• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


SCOTUS hears FPC's "ATF 'frame or receiver' rule" lawsuit (VanDerStok v. Garland)

Occam's Banana

Occam's Banana

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
37,846
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1782817949096497413
7ajghas.png


VanDerStok v. Garland - FPC Lawsuit Challenging the ATF's "Frame or Receiver" Rule
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok
{Firearms Policy Coalition | undated}

Summary: Federal lawsuit challenging the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule.

Plaintiffs: Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren, Tactical Machining, and Firearms Policy Coalition

Defendants: Attorney General Merrick Garland, United States Department of Justice, ATF Directer Stephen Dettelbach, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

Litigation Counsel: R. Brent Cooper, Cody Wisniewski, Kaitlyn Schiraldi, and Erin Erhardt

Docket: N.D. TX case no. 4:22-cv-00691, Fifth Circuit case nos. 22-11071, 22-11086, 23-10463, and 23-10718, Supreme Court case nos. 23A82, 23A302, and 23-852 | CourtListener Docket

Key Events & Filings:

Supreme Court (Merits)

Supreme Court (Injunctions Pending Appeal)

Supreme Court (Summary Judgment Stay)

Circuit Court (Merits)

[... continued at link: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok ...]
​
 
Supreme Court agrees to hear dispute over Biden administration's "ghost guns" rule
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ghost-guns-supreme-court-biden-administration/
{Melissa Quinn | 22 April 2024}

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to review a lower court decision that invalidated a rule from the Biden administration that aimed to address the proliferation of crimes involving "ghost guns."

The regulation at issue was implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in April 2022 and imposed a series of requirements on manufacturers and sellers of so-called ghost guns, which are unserialized firearms that can be assembled from kits sold online.

ATF's rule changed the definition of "firearm" under the Gun Control Act to include certain weapon parts kits, and clarified that it includes partially completed parts such as the frame or receiver. As a result of the regulation, covered manufacturers and sellers have to obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers, run background checks and keep purchase records, which are all required for firearms made and sold in the U.S.

The rule applies to all ghost guns, including those made with 3D printers or sold as assembly kits.

A group of gun owners, advocacy groups and ghost gun distributors filed a lawsuit against ATF in August 2022, arguing that the two portions of its rule, regarding the term "frame or receiver" and definition of "firearm," exceeded its authority. A federal district court in Texas sided with the challengers, finding that the Gun Control Act doesn't "cover weapon parts, or aggregations of weapon parts," regardless of whether they can be assembled into "something that may fire a projectile."

The district court invalidated the entire regulation, including those that were not at issue in the lawsuit.

The Biden administration appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit halted the lower court's order as to the unchallenged portions of the rule. The Supreme Court then paused the full decision in a 5-4 ruling, allowing ATF to enforce the restrictions while legal proceedings continued. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the three liberal justices in the majority.

The 5th Circuit later ruled that the Gun Control Act's definition of "firearm" doesn't encompass weapon parts kits, and invalidated the provision of the rule involving the term "frame or receiver."

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to review the appeals court's decision in February, arguing that it contradicts the plain text of the Gun Control Act.

"Under the Fifth Circuit's interpretation, anyone could buy a kit online and assemble a fully functional gun in minutes — no background check, records, or serial number required," it told the Supreme Court. "The result would be a flood of untraceable ghost guns into our nation's communities, endangering the public and thwarting law-enforcement efforts to solve violent crimes."

The Biden administration told the court that weapon parts kits can be converted into a fully functional firearm in just 21 minutes, and ghost guns allow felons, minors and others barred from buying firearms to circumvent the law.

If left in place, the 5th Circuit's ruling would give the manufacturers and distributors of weapons parts the "green light to resume unfettered distribution" without background checks, records, or serial numbers, posing an "acute threat" to public safety, the Biden administration said.

It noted that since 2017, there has been a 1,000% increase in the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement each year.

The challengers to ATF's rule also urged the Supreme Court to decide its validity "once and for all." They told the high court in a filing that the provisions of the rule are "fundamentally incompatible" with the Gun Control Act's definition of firearm.

"This expanded definition upsets the delicate balance struck by Congress between the commercial production and sale of firearms and the non-commercial making of firearms by law-abiding citizens," the group said.

They accused the Biden administration of seeking to destroy the industry that caters to law-abiding citizens making their own guns and said that if the definition of "firearm" is now considered unsatisfactory, it's an issue for Congress to address.

"ATF is not free to expand the scope of the GCA without Congress's blessing," the challengers argued.

The case will be argued in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.
 
