Unfavorable Supreme Court Decision With Limited Scope
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that unfinished receiver patterns and parts kits, such as the Polymer80, fall under the definition of a 'firearm' for the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, has far-reaching implications for the manufacturing and sale of these items. The ruling does not concern the legality of a Biden-era regulation banning 'ghost guns,' self-made, unmarked firearms. Instead, it mandates that Polymer80s and their copies, as well as build kits containing these items, must be manufactured and sold as GCA-type 'firearms' through federal firearm licensees. These entities are required to mark the items, keep records, and run background checks on retail customers. The Supreme Court's decision extends the GCA's reach to a narrow category of unfinished receiver patterns and parts kits that contain them. This ruling effectively ends the availability of Polymer80s and their copies directly to consumers via online or unlicensed sales. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in his opinion, held that a Polymer80-type pattern is a 'frame' under the GCA's 'firearm' definition and a parts kit containing such a pattern is a 'weapon' under the same definition. However, the Court also indicated that not everything in a stage of manufacture prior to completion can be regulated by the ATF as a 'frame or receiver' or a 'firearm.' The Biden administration's regulation, titled 'Definition of 'Frame or Receiver' and Identification of Firearms,' expanded the concept of a 'firearm' beyond the statutory language of the GCA. If the Trump administration repeals this rule, the Supreme Court's ruling would continue to stand as to Polymer80s and build kits that include them under the GCA itself. Advancements in technology have led to a broader market for self-made firearms in recent years. The Polymer80 is an example of an unfinished pattern for a handgun frame that can be finished into a workable frame for a pistol. Anti-gun activists claim these kits are a workaround to the regulated market for firearms, while the National Rifle Association (NRA) has suggested that the Trump administration should repeal the Biden-era rule at issue in VanDerStok. It's important to note that 'unlicensed making' was the 'trafficking channel' in only 3% of ATF's firearm trafficking investigations from 2017 to 2021. Furthermore, there has never been a time in U.S. history where the federal government banned the making of a firearm for one's own use. The lines between what can be regulated by the ATF as a 'frame or receiver' or a 'firearm' will be determined in future cases. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok provides a clearer understanding of the GCA's definition of a 'firearm,' but it does not have much to celebrate for either Second Amendment supporters or anti-gunners.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
