Tag: VanDerStok

The Truth Behind the Garland v. VanDerStok “Ghost Gun” Case

This is not the first time Justice Barrett has departed from conservative views on the Second Amendment, values she represented herself as a staunch supporter of when she was nominated to the Supreme Court by then President Donald Trump. [More]

Except she didn’t, the gun groups did.

As with all SCOTUS confirmation hearings, they don’t ask the tough questions needed to elicit unequivocal answwers.

As noted when cautioning against rubber stamping Gorsuch:

Typically in judicial confirmation hearings, nominees have been able to rely on an “out” giving them a pass on answering specific questions… Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation — for legitimate reasons, including not having studied and evaluated all the particulars, evidence and precedents against the “supreme Law of the Land,” — there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.

Gun owners may be paying the price for that… again.

Daily Defense Redux

David Codrea and Mark break down today’s SCOTUS “Ghost Gun” Scotus Oral Arguments [Listen]

What’s that recurring line from Star Wars?

And from Michael G:

Most Justices Seem Inclined To Uphold the ATF’s New Restrictions on Homemade Firearms [More]

Let’s hope our feelings are misplaced.

No. She Can’t. Not in This Context. She’s Not a Gunsmith.

Based on results, ATF can’t, either.

She’s just wondering if “ghost guns” can also fire 800 rounds a second.

It’s OK to say “she,” isn’t it?

Breaking Some Eggs

Justice Alito Wrecks ATF’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Argument: Are Eggs and Peppers an Omelet?[More]

So are John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett bent on scrambling things?

Mark W. Smith has some interesting thoughts, including “if the ATF theory is allowed here, then drilling a single hole in AR-15s to convert it into a machine gun means that an AR-15 is “readily convertable” into a machine gun and thus a machine gun. SCOTUS will need to issue a ruling to avoid this result.”

A Numbers Game

We have breaking news. We now know the firearm, according to reports, that was used by the anti-Trump guy who tried to assassinate President Trump on Sunday, that apparently the serial number has been obliterated or partially obliterated. Now this is a big deal because it’s going to play a role in the October 8th oral argument in the Vanderstok case before the US Supreme Court, so let’s connect some dots. [Watch]

If he was a prohibited person, a serial number wouldn’t trace to him anyway.

Don’t expect the Democrat DOJ, politicians, and DSM to acknowledge that when they have an opportunity to spook the herd and guin up hysteria.

He also make a good point about including such information on 4473s that the BIDS system exposes. The antis lie about why they want “background checks,” too.

[Via Jess]

Setting Precedent

Specifically, I’m going to explain how the legal theories they are advancing before the United States Supreme Court in the VanDerStok case dealing with quote unquote ghost guns, which are unserialized firearms and gun gun parts. how theATF’s position with the Biden/Harris Administrations arguments are exactly that they’re setting the precedent for declaring that AR-15s are machine guns and can be banned because they cannot be added to the NFA register… [Watch]

Exactly what some of us have been arguing the bump stock ban opened the door for, which makes it curious that he’s one of the ones arguing — without contemporaneous documentation — that Trump’s ban was a brilliant 3D chess move.

[Via Jess]

Battle Plans

SAF PREPARING FOR SCOTUS FALL HEARING IN VANDERSTOK CASE [More]

I’m not sure the “Authority to regulate firearms is solely in the hands of Congress” argument won’t ultimately come back to bite us. Perhaps if someone could point out which clause in the Constitution delegates the authority to override “shall not be infringed,” my worries would be quelled…

Paved with Good Intentions

The brief recalls how Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 pursuant to the Commerce Clause with no intention of discouraging or eliminating the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. [More]

That’s not how the bill’s author felt:

ALL “gun control” is just another incremental step to the end goal– citizen disarmament. We don’t do ourselves any favors by believing otherwise and arguing that in court.

More Than a Ghost of a Chance

US Department of Justice filed main brief in US Supreme Court today asking the Court to hear the Vanderstock v. Garland case dealing with the constitutionality of the Biden “ghost gun” frame and receiver rules. [More]

Mark W. Smith thinks there’s a good chance they’ll hear it.

[Via Jess]

Slap Down

The Fifth Circuit panel ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Final Rule is illegal. Circuit Judge Kurt D. Englehardt wrote, “An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day and felonious the next—yet that is exactly what ATF accomplishes through its Final Rule. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED to the extent it holds unlawful the two challenged portions of the Final Rule, and VACATED and REMANDED as to the remedy.” The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland. [More]

A Justice Department that was true to the Constitution would be enforcing rights and punishing government transgressors.

What a novel idea that would be.

A Yes or No Question

Mark W. Smith appreciates the directness.

Verified by MonsterInsights