an agency enforce laws, or does it create them? And they’re still sitting there for the next Democrat administration to turn back on. We’ll continue tracking this, guys and gals, and we’ll continue reading the primary source documents so that you don’t have to. And I’ll continue to help hold those agencies accountable. If you value this kind of deep dive analysis, if you appreciate reading the actual documents instead of headlines on TV, make sure you subscribe to the channel right now.

Hit the like button and share this as well so that someone else can actually hear what’s actually happening. This is Guns and Gadgets, your premier source for Second Amendment News. Stay armed, stay free, and stay safe. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.