FPC doing warm-ups for its own SCOTUS case:

Occam's Banana said:
"The opinion was written by Justice Thomas"

https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1801621025093788144
paAyYKl.png
Click to expand...

Occam's Banana said:
They're coping and seething and seething and coping ...

https://x.com/shannonrwatts/status/1801975437381316721
gut49bS.png

t5aG8Dm.jpeg

​

The Group Helping the Supreme Court Rewrite America’s Gun Laws Is Worse Than the NRA
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/supreme-court-nra-gun-laws-bump-stocks.html
{Dahlia Lithwick & Mark Joseph Stern | 15 June 2024}

[bold & underline emphasis added - OB]

[...]

David Pucino: [...] The volume of work that comes out of the administrative state is not something that the Supreme Court can analyze in this way, at least not in any sort of reasonable manner, and I don’t think they would ever even pretend to. But what you have here is a particular, favored constituency that is bringing these questions. And then, all of a sudden, the court decides to drop everything and figure out how this gun works. Now, the way ATF does that is to sit down and actually look at the firearm. They’re going to bring in their experts and make those determinations. But the way the Supreme Court does it is they look at an amicus brief by the Firearms Policy Coalition and co-sign it.

Lithwick: That’s the group that created the six graphics and a gif that Justice Thomas used to illustrate how semiautomatic rifles work. Why was it notable that he copied and pasted their material into a Supreme Court opinion?

Pucino: The National Rifle Association is not what it used to be, and that’s created a gap. And what has gone into the gap are a bunch of further-right organizations that are trying to take the mantle of the NRA by being as extreme as possible. Foremost among them is the Firearms Policy Coalition. Friday was a real moment for them. It’s one of the most extreme groups; it uses extraordinarily violent rhetoric. And it’s putting out material that’s getting blessed by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court. You have to take a step back and look at where we are—I don’t think that’s anything you could imagine happening even 10 years ago.

[...]
Click to expand...

THREAD: Trump Bans Bump Stocks [UPDATE: struck down by SCOTUS]
 
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393151656243680
& https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843393156769034602
qyu3jEY.png


SCOTUS’s VanDerStok Case Isn’t Just About Ghost Guns
The justices are set to hear oral arguments in a challenge to the Biden administration’s ghost gun ban. If overturned, the ruling could have a chilling effect on federal regulators.
https://www.thetrace.org/2024/10/supreme-court-ghost-guns-kits-vanderstok/
{Alain Stephens | 07 October 2024}

The U.S Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on October 8 to determine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped in effectively outlawing certain kits used to make homemade, untraceable ghost guns.

The dispute in Garland v. VanDerStok arose after the ATF began requiring sellers of “ready to build” ghost gun kits to add serial numbers to some parts and conduct background checks on prospective buyers.

The regulation, implemented in 2022, came at the direction of President Joe Biden after evidence emerged that ghost guns were increasingly being used in crimes. A March 2023 ATF report found that law enforcement recovered more than 72,000 ghost guns between 2016 and 2022. More than 1,200 of those weapons surfaced in connection to homicides and attempted homicides.

Among the plaintiffs challenging the regulation is the Firearms Policy Coalition. An investigation by The Trace published in July found that the FPC was a major player in a far-reaching, multimillion dollar legal campaign to overturn gun laws nationwide.

John Donohue, a Stanford University law and economics professor, said a Supreme Court ruling could cause the number of ghost guns in circulation to surge and have a chilling effect on the ATF’s use of regulations to tackle emerging public safety threats.

“If the ATF is struck down on this, they’ll be much more cautious moving forward because they’ll realize it’s a wasted effort on this court,” Donohue said. “They won’t have the systematic ability to broaden the attack on the direct pipeline of firearms to the criminal element.”

In a similar case in June, the Supreme Court struck down the ATF’s ban on bump stocks, aftermarket devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire rapidly like machine guns.

Timothy Lytton, a law professor at Georgia State University, said the justices will now determine whether the ATF exceeded its authority by regulating ghost guns without permission from Congress.

“There is a question of statutory interpretation here,” Lytton said. “The ATF is authorized by federal legislation to regulate firearms, and through its process to regulate firearms, is extending the regulation to firearms parts kits.”

VanDerStok is the first gun case to reach the Supreme Court since June, when the justices reversed a legal precedent known as Chevron deference [see this thread - OB], which gave agencies like the ATF more latitude to interpret laws they are charged with implementing.

Donohue said the Chevron ruling could make the court take a harder line on how much leeway the ATF has to make rules.

“The Supreme Court in its current posture thinks the administrative state has gotten too powerful,” Donohue said. “They seem to be trying to cut back on it across the board.”

