ATF Rule Resource Page

Legal Disclaimer: While we do our best to keep these policies updated in accordance with local, state and federal laws - we recognize these legal changes happen often and many times without much news coverage or public reporting. As a result, you must do your own research to ensure you are closely monitoring the evolving legal landscape and not relying on the information contained on this site to make your decisions.

With all the speculation around the ATF’s new rule regarding 80 percent lower receivers, AR15 build kits etc, we here at 5D Tactical realized it would be handy to give a timeline of events so we can be on the same page and keep up the fight!

Extra Resources

To have a well rounded view and understanding of our current situation we've gathered what we've determined to be the best pieces of information you can quickly consume to get the gist of things:

• White House Announces Crack Down on "Ghost Guns"
• Anti-Gunners' Perspective
• Print Shoot Repeat's Take on the Situation is quite accurate
• Learn more about the legal background from the Armed Attorneys
• The Armed Scholar provides an explanation of how the ATF just suffered a major blow in the FPC lawsuit against the government. 
• See how the Supreme Court's Bruen Ruling is causing powerful ripple effects like in the recent US v Randy Price case! (Serial numbers no longer required for firearms?)

2021R-05F Brief Review

For those just joining us, on August 24, 2022, the new and incredibly unconstitutional ATF rule 2021R-05F went into effect. While it might surprise, well, no one, that the ATF are proving yet again how uninterested they are in respecting American citizens’ rights and the Constitution - this ruling is particularly egregious due to what it does. 2021R-05F changes the legal definition of what the ATF considers to be a firearm and how they identify them. 

80 lower jigs are now considered to be firearms, amongst other changes that require them to be serialized and how Federal Firearms License holders (FFL) are required to keep records.

The ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F is essentially five parts, which we will go into depth on in other blogs. For now, consider this to be the summary of the court battle. The five key parts of this illegal rule are:

• Legal definition changes of firearms, frames, and receivers
• Regulation and restriction of 80 lower sales
• Serialization and marking requirements
• FFL record-keeping requirements
• FFL record retention guidelines

FPC Lawsuit Timeline of Key Events, Court Documents and Filings

Thankfully the decision is being fought in court. All updates will be added below as they happen. Click each link to view the court documents and keep up to date on the fight!

• 2022-10-20: Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-20: Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms’ Complaint
• 2022-10-18: Order Granting Motion to Intervene
• 2022-10-7: Defendants’ Opposition to Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a/ 80 Percent Arms’ Motion to Intervene
• 2022-10-5: Amended Complaint
• 2022-10-3: Clarification of Opinion & Order on Scope of Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-3: Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Notice Regarding Contested Jurisdiction
• 2022-10-1: Opinion & Order on Scope of Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-10-1: Plaintiffs’ Notice Regarding Contested Jurisdiction
• 2022-9-26: Order Denying Motion for Clarification
• 2022-9-24: Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Clarification of the Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction With Respect to Tactical Machining’s Pending Classification Request
• 2022-9-23: Order
• 2022-9-23: Order
• 2022-9-23: Blackhawk Manufacturing Group Inc. d/b/a 80 Percent Arms’ Motion to Intervene
• 2022-9-22: Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Clarification
• 2022-9-16: Order
• 2022-9-16: Supplement to Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction With Respect to Tactical Machining’s Pending Classification Request
• 2022-9-15: Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Request to Expand Scope of Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-9-15: Defendants’ Motion for Clarification of the Scope of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction With Respect to Tactical Machining’s Pending Classification Request
• 2022-9-10: Order Denying Motion to Transfer
• 2022-9-8: Plaintiffs’ Request to Expand Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-9-2: Opinion & Order on Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-8-31: Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-8-31: Plaintiffs’ Response to Order Dated August 29, 2022
• 2022-8-31: Defendants’ Brief Regarding Consolidation Under Federal Rule 65(a)(2)
• 2022-8-29: Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-8-29: Order
• 2022-8-26: Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case Pursuant to the First-to-file Rule
• 2022-8-19: Order
• 2022-8-19: Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case, or in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time
• 2022-8-18: Order
• 2022-8-18: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Provision of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Briefing Deadlines to Defendants
• 2022-8-18: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Case Pursuant to the First-To-File Rule, or in the Alternative, for an Extension of Time
• 2022-8-17: Order Setting Deadlines
• 2022-8-17: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• 2022-8-11: Notice of Related Cases
• 2022-8-11: Complaint