The Supreme Court on Tuesday deliberated on whether the Biden administration’s restrictions on homemade firearms comply with the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968. Similar to the Court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s ban on bump stocks in June, the case of Garland v. VanDerStok focuses on whether the rule exceeds the authority granted to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) by Congress, rather than questioning its Second Amendment implications. However, it seems that most of the justices are leaning towards upholding the new regulations.
The ATF began enforcing these regulations in August 2023 after a temporary block by the Supreme Court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit later supported the reasoning behind this decision, stating that the ATF rule goes against clear statutory text and surpasses the limits set by legislation in the name of public policy.
The rule, which was initially issued in April 2022, aims to prohibit “ghost guns” made from commercially available kits. Prior to this rule, manufacturers and sellers of these products were not required to have federal licenses, mark parts with serial numbers, or conduct background checks on buyers. The new rule extends these requirements to “any kits or nearly complete frames or receivers that can be easily converted into a firearm.”
During oral arguments on Tuesday, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the rule, stating that it was essential to regulate “untraceable guns” that are appealing to individuals who cannot legally acquire them or intend to use them in criminal activities. She highlighted the rise in crimes involving ghost guns due to the availability of easy-to-assemble kits and components.
Despite the policy argument, the legal question remains whether the ATF has the authority to ban ghost guns without new legislation. The definition of “firearm” under the GCA includes any weapon that can expel a projectile by explosive action and the frame or receiver of such a weapon. The ATF’s interpretation extends this definition to include weapon parts kits, which some find counterintuitive.
Justice Samuel Alito raised hypothetical scenarios to challenge this interpretation, questioning the broad application of the term “firearm” to include parts kits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioned the ATF’s definition, using a food analogy to illustrate the complexity of determining what constitutes a firearm under the rule.
Overall, the case of Garland v. VanDerStok raises significant legal and practical concerns regarding the ATF’s authority to regulate ghost guns and the interpretation of firearms under existing laws.
She mentioned that sellers have emphasized that individuals can assemble a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes from mail-order kits. However, as noted by Stephen Halbrook, a former acting chief of the ATF’s Firearm Technology Branch, in a brief filed in this case, the process of creating a firearm from these kits is complex and requires skills and specialized tools beyond the average person’s capacity.
Additionally, Prelogar pointed out that the ATF rule covers kits that can be easily converted into working guns. She explained that the ATF is now considering jigs or templates in this process, which help speed up the creation of functional frames or receivers by providing guidance on drilling locations, thus eliminating trial and error.
Patterson argued that the ATF’s new interpretation poses problems, as it expands the definition of ‘frame or receiver’ to include items that can be readily converted, despite the lack of explicit language in the statute. He highlighted the ATF’s previous stance that unfinished frames or receivers do not meet the statutory definition of a firearm simply because they can be designed to be converted.
Barrett raised concerns about the potential criminalization of AR-15 owners under the ATF rule, as AR-15 receivers can be converted into machine gun receivers. Prelogar clarified that the statute does not automatically include all readily convertible parts under its regulation, emphasizing the distinction between a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15 and a machine gun.
The discussion revolved around the definition of ‘frame or receiver,’ with Patterson proposing alternatives to the ATF’s new interpretation. He suggested that a part must be completely machined or pass the ‘critical machining’ test, previously known as the ’80 percent rule.’ Barrett questioned the validity of the ‘critical machining’ test, suggesting it may be arbitrary and lacking statutory basis.
Overall, Patterson faced more skepticism from the justices than Prelogar, with both Republican and Democratic appointees expressing concerns. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the purpose of selling receivers without pre-drilled holes, prompting further debate on the ATF’s regulations. In the realm of hobbies and personal projects, there exists a wide range of activities that individuals find fulfilling. For example, while some people take pleasure in dedicating their weekends to working on their cars, others may find satisfaction in constructing their own firearms. This diversity of interests was highlighted in a conversation where Patterson noted that some individuals enjoy working on their cars every weekend, while others prefer to build their own firearms. Roberts expressed skepticism, suggesting that the gratification one receives from drilling a hole or two may not compare to the sense of accomplishment gained from working on a car.
During a discussion on statutory interpretation, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged the validity of Prelogar’s arguments but raised concerns about individuals unknowingly violating the law as interpreted by the ATF. Prelogar explained that under the licensing and serial number provisions, the government must prove “willfulness” to prevent unwarranted criminal prosecutions. While Prelogar conceded that someone could be prosecuted for failing to conduct a required background check without knowledge of the requirement, she reassured Kavanaugh that the government would likely exercise discretion in such cases. Kavanaugh appeared satisfied with her response, indicating that the safeguards in place offered reassurance against unjust prosecutions.
Source link