The court is expected to issue its ruling in 2025.
 
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843654214255554954
to: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843673574298792406
{Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy | 08 October 2024}

WE ARE LIVE!!!

The government is up first

Justice Thomas notes that these objects weren't regulated until recently, even though the government says the law is decades old

The government says it is now taking into account tools and templates when determining how easy it is to make a gun

Justice Sotomayor says the ATF's determination letters have used similar language for decades

Justice Sotomayor asks what the standard of review is. Says a block of metal isn't readily converted, so how do they know what is covered by the rule?

The government says the court should only consider if the rule itself violates federal law

Justice Alito asks what the meaning of the term "weapon" is in the rule

The government says it's the dictionary definition

Justice Alito asks if a pad an a pen are a grocery list. The government says no. Alito asks if some eggs and peppers are a western omelette. The government says no because they have other uses

Justice Barrett asks if the omelet analogy would be different if you ordered it from hello fresh and it came as a kit. The government says yes

Justice Gorsuch mentions that part of the law doesn't include the readily converted language. The government says that the law is close enough because the "ordinary meaning" of of it should be interpreted to include it

Justice Gorsuch asks why all federal laws shouldn't be read like that. The government says the context of the law indicates that it should be read that way

Justice Gorsuch points out that the government argued in court just a few years ago that these objects aren't firearms

The government says that people are misreading its brief in that case

Justice Gorsuch asks why a receiver that is cut into pieces is still a firearm, but one that is shredded is not. The government says that's what the ATF requires for firearms. Gorsuch reiterates that he's talking about the receivers, not entire guns

Justice Alito asks how much stuff needs to come with the object for it to be considered a gun

Justice Sotomayor says the rule should be seen as similar to starter gun regulations

Alito asks if weapons parts kits were common in 1968. The government says not really, says polymer materials made it easier.

The government says its readily converted if a novice can do it in a fairly quick amount of time

Justice Kagan asks if a big box of random gun parts would count as a gun. The government says no

The government says lots of dog owners own dremels

The government reiterates that while the part of the law mentioning receivers doesn't have the readily converted language, it should be read that way anyway

Justice Kavanaugh says the government's argument is strong, but he's concerned about mens rea. The government claims it won't charge people if they really thought their object didn't need a serial number

Justice Kavanaugh asks if someone didn't ask ATF and truly thought they weren't violating the law when they sold the object without a background check, could they be charged? The government says yes

The government says the rule is actually ATF's longstanding interpretation of the statue

Justice Barrett asks if AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine guns. The government says no.

The government says AR-15s are obviously designed for semi-automatic fire, not full auto. Says the ATF has never suggested or thought otherwise

Justice Jackson says the court shouldn't find that the government exceeded its authority just because it disagrees with its interpretation

Our lawyer is up now

We point out how the government argued in court a few years ago that these objects are not firearms

We point out that when the government wanted to regulate things that can "readily" become guns, it put in in the law

Judge Thomas asks about how the 80% rule operated. We say how it was an informal term used in the industry for objects that were partially made into receivers, but needed additional work to be complete

Justice Sotomayor says that since a part has to at some point be made far enough toward a gun to be a gun, therefore the ATF is allowed to decide where that point is

We mention how we provided the court with alternative tests that it could use. Justice Sotomayor starts trying to get us in a gotcha by asking mentioning needing to remove a tab or add a hole, asking if that's close enough to a gun

We mention how a reporter tried to write an article about how easy these are to make, but he was unable to do it and needed help

Justice Roberts suggests that the objects are too easy to make into guns

We point out that Congress used "readily restored" in the machine gun language, showing that they specifically chose where to put converted or restored language in sections of the law

Justice Alito says what if his neighbor is restoring a car and took out some parts. People would still refer to it as a car even if it didn't currently have an engine.

Our lawyer tells Justice Jackson that our job is to show that the rule is illegal, not necessarily that we have the best alternative interpretation

Justice Jackson asks if a disassembled gun is still a gun. We say yes because the receiver is a gun. Jackson says what if the receiver isn't there. We say no because that is the part considered a gun.

Justice Sotomayor asks what if all the parts of the gun are there but the receiver is missing a hole, is that a gun? We say that depends on if the receiver is readily convertible to a gun

The government is back up

The government says that hobbyists don't want parts that can be turned into a gun in 20 minutes because that's too fast

The government says it's important to note that gun companies aren't suing over this rule

The government says if we win, that "all guns could become ghost guns"

The arguments have ended. We will let you know when the transcript and audio are available on the court's website
 
Occam's Banana said:
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843654214255554954
to: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843673574298792406
{Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy | 08 October 2024}

[...]

