Garland v. VanDerStok

[12Bravo20]

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Garland v. VanDerStok case involving frames and receivers this morning. They upheld the ATF rule.

From the AP
Supreme Court upholds Biden rule requiring serial numbers and background checks for ghost guns

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden administration regulation on the nearly impossible-to-trace weapons called ghost guns, clearing the way for serial numbers, background checks and age verification requirements to buy them in kits online.

Official Supreme Court opinion
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf

From Cornell
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-852

 

[unclenunzie]

Here is the actual opinion and order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf

 

[12Bravo20]

Here is the actual opinion and order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf

Which I did post above.

The Supreme Court has ruled on the Garland v. VanDerStok case involving frames and receivers this morning. They upheld the ATF rule.

From the AP
Supreme Court upholds Biden rule requiring serial numbers and background checks for ghost guns



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/23-852

 

[unclenunzie]

If you didn't edit your original post to add it later, I must have missed it. I thought I saw only the AP reference. Thus my post.

 

[12Bravo20]

No I did post the official opinion right away. I only edited my post to point out that it is the official opinion.

 

[rust collector]

Thank you for the link to the opinion. It shows 63 pages, but much of that is concurring and dissenting opinions which can be read independently. This is vital to understanding the different positions of the justices, what facts the decision was based upon, and how each of the justices approach the issue.

If you believe aspects of the decision were wrongly decided, please cite to the page number and include your legal analysis. If you simply want to register disappointment or outrage, there is a thread in GGD that is not so restrictive.

 

[12Bravo20]

Thank you @rust collector. I posted the information so others can read the opinions and news articles. They can form their own opinions in the General section.

 

[LiveLife]

Update from DOJ - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1472643#msg1472643

... As part of implementing the President's Executive Order, the Attorney General on April 8 created the Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force, which is devoted to protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Upon review of this case by the Task Force, the government has reconsidered its position in this case. The government's view is that the Supreme Court's decision in VanDerStok provided some clarity on the regulatory question of how best to apply the Gun Control Act to unfinished frames and receivers, but this interpretation should not serve as a basis for punishing gun manufacturers for conduct that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) considered lawful at the time of the sales.

The government further no longer wishes to be a party to this litigation. If and when this Court should remand this case to the District Court, the government would move to withdraw as a party to this case.