October 9, 2024 – This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok. As you may recall from our prior Blasts on this case, the questions presented to the Court are: (1) whether a parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile is a firearm under the Gun Control Act (“GCA”); and (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, is a frame or receiver regulated by the GCA. In short, can the ATF ban through regulation sales of so-called 80% receiver kits with non-serialized components? In deciding the questions presented, the Court is assessing the language of the ATF’s Final Rule 2021-05F, which, among other things, changed the statutory definition of a “firearm” for purposes of the GCA to include partially complete frames and receivers. Specifically, the Rule added a new definition for a “[p]artially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver,” which includes, among other things, “a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver….” The argument focused on whether the GCA authorized the ATF to issue this regulation, or whether it stepped over the line to go beyond the authority Congress delegated to the agency.
Since the ATF lost in the appeal below, it was first to present its case. The U.S. Solicitor General noted that the ATF has always required “frames and receivers” to be serialized and transferred in accordance with the GCA, and the Final Rule was simply a clarification as to what constituted a regulated item. She noted that some of these kits take only twenty minutes to complete, which is why they must be regulated. She also emphasized that the Final Rule was needed due to the increase of so-called “ghost guns” being recovered at crime scenes over the last few years.
Counsel for Respondents argued that the ATF exceeded its authority in promulgating the Final Rule, and that the “readily convertible test” (i.e., how quickly, easily and efficiently the components of an 80% receiver kit can be converted into a firearm) was improper. Respondents argued that the ATF’s new test was wrong, and the “critical machining test” is the proper test when deciding whether partially completed frames and receivers should be regulated as firearms under the GCA.
The Justices questioned each side’s position and presented them with various hypotheticals to consider. They appeared to be looking for a way to hold that the Final Rule was a valid exercise of the ATF’s rulemaking authority, while at the same time distinguishing it from the recent bump stock case, where the Supreme Court found that the ATF exceeded its authority. RLF will monitor this matter and will report back on the Supreme Court’s decision in this matter. A decision is expected to be issued prior to July 1, 2025.
If you have any questions regarding the ATF’s Final Rule, or federal regulation of firearms, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.