The debate over firearms regulation in the United States has reached a critical point.
At the center of this discussion is the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, a legal battle that challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on its authority to redefine what constitutes a firearm.
This case involves more than just legal definitions; it’s about the balance of power between agencies and the rights of individuals.
The Core Issue: Redefining “Firearm”
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a “firearm” is defined as any weapon that can expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, including the frame or receiver of such a weapon. For over 50 years, the ATF adhered to a clear definition of what a frame or receiver is: the part of a firearm that houses the hammer, bolt, or firing mechanism.
Recently, the ATF decided to expand this definition. They aimed to include partially complete frames or receivers, commonly referred to as “80% receivers,” and even weapon parts kits that could be assembled into functional firearms. This move raises a fundamental question: Does the ATF have the authority to change the meaning of terms defined by Congress?
Why It Matters
Allowing an agency to redefine legal terms that carry criminal penalties sets a dangerous precedent. It blurs the lines between the legislative and executive branches of government. Congress is responsible for making laws, including defining crimes and penalties. When an agency like the ATF steps in to reinterpret those laws, it undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
Moreover, these changes directly impact law-abiding citizens and manufacturers. Individuals who legally build their own firearms—a practice that’s been lawful for centuries—could suddenly find themselves in legal jeopardy. Manufacturers and dealers face uncertainty and potential penalties for activities that were previously compliant with federal law.
Constitutional Concerns
Several constitutional doctrines come into play:
- Separation of Powers: The Constitution assigns the creation of laws to Congress, not federal agencies. When agencies redefine laws, they effectively take on a legislative role.
- Rule of Lenity: In criminal law, ambiguous statutes are interpreted in favor of defendants. Expanding definitions to encompass more activities violates this principle.
- Due Process: Citizens have the right to know what the law is. Sudden changes in legal definitions without clear legislative action compromise this right.
The Myth of “Ghost Guns”
The term “ghost gun” has been used to incite fear about untraceable firearms used in crimes. However, data suggests that criminals rarely use self-manufactured firearms. Tracing is often ineffective because criminals obtain guns through illegal means, like theft or black-market purchases, not by building them from kits.
Impact on the Firearms Community
The ATF’s expanded definitions create significant challenges:
- For Hobbyists: Individuals who enjoy building firearms for personal use may face new legal hurdles.
- For Manufacturers: Companies producing parts or kits could be subject to new regulations and penalties, affecting their businesses and livelihoods.
- For Law Enforcement: Redirecting focus to law-abiding citizens diverts resources from addressing actual criminal activities.
Current Status of VanDerStok v. Garland
As of the latest information, the VanDerStok v. Garland case has reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari on April 22, 2024, agreeing to hear the case during its October 2024 term. Oral arguments were scheduled for October 8, 2024.
The issues before the Supreme Court are:
- 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” is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
- 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” is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.
Various amicus briefs have been filed by interested parties on both sides, reflecting the significant national interest in the case. The outcome of this case will have substantial implications for federal firearms regulations and the authority of administrative agencies like the ATF.
Taking Action
It’s crucial for supporters of the Second Amendment to stay informed and engaged. Here are some steps to consider:
- Educate Yourself: Understand the legal arguments in VanDerStok v. Garland and how they affect your rights.
- Contact Elected Officials: Reach out to your representatives to express concerns about agency overreach and the importance of legislative clarity.
- Support Legal Challenges: Contribute to organizations that are fighting these changes in court.
- Participate in Public Discourse: Use social media, write letters to editors, and engage in conversations to spread awareness.
- Stay Compliant: Ensure that you are following current laws and regulations while advocating for change.
The Road Ahead
The outcome of VanDerStok v. Garland will have lasting effects on the relationship between federal agencies and individual rights. This pivotal moment calls for vigilance and active participation from all who value constitutional freedoms.
By understanding the nuances of this case and taking concrete actions, we can work together to uphold the principles that define our nation. Defending our rights is not just a legal battle but a collective effort to preserve the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
AR15 Stripped Receiver Set - FDE Cerakote | Aero Precision | $ 193.49 $ 169.99 |
|
|
AR15 Stripped Receiver Set - Burnt Bronze Cerakote | Aero Precision | $ 179.98 $ 159.99 |
|
|
AR15 Stripped Receiver Set - Anodized Black | Aero Precision | $ 152.99 $ 124.99 |
|
|
AR15 Stripped Lower Receiver - Uncoated | Aero Precision | $ 80.00 |
|
SCOTUS to Hear Oral Arguments in VanDerStok Gun Ban Case Oct. 8
Gun Historian Ashley Hlebinsky Drops Truth Bombs in ‘Ghost Gun’ Hearing
Support the Firearms Research Center
We’d like to give a special shout-out to the Firearms Research Center at the University of Wyoming. As a privately funded entity, they rely on support from people like you to continue their groundbreaking research and scholarship in firearms.
If you’re passionate about the Second Amendment and value in-depth analysis on important issues like VanDerStok v. Garland, consider making a donation. Your contribution helps ensure that the vital work of exploring and understanding firearms law, history, and policy can continue.
To help support this original and impactful research, please donate below.
Donate to the Firearms Research Center
Ahhh, but good news: Hundreds of lawyers from DOJ nationwide, Main Justice in DC, and all of the agencies are quietly sending their resumes to law firms in the private sector. The rats are deserting the sinking ship!!
Oh, and bad news: The chinese have discovered what is believed to be the largest deposit of gold that the world has ever known. So the CCP will be financed by gold.
On January 5th Trump will send POS Merrick Garland and fat ass Dettlebach packing to start the process of ” Making America great again ” .
The solution is easy….BAN the ATF…and F the ATF.
This is what pisses me off. “Does the ATF have the authority to change the meaning of terms”.
I’ll tell you what, lets make the decision based on what was determined on bump stocks and save ourselves millions of dollars and time wasted on a repeat question on a different subject because it’s the same dam thing.
DUH!!!!!!!