Garland v. VanDerStok

Issues 

Are weapons parts kits or incomplete frames or receivers regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968?

Oral argument: 

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Gun Control Act of 1968’s definition of “firearm” permits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (“ATF”) to regulate weapons parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers. Merrick Garland, Attorney General, et al., argues that a natural reading of the word “firearm” includes weapon parts kits, incomplete frames, and receivers; and, that failing to regulate these items would create a loophole in the nation’s gun laws. Jennifer VanDerStok et al., counters that the rule is outside the scope of the ATF’s authority. This case touches on important questions regarding the Gun Control Act of 1968, and its ability to regulate ghost guns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties 

(1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

Facts 

The definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”) includes “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 “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” VanDerStok v. Garland at 5. The GCA requires that gun manufacturers and dealers be licensed and conduct background checks when selling or transferring firearms, and that all firearms being sold or transferred have a serial number. Id. at 4. The GCA also imposes criminal penalties on unlicensed manufacturers and dealers and prohibits certain classes of people from possessing firearms. Id. at 5. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) has authority to regulate firearms under the GCA. Id. at 3. In 1978, the ATF defined a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” Id. at 5.

In August 2022, the ATF issued a rule (“the 2022 Rule”) interpreting the GCA’s definition of “firearm” to include weapons parts kits “that [are] designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by action of an explosive.” Id. at 8. Prior to the 2022 Rule, individuals did not need to pass a background check to purchase a weapon parts kit and could use kits to construct firearms without serial numbers. Id. at 6–8. The 2022 Rule requires sellers of weapon parts kits to conduct background checks on buyers and mark the parts with serial numbers. Id. at 4. The ATF also altered its definition of “frame or receiver” to include “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames and receivers. Id. at 8.

That same month, Jennifer VanDerStok and others (“VanDerStok”) filed a petition for review of the 2022 Rule in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Id. at 8. In September 2022, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the 2022 Rule. Id. at 9. The Court asserted that the plain meanings of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” in the GCA do not include weapon parts, and that Congress had not granted the ATF the authority to regulate weapon parts. Id. In June 2023, the District Court granted summary judgment to VanDerStok, and the government appealed the decision. Id. at 9–10.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision. Id. at 2. The Fifth Circuit held that the ATF’s interpretation of “frame or receiver” went beyond the common meanings of “frame” and “receiver” from when the GCA was enacted. Id. at 12–15. The Fifth Circuit also observed that the ATF’s interpretation of frame and receiver parts as both components and completed products constituted an unjustifiable logical flaw under the GCA. Id. at 15–16. Meanwhile, the Fifth Circuit held that the ATF’s interpretation of “firearm” exceeded the limits of what Congress had permitted the ATF to regulate, citing legislative history showing that Congress had declined to add language permitting the ATF to regulate weapon parts when drafting the GCA. Id. at 17–20. The Fifth Circuit also asserted that the rise in crimes involving ghost guns and other public policy considerations did not empower the ATF to regulate beyond the limits Congress had set. Id. at 24–25.

On February 7, 2024, the government petitioned for a writ of certiorari; the Supreme Court granted the petition on April 22, 2024.

Analysis 

IS A WEAPON PARTS KIT A FIREARM?

