Ghost Guns and the Supreme Court

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Jennifer VanDerStok, et al. No. 23-852

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in a case in which the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision that invalidated portions of what the Court referred to as the ATF's “New Rule aka Final Rule,” which redefined the congressional definition of a firearm.

Quoting from the Court of Appeals opinion, “In April of 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) issued a Final Rule in which the terms “firearm” and “frame or receiver,” among others, were given “an updated, more comprehensive definition.” Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, 87 Fed. Reg. 24652 (Apr. 26, 2022) (the “Final Rule”).”

The district court and the Court of Appeals held that the ATF does not have the authority to redefine the definition.

The Federal government appealed its loss in the district court and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Almost two years to the day after the Final Rule went into effect, the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

The two questions presented to the Court 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," 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a "firearm" regulated by the Act.
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," 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a "frame or receiver" regulated by the Act.

Neither the Court of Appeals nor the questions presented to SCOTUS mention the Second Amendment. Despite what the YouTube shills might tell you, this case has nothing to do with the Second Amendment or whether or not we have a right to make firearms. At its core, this case is about whether or not the “New Rule aka Final Rule” conflicts with a Congressional Act of Congress.

It is difficult to say what the justices will ultimately decide. The only sure bet is that Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson will be on opposite sides of the opinion.

My view is that the New Rule, aka the Final Rule, rewrote the law. Therefore, the lower courts were right in invalidating it because agencies do not have the constitutional authority to enact laws. But I also believe that eight of the justices were on the wrong side in US v. Rahimi when it overturned an opinion also by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had faithfully applied the high court prie’s prior opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen. I also believe that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment, but a majority of justices in the bump stock case made it clear that they don’t share my view. But unlike the shills on YouTube and other social media, I’m honest about it, and unfortunately, gun owners are no different from those who don’t own guns. They would rather believe those who readily lie to them and tell them the lies they want to believe instead of those few of us who truthfully tell them that their kids are ugly and they dress them funny.

I don’t think we will have to wait until the last week of the current term for a decision. Don’t be surprised if the decision is published early in the new year.

The case is Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, et al. v. Jennifer VanDerStok, et al. No. 23-852

Here is a link to the docket where you can read all the briefs filed in the case for free.

Here is a link to the oral argument and transcript. I disagree with the government’s position, but as an objective person, I must admit that the government’s attorney ran circles around the Respondents’ attorney.