Garland v. VanDerStok

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the government’s authority to regulate “ghost guns” under the Gun Control Act of 1968. A ruling against the government, would make it easier to obtain and circulate unregistered firearms.

What You Need to Know

• Facts of this Case: In recent years, technological advances, including 3D printing, have made it easier for companies to manufacture and sell firearms parts kits, which buyers can assemble into working firearms within minutes using common hand tools. Unlike normal firearms, these “ghost guns” don’t have serial numbers and could previously be sold without licensing or background checks, making them attractive to people who cannot legally own weapons or plan to use them in crime. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a new rule clarifying that ghost guns are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and thus must comply with the same requirements as commercially sold guns. Sellers challenged the rule arguing that the parts kits do not meet the statutory definition of “firearms.”
• Relevant Precedent & Background: In November 2023, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority in interpreting the Gun Control Act, reasoning that although the Act applies to “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” as well as “frames or receivers” of those weapons, it does not apply to incomplete frames or receivers, or parts of weapons. Through its emergency docket, the Supreme Court allowed the ATF to continue enforcing the regulation while the litigation proceeded.
• Question Presented to the Court: Whether weapons parts kits that are designed to or may be readily completed, assembled, restored or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are “firearms” within the scope of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
• Potential Impact? A ruling against the government would increase the availability of untraceable, unlicensed firearms further exacerbating the gun violence crisis.
• What happened at the oral argument: During oral arguments, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch expressed doubt that the plain meaning of a term could include its component parts, with Justice Gorsuch drawing a distinction between a pad and paper and a grocery list. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett appeared more receptive, with Barrett suggesting the better analogy would be a Hello Fresh kit for turkey chili. Meanwhile, Justices Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed inclined to defer to the government’s reasonable interpretation of the statue.