Merrick Garland, Attorney General, et al., (“government”) argues that the 2022 Rule is consistent with the GCA’s “firearm” definition, which includes weapons “which may readily be converted” into a firearm. Brief for Petitioners, Merrick B. Garland et al., (“government”) at 22. The government contends that many weapon parts kits can “readily be converted” into firearms because the kits contain all the necessary parts for someone to quickly assemble a functional firearm without special training. Id. at 22–23. As an example, the government asserts that one would consider an IKEA kit to be furniture because each kit contains all the necessary parts to build furniture. Id. at 18–19. The government asserts that the 2022 Rule follows the logic of multiple Supreme Court decisions prohibiting the circumvention of the GCA by misinterpreting the GCA’s provisions. Id. at 42, 44. According to the government, the rise in availability and illegal use of ghost guns constitutes the most recent individual effort to circumvent the GCA. Id. The government stresses that Congress did not intend for felons, minors, and others prohibited from owning firearms to be able to circumvent the record-keeping and background check requirements set by the GCA. Id. at 41. Further, the government asserts that the 2022 Rule necessarily amends the GCA to prevent individuals from easily evading the GCA’s restrictions and to enable the ATF to regulate firearms as Congress intended. Id. The government observes that courts have previously considered certain collections of weapon parts to be firearms under the GCA, highlighting a Fifth Circuit decision where the court held that a disassembled shotgun was a firearm because the parts could easily and quickly be reassembled into a functional firearm. Id. at 25–26. The government further contends that the 2022 Rule is not vague, but instead creates a qualitative standard that considers “real-world” facts. Id. at 47–48. The government also highlights that courts have rejected vagueness claims regarding the GCA’s regulation of weapons that “may readily be converted” into functional firearms. Id. at 48. Further, the government notes that the 2022 Rule adds more clarity to the GCA than was previously available by providing a list of factors that would make a weapon readily convertible. Id. The government also argues that terms like “assembled” and “completed” fit naturally within the meaning of “convert” because all three words describe a change from one form to another. Id. at 20. Lastly, the government notes that the GCA considers some products to be both weapons and non-functioning firearms because of their readily convertible nature, such as certain starter guns, and contends that weapon parts kits are similarly convertible. Id. at 29.

VanDerStok counters that the 2022 Rule is inconsistent with the GCA’s “firearm” definition because the GCA requires a product to already be a weapon to be considered a firearm. Brief for Respondents, Jennifer VanDerStok et al., (“VanDerStok”) at 34. VanDerStok contends that the government overstates how easily a layperson can convert certain weapon parts kits into functional firearms. Id. at 29. VanDerStok also highlights that weapon parts kits do not include all the parts necessary to create a functional firearm. Id. at 38. To elaborate, VanDerStok contrasts weapon parts kits with IKEA furniture kits which do include all the parts necessary to construct furniture. Id. VanDerStok also contends that the ATF’s statement regarding the necessity of the 2022 Rule to address new public safety concerns conflicts with the ATF’s claim that the 2022 Rule codified prior ATF practice. Id. at 24. VanDerStok asserts that Congress created the GCA to balance governmental interests in regulating commercial firearm sales; not to burden private use of and noncommercial sales of firearms. Id. at 41–42. On this same point, VanDerStok argues that only Congress, not the ATF, may alter this balance to address shortcomings in the GCA and recent trends in firearm usage. Id. VanDerStok also asserts that court decisions treating disassembled firearms as regulable firearms differ from the 2022 Rule’s treatment of weapon parts kits as regulable firearms because disassembled firearms have all the parts necessary to build a firearm, including a frame or receiver. Id. at 37. VanDerStok additionally argues that the ATF’s interpretation of “may readily be converted” is too vague to give potential defendants fair notice that they are violating the law. Id. at 40. Lastly, VanDerStok observes that the meanings of “convert,” “assembled,” and “completed” all require an item to change from one form to another, concluding that a frame or receiver component that must change to become a frame or receiver cannot, therefore, be both a component and a complete product. Id. at 20.

THE REGULATION OF FRAMES AND RECEIVERS

The government argues that the most natural way to read the GCA’s use of “frame” or “receiver” is to include frames and receivers missing a part or component. Brief for Petitioners at 32. The government contends that frames or receivers that are only missing one or two parts necessary for them to be functional are still frames and receivers, just like a bicycle missing its pedals is still a bicycle. Id. The government contends that the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the GCA would allow individuals to circumvent the GCA’s background check and serialization requirements by purchasing weapon parts kits to construct their own functional firearms. Id at 43. The government contends that ATF practice, dictionary definitions of the relevant terms, and common sense indicate that no grievous ambiguity exists in the GCA; thus, courts are prohibited from using the rule of lenity or the constitutional-doubt canon to analyze the GCA. Id. at 45–46. The government asserts that the 2022 Rule is consistent with ATF precedent which treated partially completed frames as firearms when an individual could use regular hand tools to make the frame functional. Id.

