Bully - you don't seem to understand or want to understand how the system works. First off, one part, standing alone, can be considered a machinegun. If you read the statutory definition, a machinegun is defined in several ways - and a firearm that fires automatically more than one shot per pull of the trigger is only one aspect of the multipart definition.
And of course, just because BATF has not strictly investigated and enforced the rule in the past, does not mean they cannot now. Agency enforcement priorities can, and do change. Additionally, there is no contradictory BATF position that I'm aware of. If you have a BATF advisory opinion or a ruling which contradicts their current position, I'd be happy to see it though.
Finally, you don't understand ...or maybe just don't want to face, the reality of how the courts deal with technical determinations by an agency. The courts will reveiw it, but unless there is absolutely no logical basis in fact or law for the determinbation, the courts must uphold it - the judge has extremely little discretion here and this is not the type of question that a jury gets to address. If BATF can show any scintilla of logic in the rule (and believe me, they can), the judge's hands are tied.