Posted: 10/2/2024 9:15:50 AM EDT
|
Here's a go-to link for background, etc.: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-vanderstok-2/ Issues: (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” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (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” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act. |
|
Quoted: I'll be at oral argument since we are a party to the case. Maybe also have them point this out : American Tradition of Self Made Arms |
|
Among the documents at the link posted in the OP is a brief which discusses the history of private manufacturing of arms. (Oral arguments are just a formality at the Supreme Court, the real arguments are made in the briefs). Americans have always had the right to make personal firearms without Presidential permission. The Second Amendment both stems from and protects this right, which has utmost support in the nation’s history and tradition. See Pet. App. 7a-8a. “In fact, there were no restrictions on the manufacture of arms for personal use in America during the seventeenth, eighteenth, or nineteenth centuries.” Id. (quoting Joseph G.S. Greenlee, The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms, 54 St. Mary’s L.J. 35, 66 (2023)). There is no historical tradition of regulating, let alone criminalizing, the self-manufacture of firearms. Relatively recently, Congress used the Commerce Clause to enact a variety of criminal laws concerning commercial “firearm” matters . . . |
|
Quoted: So point 1 seems to be obviously exceeding their authority to redefine what a "firearm" is. Re: point 2: is 80% codified somewhere? Or is it an ATF regulation out of thin air that subject to Chevron? 80% is an industry term. To ATF previously, it was either a firearm or it wasn't. Then they wanted to regulate things that weren't firearms. |
|
Quoted: 80% is an industry term. To ATF previously, it was either a firearm or it wasn't. Then they wanted to regulate things that weren't firearms. Suppressors, objects that appear to look like lightning links, pictures, 3D printer code, the internet, random metal objects close to firearms. |
 SCOTUS BREAKING 2A NEWS: DOJ & ATF DESPERATELY TRY TO JUSTIFY "GHOST GUN" BAN... REPLY BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS (pdf) |
|
The law itself is unconstitutionally vague. Advancing technology has rendered the term "readily" even murkier than it was at the time of enactment. Is a spool of plastic filament technically a firearm since frames can now be readily made from them with the push of a button? This case is even dumber if you consider they're upset about "parts kits." Which have been fine and "not guns" by the Federal government's own regulations and assertion for 50+ years or however long its been since european milsurp parts kits started coming into the USA in 40 foot container lots. |
|
He sure is making a lot of assumptions about the supreme court. |
|
Quoted: This case is even dumber if you consider they're upset about "parts kits." Which have been fine and "not guns" by the Federal government's own regulations and assertion for 50+ years or however long its been since european milsurp parts kits started coming into the USA in 40 foot container lots. Gun control in the USA is racist. And this case is either about increasing ATF encroachment, or more likely, ATF trying to keep young black males from participating in unlawful trade of privately manufactured ARs and Glock-style pistols. It seems like they have a history of not really giving a fuck about what we built in our basements when we already have a dozen serialized ARs in the safe, but somebody higher up in the DOJ might have told them to care about thousands of unserialized guns flooding the hoods. Of course, none of that gives the DOJ/ATF the power to enact its own legislation on the matter. |
 Ghost Guns Go To SCOTUS - Can they regulated? Reviewing Briefs in Garland v. VanDerStok |
 The Future of Homemade Firearms Rests With the Supreme Court Tomorrow |
|
Quoted: Sounds like they are waiting for a case to make its way through the lower courts. Illinois case is probably on track to hit SCOTUS first. Quoted: Quoted: Are we still waiting to hear if they will take an AWB this session? Sounds like they are waiting for a case to make its way through the lower courts. Illinois case is probably on track to hit SCOTUS first. bianchi/snopes from Maryland is ready to be granted cert. it has completely gone through the lower courts and is ready for SCOTUS now. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/bianchi |
|
Audio should be available at" www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2024 Filings: Docket: 23-852 GARLAND V. VANDERSTOK  Garland v. VanDerStok |
|
The second case today, Lackey v Stinnie, is also important. It deals with governments strategically mooting cases after losing on the preliminary injunction, and if they still owe damages and attorneys' fees to the plaintiff or if they can avoid paying. The parties involved are arguing about Virginia drivers licenses and a law change there, but many gun cases have been similarly situated over the years. Kharn |