As we approach October 8, when the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, I want to discuss the implications of ATF’s 2022 Final Rule, which expands the definition of “firearm” to include unfinished materials, information, jigs, and tools. This rule has restricted access to materials needed to construct self-made firearms, impacting the Second Amendment right to acquire firearms.
The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to acquire them, which involves making firearms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 does not restrict individuals from acquiring materials to make their own firearms. However, ATF’s Final Rule imposes new restrictions and costs on this process.
ATF argues that the Final Rule does not violate the Second Amendment as it allows individuals to make their own firearms for personal use. However, the rule effectively limits access to raw materials and parts needed for this purpose. This impedes the making and acquisition of firearms and imposes unnecessary restrictions.
The need for tracing firearms, as mentioned by ATF, is a policy argument that should be addressed by Congress, not through regulations like the Final Rule. The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of historical tradition in firearm regulation when justifying government regulations.
Looking back at historical encroachments on firearm rights, such as the British plan to disarm American citizens in 1777 and Thomas Jefferson’s support for citizens’ right to make and sell arms in 1793, highlights the long-standing tradition of self-made arms in American history.
Joseph Greenlee’s study, “The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms,” provides extensive documentation of this aspect of our history, emphasizing the importance of preserving the right to make and acquire firearms.
In 2023, a significant amount of research was distilled by an individual for VanDerStok in the amicus brief submitted by the National Rifle Association. The research conducted by Greenlee during colonial times highlighted the importance of firearms for food and protection, with gunsmiths playing a crucial role in both importation and local manufacture. These craftsmen obtained parts from various sources and contributed significantly to the production of muskets during the War for Independence.
Historian James Whisker emphasized in The Gunsmith’s Trade (1992) how gun crafting reflected Americans’ democratic impulses during the time of the Bill of Rights adoption. The United States has seen many innovations in firearm technology by private gunmakers, such as Pennsylvania rifle makers, Samuel Colt, developers of Winchester rifles, John Moses Browning, and John Garand.
The ATF’s Final Rule aims to redefine non-firearm items as firearms, restricting their acquisition. However, the Gun Violence Prevention Groups’ brief provides a Bruen analysis, which is refuted in part VI of the NRA brief. The historical tradition of firearm regulation is questioned based on specific categories presented in the Gun Violence Prevention Groups’ brief.
The practice of marking weapons, cited as a precursor to modern serialization, was limited to public arms owned by the States. The Gun Control Act in 1968 required all firearms to be serialized, but making your own gun remains lawful under the Act.
Congress’s intent to protect citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment was reaffirmed in the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. The act aimed to prevent undue federal restrictions on lawful firearm ownership. The Final Rule is criticized for disregarding these principles and undermining the Second Amendment. Please rewrite this sentence.
Source link