Justice Jackson says the court shouldn't find that the government exceeded its authority just because it disagrees with its interpretation

Our lawyer is up now

[...]

Our lawyer tells Justice Jackson that our job is to show that the rule is illegal, not necessarily that we have the best alternative interpretation

Justice Jackson asks if a disassembled gun is still a gun. We say yes because the receiver is a gun. Jackson says what if the receiver isn't there. We say no because that is the part considered a gun.

[....
Click to expand...

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1843702899995750461
 
jmdrake said:
It's funny how these liars call hobbyists "the gun lobby." Gan manufacturers have a vested economic interest in shutting down hobbyist gun manufacturers as opposed to the other way around.
Click to expand...

That hadn't even occurred to me. You're right.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.
 
Occam's Banana said:
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843654214255554954
to: https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843673574298792406
{Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy | 08 October 2024}

WE ARE LIVE!!!

The government is up first

Justice Thomas notes that these objects weren't regulated until recently, even though the government says the law is decades old

The government says it is now taking into account tools and templates when determining how easy it is to make a gun

Justice Sotomayor says the ATF's determination letters have used similar language for decades

Justice Sotomayor asks what the standard of review is. Says a block of metal isn't readily converted, so how do they know what is covered by the rule?

The government says the court should only consider if the rule itself violates federal law

Justice Alito asks what the meaning of the term "weapon" is in the rule

The government says it's the dictionary definition

Justice Alito asks if a pad an a pen are a grocery list. The government says no. Alito asks if some eggs and peppers are a western omelette. The government says no because they have other uses

Justice Barrett asks if the omelet analogy would be different if you ordered it from hello fresh and it came as a kit. The government says yes

Justice Gorsuch mentions that part of the law doesn't include the readily converted language. The government says that the law is close enough because the "ordinary meaning" of of it should be interpreted to include it

Justice Gorsuch asks why all federal laws shouldn't be read like that. The government says the context of the law indicates that it should be read that way

Justice Gorsuch points out that the government argued in court just a few years ago that these objects aren't firearms

The government says that people are misreading its brief in that case

Justice Gorsuch asks why a receiver that is cut into pieces is still a firearm, but one that is shredded is not. The government says that's what the ATF requires for firearms. Gorsuch reiterates that he's talking about the receivers, not entire guns

Justice Alito asks how much stuff needs to come with the object for it to be considered a gun

Justice Sotomayor says the rule should be seen as similar to starter gun regulations

Alito asks if weapons parts kits were common in 1968. The government says not really, says polymer materials made it easier.

The government says its readily converted if a novice can do it in a fairly quick amount of time

Justice Kagan asks if a big box of random gun parts would count as a gun. The government says no

The government says lots of dog owners own dremels

The government reiterates that while the part of the law mentioning receivers doesn't have the readily converted language, it should be read that way anyway

Justice Kavanaugh says the government's argument is strong, but he's concerned about mens rea. The government claims it won't charge people if they really thought their object didn't need a serial number

Justice Kavanaugh asks if someone didn't ask ATF and truly thought they weren't violating the law when they sold the object without a background check, could they be charged? The government says yes

The government says the rule is actually ATF's longstanding interpretation of the statue

Justice Barrett asks if AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine guns. The government says no.

The government says AR-15s are obviously designed for semi-automatic fire, not full auto. Says the ATF has never suggested or thought otherwise

Justice Jackson says the court shouldn't find that the government exceeded its authority just because it disagrees with its interpretation

Our lawyer is up now

We point out how the government argued in court a few years ago that these objects are not firearms

We point out that when the government wanted to regulate things that can "readily" become guns, it put in in the law

Judge Thomas asks about how the 80% rule operated. We say how it was an informal term used in the industry for objects that were partially made into receivers, but needed additional work to be complete

Justice Sotomayor says that since a part has to at some point be made far enough toward a gun to be a gun, therefore the ATF is allowed to decide where that point is

We mention how we provided the court with alternative tests that it could use. Justice Sotomayor starts trying to get us in a gotcha by asking mentioning needing to remove a tab or add a hole, asking if that's close enough to a gun

We mention how a reporter tried to write an article about how easy these are to make, but he was unable to do it and needed help

Justice Roberts suggests that the objects are too easy to make into guns

We point out that Congress used "readily restored" in the machine gun language, showing that they specifically chose where to put converted or restored language in sections of the law

Justice Alito says what if his neighbor is restoring a car and took out some parts. People would still refer to it as a car even if it didn't currently have an engine.

