Franklin Armory Wins!

[lucusloc]

After 7 years Franklin Armory has won their lawsuit against the ATF that their Reformation straight rifling firearm was not subject to NFA regulations concerning SBRs or SBSs, and could be purchased in any barrel length sans NFA tax stamp.

https://www.guns.com/news/2025/02/20/franklin-arms-wins-case-against-atf-over-gun-classification

It remains to be seen if the case will be appealed by the current administration, but the current bet is that it will not, and the Reformation will be again available for sale to customers "over the counter" as it were.

Regardless of how you feel about the technology this is a win for gun rights as it clearly demonstrates that the ATF only has the power to operate within the law as written, not by extrapolating the "spirit of the law" out to mean whatever the hell they want it to. And as written the NFA covers firearms with wither smooth barrels (SBSs) or twisted rifling (SBRs). The law is silent on firearms with a straight rifling pattern, and the ATF therefor has no jurisdiction to include such firearms under the umbrella of the NFA. (and just for completeness, no the Reformation does not trigger and AOW provisions either).

Franklin seems to be in a holding pattern until the appeals portion of the case wraps up, but are already gearing up to bring these guns to market. Hears hoping that there are no more wrenches throw into the works over this.

Read More

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I don't recall what this was about. Was it just a gun made to skirt around atf rules?

 

[lucusloc]

I don't recall what this was about. Was it just a gun made to skirt around atf rules?

Effectively yes. The rifling in the barrel is straight (no twist) and so does not trip any NFA definition for short barreled anything, as those definitions explicitly state either smooth barrels or barrels with twisted rifling. In theory this means the SBR craze can now reach people who don't like braces or tax stamps. You can have a fully kitted "rifle" in any configuration you want. Franklin is making 7.5 and 11 inch versions from the factory.

Back when this was first released they were in the works of getting finned ammo produced for better long range accuracy, but their testing showed that even with normal ammo the gun was perfectly accurate to ~20 yard or so. Past that and bullet stability starts to suffer.

I am really looking forwards to seeing this tested by reviewers.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

ATF appealed, lost and issued a new open letter

ATF open letter

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-august-2025-open-letter-franklin-armory-reformation-and/download

And if you like watching people read to you

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqwUNZSklwk

 

[lucusloc]

That is great news. I am not sure it really helps Franklin at all given the recent changed to the NFA, but it is still awesome to have a ruling against the ATF that says they cannot just add stuff to the NFA purview as they see fit, they still have to follow the letter of the law.

But I suppose the ATF did accomplish their objective in this regard, as they keept Franklin off the market for long enough that their product (which they spent all that R&D time and money on) is no longer relevant to basically any consumer. Maybe if they can spin up production of their finned ammo too they could find a viable niche market for it, but I simply do not see this becoming the widespread "NFA alternative" they were hoping it would become.

If this product does make it to market in the current environment I may have to pick one up just as a "thank you" for taking this on and giving us this victory. Past that I can't see how this survives when the NFA has been gutted already (and may not even be a thing for short stuff if the other lawsuits are successful). It really sucks that the ATF killed off almost a decade of potential profit for a company that had a very clever workaround to the existing legal environment.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

ATF appealed, lost and issued a new open letter

ATF open letter

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/open-letter/all-ffls-august-2025-open-letter-franklin-armory-reformation-and/download

And if you like watching people read to you

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqwUNZSklwk

Darn, now I'll have research what those guns are. Never heard of them. Glad ATF is doing less regulation.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Short version: The ATF has decided to invent a new "classification" which will make these firearms illegal again

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZZyrUC3Gx8

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Needing a tax stamp and all the other assorted extras to own a specific firearm is ....
Stupid...as well as being an infringement..
The ATF is no friend of firearm owners.
( Not that my thoughts on this matter ...will change any damn thing )

Straight rifling has been around for a long time.
I once owned a Jager Rifle dated to 1670 with straight rifling...no twist whatsoever.
Interesting that someone brought it back.
Andy

 

[CamoDeafie]

Short version: The ATF has decided to invent a new "classification" which will make these firearms illegal again

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZZyrUC3Gx8

Repeal NFA entirely, Hughes Amendment, and as much of GCA 1968 as possible, then abolish the ATF.


