Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok (23-852)

argument 23-852

Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 16m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Gun Control Act and how does it regulate firearms?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in Case 23-852, Garland v. Vanderstock. General Prelogger.

Merrick Garland 0:07

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Gun Control Act imposes straightforward but essential requirements. Firearm sellers and manufacturers must mark their products with serial numbers, maintain sales records, and conduct background checks. The industry has followed those conditions without difficulty for more than half a century, and those basic requirements are crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons, and domestic abusers. But in recent years, companies like the respondents here have tried to circumvent those requirements. They've begun selling firearms as easy-to-assemble kits and frames and receivers that require minimal work to be made functional.

Merrick Garland 0:49

They've advertised the products in their words as ridiculously easy to assemble and dummy proof and touted that you can go from opening the mail to have a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes. No serial number, background check, or records required. Those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully purchase them or who plan to use them in crimes. As a result, our nation has seen an explosion in crimes committed with ghost guns. In the face of that public safety crisis, ATF promulgated this rule to underscore two points about the Gun Control Act's plain text. First, a weapon parts kit that can readily be converted to function as a gun with common tools, often in under an hour, is a covered firearm.

Merrick Garland 1:35

Second, a product is a frame or receiver under the Act, even if the buyer must drill a few holes or remove a few superfluous pieces of plastic to make it functional. Both of those points are consistent with how ATF has interpreted and implemented the Act across five decades and 11 different presidential administrations. Respondents now seek a sea change in the Act scope. They claim that if a firearm isn't 100% functional, if it's missing just one hole that could be drilled in seconds and immediately assembled into a working gun, that product can be sold to anyone online with no background check, no records, and no serial number. That contradicts the Act's plain text, and it also contradicts common sense.

Merrick Garland 2:17

This Court should make clear that the Act regulates these products as what they are, firearms and frames and receivers of firearms. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:28

Does this new regulation cover all of Chapter 44?

Merrick Garland 2:34

Yes. So I think that the understanding of a firearm reflected in the final rule does reflect the 922A13 definition.

Clarence Thomas 2:45

Would it also apply under 924?

Merrick Garland 2:50

Yes. And so I think that that also incorporates, though, Justice Thomas, the mens rea requirements that are under 924, which I think guards against some of the concerns that respondents have raised in this case that manufacturers could unintentionally be swept up by these restrictions. For example, 924A1D requires a showing of willfulness with respect to selling products without a serial number or without a license.

Clarence Thomas 3:13

You make a lot of the fact that this has been regulated for half a century, but it wasn't regulated in this way for a half century. What was the original reg, the previous reg?

Merrick Garland 3:28

The previous reg defined a framer receiver with respect to particular components that were housed in that primary structure. But Justice Thomas, I agree that this rule reflects any fundamental change in approach because under that prior reg, ATF consistently recognized that even when that frame or receiver, the primary structural component, wasn't yet fully finished or complete, still it would qualify as a firearm looking at the same factors that are listed in the rule. Things like how much time is it going to take to make it functional? Do you need special equipment? Do you need to buy parts and are they readily available? Do you need special skill? So all along from 1968 on, the agency has consistently focused on this same issue of how quickly you can make that frame or receiver operational as part of a working gun.