Our lawyer tells Justice Jackson that our job is to show that the rule is illegal, not necessarily that we have the best alternative interpretation

Justice Jackson asks if a disassembled gun is still a gun. We say yes because the receiver is a gun. Jackson says what if the receiver isn't there. We say no because that is the part considered a gun.

Justice Sotomayor asks what if all the parts of the gun are there but the receiver is missing a hole, is that a gun? We say that depends on if the receiver is readily convertible to a gun

The government is back up

The government says that hobbyists don't want parts that can be turned into a gun in 20 minutes because that's too fast

The government says it's important to note that gun companies aren't suing over this rule

The government says if we win, that "all guns could become ghost guns"

The arguments have ended. We will let you know when the transcript and audio are available on the court's website
Click to expand...

Interesting. Here's my 2 1/2 cents adjusted for inflation. (Okay. $5.00 considering how bad inflation really is).

Justice Thomas notes that these objects weren't regulated until recently, even though the government says the law is decades old

The government says it is now taking into account tools and templates when determining how easy it is to make a gun​

I present to you exhibit A, the Luty "British Standard Pipe" machine gun that looks like it could be built with a drill press, angle grinder and a few other parts:

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/pdf/BSP-SMG_Book.pdf

Yeah....according to Brandon Hererra, Luty's other "expedient home machinegun" kinda sucks, but that's mainly because it didn't have a rifled barrel (no accuracy) and didn't have a folding stock. This one has a folding stock (made out of a ratchet of all things). Brandon's review of Luty's other gun.



But I digress....


Justice Alito asks if a pad an a pen are a grocery list. The government says no. Alito asks if some eggs and peppers are a western omelette. The government says no because they have other uses

Justice Barrett asks if the omelet analogy would be different if you ordered it from hello fresh and it came as a kit. The government says yes
​

Hmmm.....so currently it's illegal to sell explosives but its perfectly legal to sell certain chemicals that can be used to make explosive. Tannerite makes use of that loophole. It's legal to sell the chemicals that can be mixed together to make Tannerite and even include an instruction booklet on how to do it.



Justice Barrett asks if AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine guns. The government says no.

The government says AR-15s are obviously designed for semi-automatic fire, not full auto. Says the ATF has never suggested or thought otherwise.​

Somebody should tell this to Whoopie Goldberg and Kamala Harris who seem to think their Glocks (if Kamala even owns one) are semiautomatic but AR15's are somehow fully automatic.

We mention how we provided the court with alternative tests that it could use. Justice Sotomayor starts trying to get us in a gotcha by asking mentioning needing to remove a tab or add a hole, asking if that's close enough to a gun

We mention how a reporter tried to write an article about how easy these are to make, but he was unable to do it and needed help

Justice Roberts suggests that the objects are too easy to make into guns

We point out that Congress used "readily restored" in the machine gun language, showing that they specifically chose where to put converted or restored language in sections of the law

Justice Alito says what if his neighbor is restoring a car and took out some parts. People would still refer to it as a car even if it didn't currently have an engine.​

So....to Justice Alito's point....the government hasn't given a legal definition to what something needs to be a "car" but it specifically designated a lower receiver to be the "gun." And really, this case is kind of silly. Let's say Biden wins and is able to shut down the sale of partially finished metal lower receivers. And? How exactly does that stop 3D printed lower receivers?



Yeah...they could make having such plans on your computer the same as kiddie porn. Sure that would require an act of congress, but what they're trying to do right now should require that as well.

The government is back up

The government says that hobbyists don't want parts that can be turned into a gun in 20 minutes because that's too fast

The government says it's important to note that gun companies aren't suing over this rule

The government says if we win, that "all guns could become ghost guns"​

Well....the government conceded a point I made elsewhere in this thread. It's not the "gun lobby" (industry) that wants this regulation. It's the rank and file "little people" that the left claims to care so much about. As for the "all guns could become ghost guns"....ummmm....yeah? What's to stop someone from casting a lower receiver in his backyard from aluminum? Or what about starting with a 0% receiver, basically just a block of aluminum?

Oh wait. Cody Wilson, the guy who made the first 3D printed gun ever, has already thought of that.



So even if the feds "win" they still lose.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Supreme Court Hears Trump v. Anderson: What To Expect
Replies
8
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
unknown
Executive Director of Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport in critical condition after ATF raid.
Replies
19
Views
2K
susano
susano
Anti Federalist
Michigan Supreme Court rules Trump will stay on ballot.
Replies
1
Views
383
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
W
Gun Owners of America Sues ATF Over “Zero Tolerance” Policy
Replies
2
Views
533
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
ammodotcom
Gun Control Laws and Enforcement Trends 2023
Replies
5
Views
1K
ammodotcom
ammodotcom
Back
Top