VanDerStok v Garland - ATF definition of unfinished firearms

[Euler]

 

[EdDinIL]

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of the government.  Alito and Thomas dissent.

 

Quote

Held: The ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf 

 

[Molly B.]

So, from my reading/understanding of the ruling: while the court has ruled the ATF's regulation of parts kits is not unconstitutional facially, it may be unconstitutional as-applied but that is an argument for another day.

Admittedly, our reasoning here has its limits. Just be-
cause some kits, like Polymer80’s, qualify as “weapons” that
“can readily be converted” into working firearms does not
mean all do...

Weapon parts kits vary widely. See Part I–A, supra. Not
all come as complete as the “Buy Build Shoot” kit. Some,
too, may require more time, expertise, or specialized tools
to finish. And at some point a kit may be so incomplete or
cumbersome to assemble that it can no longer fairly be de-
scribed as a “weapon” capable of “read[y] . . . conver[sion]”
into a working firearm. §921(a)(3)(A)....

Because
at least some weapon parts kits satisfy both of subsection
(A)’s tests, §478.11 is not facially invalid. Future cases may
present other and more difficult questions about ATF’s reg-
ulations. But we take cases as they come and today resolve
only the question posed to us....

 

In fact, as we have seen, sub-
section (A) reaches any “weapon” that may “readily be con-
verted” to live fire. §921(a)(3)(A). And a gun that is fully
operable, save for a frame missing a single and easily-added
screw, would surely fit that description. See Part II–A, su-
pra. For another, even if the statute did require a “weapon”
to have a fully functional frame or receiver, some weapon
parts kits may fit that description. Imagine a kit identical
to Polymer80’s in all respects, except that it has a complete
frame. Even the plaintiffs would have to admit that such a
kit would count as a “weapon” under subsection (A)....

The GCA reaches, and permits ATF to regulate, at least some “partially complete” frames or receivers. §478.12(c).

 

Our analysis of the GCA thus does not
begin to suggest that ATF possesses authority to regulate
AR–15 receivers as machineguns under the NFA.

Third, the plaintiffs criticize ATF’s rule for permitting
the agency to consider “jigs,” “tools,” and “instructions”
when deciding whether an incomplete “frame or receiver” is
close enough to the finished product to fall under subsection
(B). .... But if this is a problem at all, it is one for
another day. As litigated, this case does not call on us to
address what weight, if any, ATF may lawfully give jigs,
tools, and instructions when deciding whether a frame or
receiver is present. This case requires us to answer only
whether subsection (B) reaches some incomplete frames or
receivers. Saying that it does is enough to resolve the dis-
pute before us.

And even if ambiguities at the outer boundaries of subsec-
tions (A) and (B) emerge in future disputes involving the
application of those provisions to particular products, no
room for doubt exists about the answer to the question the
parties have posed to us. The GCA embraces, and thus per-
mits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfin-
ished frames or receivers, including those we have dis-
cussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its
judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[EdDinIL]

"Some" is carrying a lot of weight there.  Hopefully this rule will be one of those things that AG Bondi will be reviewing and undoing.

[mab22]

I seen the article on fox and they described the law as,

The law defines a "firearm" to include "any weapon… which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive," as well as "the frame or receiver of any such weapon."

 

So now something like roman candle, or those party poppers yo buy that the store the launch paper streams are weapons regulated by the ATF? 

They expel projectiles by the action of an explosive.

 

And technically gun powder is a propellant, not an explosive, but under incorrect pressures things can go boom!

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

I'm still confused, I may have designed and completely build a firearm from scratch (still in brass) 30 years ago, would that be illegal now or not?

[Jeffrey]

Does this mean I need to register the lead pipe I'll be purchasing from Home Depot?

[yurimodin]

So much for "Text, history, and tradition at the time of the founding"........Just more of Roberts and his band of merry RINOs doing their thing.

 

I have a feeling Roberts is gonna give us the McCain 0care treatment when the time comes (again) on PICA.

[Molly B.]

 

On 3/26/2025 at 3:58 PM, yurimodin said:

So much for "Text, history, and tradition at the time of the founding"........Just more of Roberts and his band of merry RINOs doing their thing.

 

I have a feeling Roberts is gonna give us the McCain 0care treatment when the time comes (again) on PICA.

From what I understand the Second Amendment issue was not introduced or argued in this case. It was a challenge to ATF's rule making powers under administrative law. The Second Amendment issue and a challenge to the whole gun control act will be argued another day in another case.

[EdDinIL]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:35 PM, Molly B. said:

The Second Amendment issue and a challenge to the whole gun control act will be argued another day in another case.

Are there any cases challenging the GCA as a 2A violation right now?

[lilguy]

Who here is ready to bet the farm on SCOTUS 

throwing out all the AWBs in the many states. 
 

So one day 5 conservative justices are going to order all the states with gun and mag bans to open the food gates. I no longer believe there is any chance of that ever happening.

 

[Tvandermyde]

 

[Euler]

On March 26, 2025 at 10:27 PM CDT, EdDinIL said:→

Are there any cases challenging the GCA as a 2A violation right now?

There's nothing that challenges the GCA in its entirety. Standing pretty much requires challenging it piece by piece. Currently petitioned to the Supreme Court are:

• Price v US challenges the provision that all firearms must be serialized.
• Bondi v Range challenges the provision that all "felons" must be disarmed for life. (Under the federal definition of a felony, Range is a felon, even though he was only convicted of a non-violent misdemeanor.)

There's more in the lower courts working its way up.

[Ranger]

Our "friends" at The Trace are thrilled and sent out Special Edition email just to let everyone know.  We need more justices like Alito and Thomas.

 

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 3/26/2025 at 4:35 PM, Molly B. said:

From what I understand the Second Amendment issue was not introduced or argued in this case. It was a challenge to ATF's rule making powers under administrative law. The Second Amendment issue and a challenge to the whole gun control act will be argued another day in another case.

So I guess they forgot all about overturning Chevron a few months ago.

[Ranger]

On the bright side, maybe the ATF is / will be much more 2A friendly for a while.

 

 

 

[EdDinIL]

On 3/27/2025 at 1:57 PM, Ranger said:

On the bright side, maybe the ATF is / will be much more 2A friendly for a while.

 

AG Bondi will circle back on that.

[yurimodin]

On 3/27/2025 at 2:28 PM, EdDinIL said:

 

AG Bondi will circle back on that.

You misspelled Scam Blondi

[Molly B.]

 

[Euler]

On March 27, the 5th Circuit received the Supreme Court opinion.