On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case that could redefine the federal government’s ability to regulate “ghost guns”—untraceable firearms assembled from kits or components without serial numbers. The Biden administration argues that these kits, which can be quickly turned into functioning firearms, should be subject to the same regulations as traditional guns. The case arose out of a 2022 rule from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and implemented at the behest of the Biden Administration that extended the definition of “firearm” under the 1968 Gun Control Act to include gun kits that can be “readily converted” into operational firearms.
Background and Legal Challenges
The ATF rule attempts to address the rise in ghost gun use by requiring manufacturers to serialize gun kits and conduct background checks on buyers, the same as would be required for complete firearms. Challengers, including gun-rights advocacy groups the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), a company, Tactical Machining LLC and two individual gun owners, argue that the ATF overstepped its authority. They contend that the rule covers items that are not yet functional firearms, thus exceeding the scope of the 1968 law. This argument found support in the conservative-leaning 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely upheld a decision blocking the ATF rule, stating that a partially completed frame or receiver is not yet a “firearm” under the statute.
After the appeals court’s decision, the Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed the rule to remain in effect while the case progressed. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to keep the regulation in place signaled a possible split among the justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal members, according to Vox, a typically anti-gun media outlet, and SCOTUSblog, a blog that follows cases being heard at the Supreme Court.
Key Arguments and Reactions in the Court
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the government, defended the rule by highlighting the ease with which ghost gun kits can be assembled into fully functioning firearms. Prelogar noted that some kits are marketed as being “ridiculously easy to assemble and dummy-proof” and can be converted into operational guns within minutes, according to SCOTUSblog. She argued there are inherent dangers in allowing unregulated gun kits to be sold without serial numbers or background checks, stating that “the whole reason why you want to get your hands on one of these unserialized, untraceable firearms is if you are barred by law from having a gun or if you want to use that gun in a crime”
As explained in the recent article on The Truth About Guns highlighting the case, however, “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.” Building their own firearms is a long, time-honored hobby of a number of firearms enthusiasts.
Peter Patterson, the attorney representing the challengers, argued that the ATF’s rule “exceeded its authority by operating outside of the bounds set by Congress” in the 1968 Gun Control Act, reported SCOTUSblog. He contended that Congress did not intend to regulate incomplete frames or receivers and that the rule improperly extends to items that are not yet operational firearms. Patterson asserted, “It would be very odd for the rule to apply to frames or receivers that ‘may readily be converted’ to function as a frame or receiver when Congress did not use that same language in defining frames or receivers in the 1968 law.”
However, several justices appeared skeptical of the challengers’ arguments. Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether the sale of these kits genuinely caters to hobbyists, suggesting that the minimal effort required to assemble a ghost gun was not akin to other do-it-yourself projects.
According to Vox, the argument played out like this:
Early in the argument, while Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar was making the government’s case, Justice Samuel Alito asked her a series of hypotheticals about incomplete objects. Is a pen and a blank pad of paper a “grocery list?” Does a bunch of uncooked eggs, ham, and peppers constitute an “omelet?” Alito’s point appeared to be that, just like untouched ingredients don’t constitute an “omelet,” an incomplete firearm is not a gun.
But Barrett seemed unconvinced. Almost immediately after Alito finished grilling Prelogar, Barrett asked about a slightly different hypothetical. What if someone purchased an omelet kit from Hello Fresh, a service that delivers ready-to-cook meal kits to people’s homes. Barrett’s point was pretty clear: While a bunch of uncooked ingredients may not always constitute an “omelet,” the answer is different when someone buys a kit whose sole purpose is to be put together into an omelet.
The same rule, Barrett suggested, should apply to ghost gun kits.
Roberts, meanwhile, was more direct than Barrett. “What is the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled in it?” the Chief Justice asked Patterson. In response, Patterson claimed, somewhat implausibly, that people may buy a ghost gun kit because they enjoy the experience of building a gun much like some hobbyists enjoy working on their own car.
But Roberts didn’t buy this argument at all. “Drilling a hole or two,” he dryly responded to Patterson, “I would think doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekend.”
