On October 8, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the highly anticipated case of Garland v. VanDerStok, a legal battle centered around the ATF’s authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—specifically, 80% frames and firearm parts kits that can be easily assembled into functioning firearms.
What’s the Case About?
At the heart of Garland v. VanDerStok is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) 2021 ruling that reinterprets the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s new rule targets firearm kits and unfinished frames or receivers—often referred to as 80% lowers—arguing that these items should be regulated as firearms because they can be readily converted into fully functional guns.
October Update
In the Supreme Court case Garland v. VanDerStok, the oral arguments centered around the interpretation of the Gun Control Act and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) rule regarding “ghost guns”—specifically, kits and parts that can be readily assembled into firearms without serial numbers, making them untraceable.
Garland v. VanDerStok Key Points
Petitioners’ Argument (represented by Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar):
- The ATF’s rule interprets the Gun Control Act to include firearms parts kits that can be easily assembled into working guns and products like unfinished frames or receivers as regulated firearms.
- This interpretation aims to address the rise of ghost guns that are used in crimes, stressing that these untraceable weapons pose a public safety risk.
- ATF’s position was that even parts kits, which require minor work to become functional, should be subject to the same regulations as completed firearms, arguing that such kits are intentionally marketed to circumvent legal requirements.
- Prelogar noted that jigs (tools that assist in finishing these kits) expedite assembly, further justifying regulation. The agency has consistently focused on how readily convertible these kits are into firearms.
Respondents’ Argument (represented by Peter Patterson):
- The Respondents (VanderStok et al.) challenged the ATF’s rule, arguing it exceeded the statutory authority given by the Gun Control Act. They contended that the statute only regulates fully functional firearms and their finished components (frames or receivers), not parts or kits that require additional work.
- Patterson emphasized that Congress deliberately chose not to regulate unfinished parts or kits and that ATF’s new rule represents a significant overreach.
- He argued that terms like “readily converted” shouldn’t apply to unfinished frames or receivers, as the statute does not explicitly define them that way. Moreover, Patterson pointed out that the prior “critical machining operations test” used by ATF should remain the standard—this test judged whether significant steps to complete a firearm had already been taken.
Oral Arguments for Each Side
- Petitioners’ side pushed for a broader interpretation of the statute, underscoring the growing public safety threat posed by ghost guns.
- Respondents countered with a more narrow, literal reading of the statute, advocating for the status quo pre-rule change, where only fully functional firearms and completed components were regulated.
- The tone from the Justices, especially Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch, involved skepticism about how far the ATF’s rule could extend, with questions comparing incomplete frames or kits to objects that are not yet what they will become (e.g., ingredients to a dish or parts of a car).
What Happened
- The Supreme Court heard both sides argue whether the ATF’s expanded regulatory rule over ghost guns was a proper interpretation of the Gun Control Act or if it went beyond the authority granted by Congress.
- Prelogar defended the necessity of the ATF’s rule in controlling the spread of ghost guns, while Patterson insisted that the rule improperly expanded the law’s scope.
- The main legal question was whether the statutory terms governing firearms could be stretched to cover products that aren’t fully functional but could be converted into firearms with minimal effort.
The outcome of the case will hinge on whether the Court finds that the ATF’s interpretation aligns with the Gun Control Act or if the new rule exceeds the statutory authority provided to the agency.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences for firearm regulations in the U.S. A ruling in favor of the ATF would solidify the agency’s ability to regulate 80% frames as firearms, subjecting them to stricter rules. However, a decision in favor of VanderStok and the respondents could preserve the current legal status of 80% lowers, leaving them unregulated by the ATF.
As in other Supreme court cases, the following will now play out in Vanderstok v. Garland:
Private Conference
- The Justices hold a private conference to discuss the case. Each Justice presents their views and opinions on the case, starting with the Chief Justice and moving down in order of seniority.
- A preliminary vote is taken to determine where the Justices stand on the key issues.
Opinion Drafting
- Based on the vote, one of the Justices in the majority is assigned to write the majority opinion. This Justice may be selected by the Chief Justice if he is in the majority, or by the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the minority.
- Other Justices can write concurring opinions if they agree with the decision but for different reasons.
- Justices in the minority may write dissenting opinions, explaining why they disagree with the majority.
Opinion Circulation
- Drafts of the opinions are circulated among the Justices for review and potential revision. It’s common for Justices to negotiate changes in the language or reasoning during this period.
Final Vote and Issuance of the Decision
- Once all opinions are finalized, the Court will formally issue its decision. This can happen weeks or months after the oral arguments, depending on the complexity of the case and the number of opinions written.
- The decision is typically announced in a public session of the Court, and the opinions are published for public viewing.
Impact and Implementation
- After the decision is announced, lower courts and government agencies (like the ATF, in the case of Garland v. VanDerStok) will implement the ruling. This may include changing enforcement policies, regulations, or revising rulings in similar cases.
- The decision becomes precedent, meaning it will guide future cases on similar legal questions.
For those following Garland v. VanDerStok, the decision will clarify whether 80% frames and ghost gun kits will remain unregulated or if they will be subject to the same legal requirements as completed firearms. Keep an eye on Husky Armory for updates once the Court issues its ruling!
Oral Argument Transcript: for Garland, Att’y Gen. v. VanDerStok
Docket Number: 23-852
Date Argued: 10/08/24