The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing oral arguments in the case involving so-called “ghost guns” on Tuesday.
The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, challenges the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past. Back in April, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge.
At issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies ignoring the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and overstepping their bounds by making laws instead of enforcing them.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously decided just that last November, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter. In the ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.
“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion. “But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”
Judge Engelhardt further wrote that the Final Rule “flouts clear statutory text” and “exceeds the legislatively imposed limits” on agency authority.
“Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will,” the judge wrote. “Unless and until Congress acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text’s existing limits.”
The lawsuit was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of itself, two individual FPC members and Tactical Machining LLC. In a brief filed by the FPC in June, the organization spelled out exactly what the court needs to consider.
“The questions presented are: 1. Whether ‘a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,’ is a ‘firearm’ regulated by the Act,” the brief stated. “2. Whether ‘a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver’ that is ‘designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,’ is a ‘frame or receiver’ regulated by the Act.”
I don’t see the purpose behind the law suit, especially elevating the appeal to the SC. The Supremes are not willing to follow their own ruling in Bruen. IMHO, since Bruen, the SC has indicated a distaste for firearms cases, and an utter unwillingness to discipline the lower courts. Of course, there is no judicial way to impose discipline on the legislative branch (which might actually be a good thing, in some instances.
We have what we have, and tha’s all what we have.
I think you are wrong. It has a distaste for cases that are not final for all purposes. The recent cases in which review was denied were almost entirely from decision denying preliminary injunctions pending appeal, i.e., cases in which the factual record is not settled by trial. However, when cases have run their course in the courts of appeal, they are fully ripe for supreme court review. Such is the case with the new ATF firearms rule that was applied to parts kits as well as the Snopes case, which had gone up after a final ruling once before and was reversed for review in light of Bruen.
What I am not sure about, at this point in time, is what effect the Garland case will have on state laws banning importation of parts kits, as is the case in California. California in fact filed criminal charges against parts suppliers/manufacturers, ultimately entering into consent decrees whereby further importation or production was halted.
“What I am not sure about, at this point in time, is what effect the Garland case will have on state laws banning importation of parts kits, as is the case in California.”
Are there any legal challenges being made to that BS? Lets load the lawsuit pipeline and see what shakes out. As home gun-making was common at the nation’s founding, that seems like a slam-dunk for a ‘Bruen’-precedent ruling, does it not?
“It has a distaste for cases that are not final for all purposes.”
The matter should be resolved in favor of the public, regardless of the timeline. “Does the restriction affect gun owners, directly or indirectly? If yes, case dismissed; no need to spend further funds of plaintiff, or defender.”
The founders knew about “exceptions” to the Constitution, and included none in the BOR. It was not out of ignorance, or failure to see into the future.
The Second Amendment is about protecting individuals and groups from the government at every turn. Lawfare is prolonged only to provide permanent employment of lawyers, on both sides.
Courts should never be concerned with the societal impact of their decisions. That is politics, the purview of the legislative and executive branches, only.
The Federal Courts just love to play politics. A game to see if govt has come up with a novel argument that justifies denial of natural, human, and civil rights. The mere attempt of govt to do anything that implicates curtailing of the Constitution, should be immediately ruled null and void, with accompanying order that any individual of government attempting to create a “workaround” to the constitution is prima facie no longer individually immune from prosecution for, how does it go, denial of rights under color of law.
Here we go again trying to explain common sense to the one judge who will tip the scales in favor of your rights. Shucks I just wouldn’t know what to do if it weren’t for bloated government busy bodies making decisions for me…NOT.
Feel free to try out total freedom elsewhere, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year. Oh wait you are just mouthing off without understanding your own country’s laws and procedures again? Lol opinion discarded.
Holy crap, are we pretending heavily tribal Somalia is a place where just anybody can buy/possess a gun? Or even occupy space? Again? I haven’t seen this nonsense in years. It was very popular amongst leftist trolls in 2015 or 2016 tho.
yup, your correct, opinion discarded. Though I dont think we’re referring to the same opinion.
should an american citizen be allowed to build their own weapons.
seems as though they should however freedom in america is no different then any other dictatorship. government mission first
freedom second
🇺🇸🥰Xax
I just read an article in the news about this case, and boy, they were not even close on what this case is all about. They described as to whether governments can outlaw ghost guns because of the violence they bring into certain “vulnerable” communities, not even mentioning that the real fight is about the power of an administrative agency to write its own laws.
I was amazed by the hypocritical blindness of some of the commenters quoted in the article, one noting for example that police violence is an issue which is dealt with immediately but gun violence not so much. What surprised me was the myopia. For police violence, we fire cops, convict the bad ones, and retrain the rest, but we don’t take away their guns. But for gun violence, we try to take away the guns but allow the violent perpetrators out of jail OOR (because bail is sooo racist), notwithstanding that 60% of murders are within “vulnerable” communities (aka of color).
“They described as to whether governments can outlaw ghost guns because of the violence they bring into certain “vulnerable” communities, not even mentioning that the real fight is about the power of an administrative agency to write its own laws.”
I agree, the article misses the real issue being fought which is “about the power of an administrative agency to write its own laws.”
The oral arguments just ended.
I really hope for the best. They’ve surprised me the last few years. Basically I dont believe the conservatives, or their appointed judges, care any more about gun rights or the 2nd amendment than the left does. They’re just on the “opposite side” of the argument. If the democrats flipped and became “pro gun”, the pubs wouldn’t waste 15 minutes before they flipped to “anti”.
No government, except perhaps the Swiss, wants their citizens armed. They only want other nations citizens armed. If the US government could “uninvent” the second amendment they would.
Still, I’m hopeful that this current court will take a passing glance at the constitution before they rule.
The danger I see is if the SC rules in favor of the ATF, that will open the door to expansion of the rule to include aftermarket accessories such as muzzle brakes, optics, choke tubes, trigger kits, and anything else that improves the function, range, or accuracy of the gun.
The arguments by the ATF were all based on the GCA of 1968, which in itself was an infringement on the 2A, and never should have been passed to start with.
Comments are closed.