Later in the argument, after Prelogar was back at the podium, she stuck the knife in Patterson’s argument. Federal law, she noted, doesn’t ban ghost gun kits, it merely requires ghost gun sellers to follow the same background check and serial number laws as any other gun seller. So, if there were a market for law-abiding hobbyists who want to drill a couple holes before they fire their gun, those hobbyists could still get a ghost gun if they submitted to a background check.
While Vox suggested, “once the government issued a rule stating that ghost guns are subject to the same laws as any other gun, the market for this product dried up. Turns out, hobbyists weren’t interested in buying almost-complete guns with missing holes,” isn’t true. If it was, this case wouldn’t be so closely followed by the gun community. While never a pursuit of the broader firearms community, there are still any number of gun enthusiasts who enjoy building their own firearms as exhibited in the availability of components for the modular AR-style rifle. What the ATF ruling did do is establish unnecessary regulations that stymied manufacturers and legal buyers and virtually outlawed the way the industry had always operated.
Broader Implications and Future of the Rule
This case carries significant implications for how the federal government can regulate firearms, particularly as technological advances enable individuals to bypass traditional purchasing channels. According to WCVB, George Washington University School of Law professor Alan Morrison observed that the case is more about federal agency power than the Second Amendment, noting that it “will test how much the court is willing to disregard what agencies determine.” The outcome could affect not just ghost guns but broader regulatory authority over firearms.
Observers of the oral arguments, including those at SCOTUS Blog, NPR and Vox, suggest that a majority of the justices seemed inclined to support the government’s rule. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett appeared unconvinced by the challengers’ assertion that the 1968 law does not cover ghost gun kits. Justice Kavanaugh, who previously expressed concerns about the possibility of criminalizing accidental noncompliance by sellers, sought reassurance from Prelogar that such scenarios would not result in prosecutions unless the seller “willfully” violated the law.
Prelogar clarified that “a manufacturer who believed in good faith that it was not violating the law could not be convicted for failing to put a serial number on the gun or for selling the gun without a license.” She emphasized that the ATF’s focus was on sellers intentionally circumventing regulations, rather than on inadvertent errors. It’s doubtful the ATF or other federal agencies will get that memo, however, should such regulation become the permanent law of the land.
Anticipated Ruling and Conclusion
While a final decision is not expected until the spring or early summer of 2024, the justices’ questioning suggests a possible shift in how the Court approaches gun regulations, even as it remains cautious about broader agency powers. If the rule is upheld, it would solidify the ATF’s authority to regulate the sale of ghost gun kits as firearms, potentially reshaping the landscape of federal gun regulations. With at least five justices appearing sympathetic to the government’s arguments, the outcome may reflect a rare instance where this conservative-leaning Court sides with a gun regulation measure, Vox theorized.
…shouldn’t “2024” be “2025” toward the end? Or was this articlewritten in 2023?
“Readily converted” apparently means putting a piece of metal on a mill and start machining. LOL
These people are all insane.
“the whole reason why you want to get your hands on one of these unserialized, untraceable firearms is if you are barred by law from having a gun or if you want to use that gun in a crime”
Or if you want the government out of your life. LOL If the gov doesn’t know what you have, then they won’t come knocking for it.
When is the ATF going to try to ban this:
https://www.guns.com/news/2014/05/17/awesome-new-zero-percent-lower-receiver
I’m guessing you meant to say that a decision won’t be reached until spring or summer of 2025 that being said with 3-D printers they are not gonna be able to stop the signal.
Well that would cover the Glocks and AR’s but sucks for the 1911 and 700 builders. Would be interesting to see what it would take for a Sig 320 or 365 module but can’t really play around with my state and job.
Rack Robotics. Take an Ender 3, build a Powercore and turn it into an EDM machine. The nets of the FCUs are on GrabCAD.
When they started making omelets it sounded like it was headed to a serialized kit and a 4473. In other words it sounds like you slaves to the 1968 “Gun Control” Act may have to stfu and get back to picking cotton.
Is there currently any age limit on those who wish to buy a kit?
Can we clone Thomas? Seems all the other ‘conservative’ justices are squishy when the going gets constitutional.
I expect nothing from SCOTUS. There’s gonna be a reckoning. Soon.
One box left to us yet.
so americans rights are dependent upon 9 government picked judges and only 5 of them have to agree on the same thing.