VanDerStok counters that the ATF’s expanded definition of frame or receiver, which includes parts “designed to” become a frame or receiver, does not fall within the natural meaning of the statute. Brief for Respondents at 20. VanDerStok maintains that a bicycle without pedals can only still be a bicycle if it has reached a “critical stage of manufacture,” while the weapon components that the 2022 Rule considers to be complete frames and receivers have not reached that critical stage of manufacture. Id. at 28. VanDerStok observes that the GCA explicitly regulates weapons that “may readily be converted” into firearms but includes no such language for frames or receivers, indicating that Congress never intended for the GCA to permit the ATF to regulate parts that can be readily converted into frames or receivers. Id. at 21. VanDerStok contends that although weapon parts kits and frame and receiver components clearly fall outside of the GCA “firearm” definition, the Court could also use the rule of lenity to reach the same conclusion should the Court find that the GCA is ambiguous. Id. at 41. VanDerStok also argues that the 2022 Rule improperly renders the GCA’s language of “readily be converted” to be broader than the language of the National Firearm Act (“NFA”), where Congress added the term “readily restored” in its prohibition of converting weapons into machineguns and short-barreled shotguns in order to cover both readily convertible weapons and weapons missing firing pins. Id. at 21–22.

Discussion 

IMPACT ON GUN SAFETY & CRIME

In support of the government, twenty major cities (“The Cities”) argue that unregistered “ghost guns” are increasingly being used in crimes there. Brief of Amici Curiae Twenty Major Cities et al. (“The Cities”), in Support of Petitioners at 5. The Cities contend that ghost guns are particularly dangerous because their construction is cheaper and safer than purchasing firearms through the black market, and because weapon parts kits sellers are willing to sell to individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms. Id. at 12–14. The Cities also assert that it is far easier for minors to get access to ghost guns than conventional firearms which has led to the accidental deaths of multiple children. Id. at 27. The Local Government Legal Center (“LGLC”) emphasizes the importance of serial numbers in helping law enforcement track and solve crimes. Brief of Local Government Legal Center et al. (“LGLC”), in Support of Petitioners at 8. The LGLC also highlights that individuals construct ghost guns using polymer materials that metal detectors and other security measures cannot detect. Id. at 14.

In support of VanDerStok, the Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (“The Committee”) argues that the 2022 Rule does little to contribute to public safety. Brief of Amici Curiae Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms et al. (“The Committee”), in Support of Respondent at 12. The Committee contends that tracing rarely leads law enforcement to the culprit because the GCA’s tracing system does not pick up firearm sales between unlicensed private individuals. Id. at 11–12. The Committee also notes that federal law does not require gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. Id. at 12. The Committee asserts that criminals rarely purchase their guns from licensed dealers, but instead purchase from illegal sources that allow buyers to circumvent the tracing system. Id. at 13–16. The Committee also contends that the number of ghost guns in the U.S. is small, given the large number of firearms in the country, and that claims of widespread ghost guns are unsubstantiated. Id. at 19–21.

IMPACT ON GUN RIGHTS

In support of the government, the American Medical Association (“AMA”) argues that the purpose of the GCA was to limit unfettered access to gun ownership. Brief of Amici Curiae American Medical Association et al. (“AMA”), in Support of Petitioners at 14–15. The AMA notes that Congress passed the GCA in response to a significant increase in violent crime during the 1960s. Id. at 7–10. Gun Owners for Safety concludes that the 2022 Rule imposes little burden on the rights of lawful, responsible gun owners. Brief of Amicus Curiae Gun Owners for Safety, in Support of Petitioners at 21. Gun Owners for Safety contends that the additional criminal liability of the 2022 Rule is fair because owners of gun parts kits who were previously prohibited from owning guns would already have faced criminal liability the moment the gun was completed. Id. at 22.

In support of VanDerStok, West Virginia and twenty-six other states (“the States”) argue that the 2022 Rule is part of a broader pattern of the ATF infringing on gun rights, often relying on policy concerns to justify exceeding its statutory authority. Brief of Amici Curiae West Virginia et al. (“the States”), in Support of Respondents at 3–4, 20. The National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers (“The Association”) argues that the ATF’s decisions have previously prevented Congress from meaningfully addressing gun control issues. Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers (“The Association"), in Support of Respondents at 20. The Association also claims the ATF’s frequent and conflicting decisions hurt businesses and individuals by prohibiting previously allowed conduct with little notice. Id. at 21. Gun Owners of America and others argue that the 2022 Rule is another step towards “a de facto universal registry of American gun owners.” Brief of Amici Curiae Gun Owners of America et al., in Support of Respondents at 29–30.

Conclusion 

Authors

Written by Zaria Goicochea and Michael Spivey

Edited by Nicholas Sola

Acknowledgments 

Additional Resources