https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843654214255554954
to:
https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1843673574298792406
{Firearms Policy Coalition
@gunpolicy | 08 October 2024}
WE ARE LIVE!!!
The government is up first
Justice Thomas notes that these objects weren't regulated until recently, even though the government says the law is decades old
The government says it is now taking into account tools and templates when determining how easy it is to make a gun
Justice Sotomayor says the ATF's determination letters have used similar language for decades
Justice Sotomayor asks what the standard of review is. Says a block of metal isn't readily converted, so how do they know what is covered by the rule?
The government says the court should only consider if the rule itself violates federal law
Justice Alito asks what the meaning of the term "weapon" is in the rule
The government says it's the dictionary definition
Justice Alito asks if a pad an a pen are a grocery list. The government says no. Alito asks if some eggs and peppers are a western omelette. The government says no because they have other uses
Justice Barrett asks if the omelet analogy would be different if you ordered it from hello fresh and it came as a kit. The government says yes
Justice Gorsuch mentions that part of the law doesn't include the readily converted language. The government says that the law is close enough because the "ordinary meaning" of of it should be interpreted to include it
Justice Gorsuch asks why all federal laws shouldn't be read like that. The government says the context of the law indicates that it should be read that way
Justice Gorsuch points out that the government argued in court just a few years ago that these objects aren't firearms
The government says that people are misreading its brief in that case
Justice Gorsuch asks why a receiver that is cut into pieces is still a firearm, but one that is shredded is not. The government says that's what the ATF requires for firearms. Gorsuch reiterates that he's talking about the receivers, not entire guns
Justice Alito asks how much stuff needs to come with the object for it to be considered a gun
Justice Sotomayor says the rule should be seen as similar to starter gun regulations
Alito asks if weapons parts kits were common in 1968. The government says not really, says polymer materials made it easier.
The government says its readily converted if a novice can do it in a fairly quick amount of time
Justice Kagan asks if a big box of random gun parts would count as a gun. The government says no
The government says lots of dog owners own dremels
The government reiterates that while the part of the law mentioning receivers doesn't have the readily converted language, it should be read that way anyway
Justice Kavanaugh says the government's argument is strong, but he's concerned about mens rea. The government claims it won't charge people if they really thought their object didn't need a serial number
Justice Kavanaugh asks if someone didn't ask ATF and truly thought they weren't violating the law when they sold the object without a background check, could they be charged? The government says yes
The government says the rule is actually ATF's longstanding interpretation of the statue
Justice Barrett asks if AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine guns. The government says no.
The government says AR-15s are obviously designed for semi-automatic fire, not full auto. Says the ATF has never suggested or thought otherwise
Justice Jackson says the court shouldn't find that the government exceeded its authority just because it disagrees with its interpretation
Our lawyer is up now
We point out how the government argued in court a few years ago that these objects are not firearms
We point out that when the government wanted to regulate things that can "readily" become guns, it put in in the law
Judge Thomas asks about how the 80% rule operated. We say how it was an informal term used in the industry for objects that were partially made into receivers, but needed additional work to be complete
Justice Sotomayor says that since a part has to at some point be made far enough toward a gun to be a gun, therefore the ATF is allowed to decide where that point is
We mention how we provided the court with alternative tests that it could use. Justice Sotomayor starts trying to get us in a gotcha by asking mentioning needing to remove a tab or add a hole, asking if that's close enough to a gun
We mention how a reporter tried to write an article about how easy these are to make, but he was unable to do it and needed help
Justice Roberts suggests that the objects are too easy to make into guns
We point out that Congress used "readily restored" in the machine gun language, showing that they specifically chose where to put converted or restored language in sections of the law
Justice Alito says what if his neighbor is restoring a car and took out some parts. People would still refer to it as a car even if it didn't currently have an engine.
Our lawyer tells Justice Jackson that our job is to show that the rule is illegal, not necessarily that we have the best alternative interpretation
Justice Jackson asks if a disassembled gun is still a gun. We say yes because the receiver is a gun. Jackson says what if the receiver isn't there. We say no because that is the part considered a gun.
Justice Sotomayor asks what if all the parts of the gun are there but the receiver is missing a hole, is that a gun? We say that depends on if the receiver is readily convertible to a gun
The government is back up
The government says that hobbyists don't want parts that can be turned into a gun in 20 minutes because that's too fast
The government says it's important to note that gun companies aren't suing over this rule
The government says if we win, that "all guns could become ghost guns"
The arguments have ended. We will let you know when the transcript and audio are available on the court's website
Connect With Us