Freedom🇺🇸🥰Xax
“so americans rights are dependent upon 9 government picked judges and only 5 of them have to agree on the same thing.”
Our rights aren’t dependent upon any number of justices. However….exercise of them does.
As to 5/4 decisions, using democratic methods in the republic means, “the majority rules”. The legislature can direct that the judicial department establish thresholds of whatever number of plus votes constitutes a “majority”. So, here we are.
When you read judicial history of the US, it is kinda interesting how many verdicts are decided by a single vote in any court.
You quote the twits at VOX as some kind of authority on something? FIVE times! BS
SCOTUS already ruled on fedgov lawless regulatory overreach last session. CHEVRON
So much for those “great” Trump picks. These duds are like IKEA furniture. A thin veneer of hardwood on the surface but under that it’s just wood chips and glue. With the slightest bit of moisture hits it inside the all just swells up and turns to goo inside and loses all stiffness and integrity.
The only justice with any integrity is Clarence Thomas. The rest of those so-called “conservative” pudds are all weak tea.
why not a right to privacy argument too? the left got so many things made rights by that premise.
What happened to SCOTUS’ comments on the factual ‘over step of authority by the executive branch’ argument? Forgotten? Did I just miss it? If they want to quantify how much required work it takes to make a blank not a receiver, isn’t it their job to just say “that there be Congress’s job”?
Roberts’ moralizing about cars and the work ethic required for “reward” aside, do the “5 conservatives” (and their neighbors) still live surrounded by “leftwing protesters”? Do they eat at restaurants staffed “leftist sympathizers”? Are their doctors above “stealth activism”?
All criminals are not Leftists, but all Leftists are criminals. And those who love liberty do not trust them.
Well, never mind, just look for more cheery upbeat stories in MSM about the Border – new bridges new roads festivals etc etc blah blah blah…
Till November anyway.
Until then, all you lazy hobbyists need to look forward to drilling more holes.
Ok, what I don’t like about this case is that the ENTIRE focus from both sides seems to be on 80% Glock clones, which I admit, are very easy. What’s getting lost, however is the nuance and detail required to complete an 80% 1911, or the patience, precision and time required to finish an 80% ARx lower. There are many others, and because Glock clones are easy, the whole thing is being made to look like the 80% industry as a whole is THAT easy. It’s not. Untrained monkeys aren’t building Glocks behind dumpsters.
” or components without serial numbers.” About that trigger replacement, serialized? Not the original slide/barrel on that Sig? Thought we already had a S.C. ruling on rouge three letter agencies creating laws without congress.
Justice Alito Embarrasses The ATF In Supreme Court Gun Case.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lseg_Sa5byU
FEMA CAUGHT LYING!! Claiming Private Aid Stations As Their Own!!
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuzJGD8sc8k
“Republicans in Congress call out hurricane misinformation coming from within their own party
By Haley Talbot, CNN
4 minute read
Published 2:52 PM EDT, Wed October 9, 2024
Republican Rep. Carlos Gimenez of Florida called out Georgia firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene on Wednesday telling her to get her “head examined” for suggesting someone is “controlling the weather.”
Last week, Greene, without specifying who “they” is, posted, “Yes they can control the weather. It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done.”
Gimenez, on CNN’s “This Morning” with Kasie Hunt, added, “There’s no place for misinformation, especially when it’s on purpose, at times like this.” Before joining Congress, Gimenez was a career firefighter-paramedic and managed natural disasters as the former Mayor of Miami-Dade County.
Republican Rep. Chuck Edwards, who represents storm-ravaged western North Carolina and has been on the ground assisting with recovery efforts, felt compelled to send a letter to his community fact checking a number of the outlandish conspiracy theories.
“Amidst all of the support, we have also seen an uptick in untrustworthy sources trying to spark chaos by sharing hoaxes, conspiracy theories, and hearsay about hurricane response efforts across our mountains,” he wrote in the letter. “I’m here to dispel the outrageous rumors that have been circulated online.”