Edit, after Cargill and other Fed cases, I don't think the ATF has any authority to make new classifications outside of Congress???

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Short version: The ATF has decided to invent a new "classification" which will make these firearms illegal again

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZZyrUC3Gx8

Is it based on refining a "rifle" or "pistol" like last time with braces? If so, this one will get overturned.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Is it based on refining a "rifle" or "pistol" like last time with braces? If so, this one will get overturned.

Maybe it's just based on what "rifled" barrel means

 

[lucusloc]

So there is some wrinkles here; the Reformation is the "straight rifled" platform that does not meet NFA definitions because those specifically state twisted rifling in the legislation. The Antithesis I am less familiar with, but the crux of that one seems to be it is designed to shoot duplex/multi-projectile cartridges. The NFA as written explicitly states that rifles are designed to shoot one projectile at a time. It seems that the Antithesis can shoot standard one-projectile ammunition as well as whatever it was "designed" to shoot, so I have no idea how Franklin is defining the term "designed" here, nor am I familiar with the ammunition the not-rifle is supposedly designed to utilize. But legally speaking it is exploiting the same kind of ridged legal definitions that the Reformation is; the letter of the law says a rifle (or shotgun) is exactly thus, so if your firearm is not "exactly thus" it is not a rifle (or shotgun) and therefor definitions regarding SBRs (or SBSs) cannot legally apply.

Either way it seems the ATF does not like losing at their own game (i.e. playing definition word games) and it going for round two. I cannot see how they are going to win round two given the legal questions at issue are the exact same as the prior cases, but at this point it seems the ATF is content with just being vindictive against Franklin and is willing to spend more of our tax money litigating just for the sake of burning money. Whoever decided to go forwards with this needs to be fired (and then, of course, fire the rest of the ATF on principle).

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

the letter of the law says a rifle (or shotgun) is exactly thus

Much like anything foregrip/handstop that is < 89.9* or > 90.1* is not 'vertical'

The part that really gets my goat is that we were told we would not be having these arguments with the ATF and because all of these are bureaucratic arguments, changing the bureaucrat is all that is needed to put an end to them

 

[lucusloc]

Much like anything foregrip/handstop that is < 89.9* or > 90.1* is not 'vertical'

The part that really gets my goat is that we were told we would not be having these arguments with the ATF and because all of these are bureaucratic arguments, changing the bureaucrat is all that is needed to put an end to them

That's the beauty of Franklin's argument, they a neutering the bureaucratic arguments because they are gong right to the letter of the law as written by Congress. Congress explicitly defined that a rifle uses twist rifling, so the ATF does not get to unilaterally include straight rifling in their bureaucratic definition. If they want straight rifling covered by the NFA they have to go back to Congress to get the law amended to include that as part of the definition.

This is not like the "vertical" grip argument, because that was left up to the ATF to define, Congress made no further stipulations on "vertical" so it really gets to be whatever the ATF wants it to be. And if that is ever taken to the courts it will be decided largely on linguistic usage (with huge deference to the ATF), and I would not put it past them to argue that any vertical component of the grip is indeed "vertical," if they ever decide they want to be an bubblegum about it. That is probably not an area of law we could push and get very far.

But the definitions of things like "rifle," "shotgun," "receiver" and a few others are pretty well defined in the letter of the law, and hitting them on bureaucratic over-scope of those definitions is a place ripe for significant wins if we just want to put the money into it. Franklin is dong just that, arguing that the ATF does not have scope over their products (at least as far as the NFA goes) because they do not fit any of the rigidly defined categories laid out in the law. The only real question here is if the courts are gong to follow the letter of the law or if they are going to yield to bureaucratic overreach.

So far the courts have been holding to the letter of the law on the issue, but the ATF seems to be willing to re-litigate the issue over every tiny and insignificant detail. If the courts stick to the letter of the law this will not end well for them either, as there is precedent here for "vexatious litigation" and bringing up new insignificant trivialities when the crux of the question has already been well settled.