COURTROOM AUDIO: SUPREME COURT ATF FIGHT OVER “GHOST GUNS”.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW_eZG0aNPI
(Yet) Another Prominent Anti-Gun Mayor Has Been Indicted, This Time in the Big Apple.
h ttps://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-control/another-prominent-anti-gun-mayor-has-been-indicted-this-time-in-the-big-apple/
Resident Fatally Shoots Machete-Wielding Man at Senior Living Complex in CT.
h ttps://www.wtnh.com/news/connecticut/new-haven/person-shot-at-bella-vista-apartments-in-new-haven/
Shouldn’t we be advocating for protection our right to make weapons of any kind and stop with all the serialization? When was the last time a crime was solved by a serial number… knives don’t have serial numbers
““the whole reason why you want to get your hands on one of these unserialized, untraceable firearms is if you are barred by law from having a gun or if you want to use that gun in a crime” ”
Lying bitch.
Or I don’t want the government up in my business. They’ve eroded away enough of my privacy over the last 20-30 years I’d like to keep some small amount of it.
Also, with constant lawfare against gun makers, it’s important to understand that the only way to actually get a gun in the future may well be making it at some level or another.
This also ignores that the laws don’t care about your feels. Besides the 2A implications, Congress did not write the law in a way that gives the ATF this sort of leeway.
Besides that there’s also the idea that maybe just maybe instead of trying people for simple posession of inanimate objects, maybe we should try them on actually hurting other people or conspiring to do such. The lie we’re being told is that control to weapons access will somehow transform people who are doing bad things into people who don’t. Gasoline, cars, machetes, baseball bats work well. We’ve seen this plenty in the UK at this point.
“They’ve eroded away enough of my privacy“
You know, the word ‘privacy’ is not in the United States Constitution and Justice Clarence Thomas thinks you should not have a right to privacy:
“Thomas, in a concurring opinion to the court’s precedent-breaking decision overturning Roe v. Wade and wiping out constitutional protections for abortion rights, said that he would do away with the doctrine of “substantive due process” and explicitly called on the court to overrule the watershed civil rights rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.”
The conservative justices that many here champion as ‘constitutional originalists’ don’t believe the Constitution guarantees you a right to privacy, including matters like love, intimacy and sex — which is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Bid farewell to doctor – patient confidentiality and the right to use birth control in the privacy of your bedroom.
Welcome to conservative Fascism.
Last I checked democrats were the ones pushing HIPPA out the window re fake vaccines let alone setting up databases with the affordable care act.but you go push your delusions some r3ddit tourists may buy it.
“you go push your delusions”
No delusions, I posted Clarence Thomas’s actual statements from his SCOTUS opinion.
You post rambling comments.
Funny you do seem to ramble with your wall of text with little to no objective support but I guess you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with projection with your current situation.
“with little to no objective support“
Justice Thomase’s own words provide all the support needed:
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.”
Griswold established the right to privacy, Justice Clarence Thomas stated Griswold is “demonstrably erroneous” and the court “has a duty to correct the error”.
If it’s still unclear to you, log off Grinder, go upstairs and ask your mom to explain those words.
My my the junior Minor is getting personal with his come backs. Looking like I hit closer to home than I thought. May want to get your supervisor with the dots or the FBI link to try to get a coherent argument in.
Watch for those future FDA required serial numbers on omelette kits at your favorite local grocer’s!
I bought an 80% kit because I was curious how it was done and how it compared to OEM. The reality is that the material and my skill is inferior to a computer controlled drill in a modern factory and while my result is functional, it is not better than OEM. But it was nice to see how it worked.
That said, I have two MAC builds and I am aware of how difficult it is to weld properly and get them in spec and working. It is not something I would encourage except to gain an appreciation for how smart engineers are, both the people who designed them and the people who built the factories that made them.
Requiring people to do a background check and pay an FFL transfer fee for something that is an inconvenience to do is why the market dried up.
So… 79% kits next? Until finishing those is deemed too simple?
How far do we have to go? Background checks at Home Depot for 1″ and 3/4″ pipes, caps, and screws?
Did the Supremes simply overlook the danger of a govt agency being able to make-up new definitions to laws on the fly?
The case is about agency overreach. Looks like the Supremes might be trying for hugs and kisses for bringing “Chevron” back to life. Just like they torched Bruen with Rahimi.
Seems to me, this case is a different form of “pre-publication” censorship; criminalizing potential behavior, before the behavior takes place.
Comments are closed.