Explanation of an important Supreme Court case

[Aguila Blanca]

Garland v. VanDerStok.

It's about ghost guns, and when a chunk of metal becomes (or doesn't become) a firearm. Colion Noir explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lseg_Sa5byU

[Swifty Morgan]

He's an attorney, so he is probably worth listening to when it comes to law, unlike a lot of blowhards on Youtube. Unlike Massad Ayoob, whose advice is likely to land people in prison.

He's also a child of Nigerian immigrants, which explains why he's not caught up in leftist ghetto culture. Africans don't have much in common with black people whose ancestors were born here.

[mehavey]

Unlike Massad Ayoob, whose advice is likely to land people in prison.

Would you elaborate, please....

[Danb6177]

Originally Posted by Swifty Morgan

He's an attorney, so he is probably worth listening to when it comes to law, unlike a lot of blowhards on Youtube. Unlike Massad Ayoob, whose advice is likely to land people in prison.

He's also a child of Nigerian immigrants, which explains why he's not caught up in leftist ghetto culture. Africans don't have much in common with black people whose ancestors were born here.

what exactly is leftist ghetto culture?

[JohnKSa]

Unlike Massad Ayoob, whose advice is likely to land people in prison.

What advice does Massad Ayoob give that is likely to land people in prison?

If you have special information in this regard, it is certainly important to the people who come to this forum to learn.

It would be useful to provide the specific advice, and even better to also include what you believe to be a better version of it and the rationale behind that belief.

[Metal god]

I think the government crushed those analogies with there reply “these ghost parts can only be used for one thing , building a receiver” or something close to that . As much as I don’t like it , I think that is a reasoned argument . To further elaborate that point . 80 percenters have never been marketed as anything but an un finished firearm receiver . Therefore in this case they are only designed for and never have been intended to be anything other then a firearm . Not good for our side .

Those food ingredients analogies were quite silly I thought . The wording of this decision is going to be quite interesting. If they’re ruling states , if the part has a secondary function or purpose, other than being a firearm, it cannot be regulated. That’s game over because they’ll just start selling them as something else like I believe I said in another thread using the example of a paperweight.

A secondary interesting aspect to this case was the state saying if the 80% receiver was sold with a jig it now can be regulated because it’s clearly being sold as nothing else, but a potential firearm . I again I find that a reasoned argument. However, that means you just sell them Separately , came over again. I mean I wouldn’t have a problem opening my wallet or swiping my credit card twice.

Another question might be if somebody builds 80% of your receiver and you only build 20% who is the lead builder on the job ? Is that a reasonable question? It’s my understanding you can build your own firearms. But if you only put 20% of the effort , are “ you” really the builder or just a collaborator ? I remember about 10 years ago and maybe it’s still going on. When somebody on these boards would say I’m building an AR. There was always two or three people that came back with you are not building anything you were just assembling the parts . Maybe apples to oranges but still kind of an interesting concept.


I think the bigger question is , when is the government and legislatures going to learn we will figure out a legal way to get what we want . We seem to do it every time. I mean, California has been trying to ban semi automatic sporting rifles for years. And every time they write a new definition. Somebody follows the law to the letter and designs a new, semi automatic, sporting rifle that in most cases is functionally the same . You can go into any gun store in California and see racks of AR’s AK’s and a bunch of others . It’s what happens when somebody writes laws that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

I have another wonderful example of legislature writing laws they have no understanding of . Starting this new year, California can no longer use plastic bags at the grocery store to help save the environment. They are now implementing paper bags only. The most hilarious part about that is CA banned paper bags and required plastic bags use 20 years ago to save the trees and the environment . LMAO we went full circle. Oh my God, seriously. Our tax dollars hard at work , got a love California

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I think the government crushed those analogies with there reply “these ghost parts can only be used for one thing , building a receiver” or something close to that . As much as I don’t like it , I think that is a reasoned argument . To further elaborate that point . 80 percenters have never been marketed as anything but an un finished firearm receiver . Therefore in this case they are only designed for and never have been intended to be anything other then a firearm . Not good for our side .

What's your point? Nobody is disputing that a gun kit is for the purpose of building a gun. However, "vee haf laws," laws are written in words, and words have meanings. If a firearm receiver can't perform its intended function until the machining has been completed, then by definition it is not a receiver (yet), and thus it is not a firearm (yet). And even the BATFE doesn't dispute that it is entirely legal for individuals to make their own firearms fore their own personal use.

Federal law:

§ 478.12 Definition of Frame or Receiver.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the term “frame or receiver” means the following—

(1) The term “frame” means the part of a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the component (i.e., sear or equivalent) designed to hold back the hammer, striker, bolt, or similar primary energized component prior to initiation of the firing sequence, even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component (i.e., sear or equivalent) to the housing or structure.

(2) The term “receiver” means the part of a rifle, shotgun, or projectile weapon other than a handgun, or variants thereof, that provides housing or a structure for the primary component designed to block or seal the breech prior to initiation of the firing sequence (i.e., bolt, breechblock, or equivalent), even if pins or other attachments are required to connect such component to the housing or structure.

So if I buy a Polymer 80 kit, is there ANYTHING in the box into which I can immediately insert a sear and trigger and have a functional firearm?

[44 AMP]

Another question might be if somebody builds 80% of your receiver and you only build 20% who is the lead builder on the job ? Is that a reasonable question?

It might seem a reasonable question, but the law doesn't care. Since the receiver is legally the firearm, whom ever completes the receiver (performs the final step that makes it functional) is the manufacturer.

But only in the eyes of the law...where firearms are concerned....

[Metal god]

What’s my point ? My point went to the video and what I considered the point of this thread . A “lawyer” giving his “expert” opinion on the arguments given to SCOTUS in this case . My point was to Challenge his review and opinion, specifically about the recipe and grocery list analogies . I guess I’ll try to be a little more clear next time or maybe you could have a little bit more of a good faith reading of the discussion .

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought arguments to SCOTUS was to manipulate them into believing your arguments . I thought those very narrowed points in their argument seemed reasoned. If it was as simple as the text of what constitutes a frame or receiver was the only thing to look at. SCOTUS would not have entertained any of their other arguments . They would’ve continually shut them down every time they couldn’t prove it was a functioning frame or receiver . I don’t believe this case is going to be as simple as we would like it as it relates to their up coming ruling .

whom ever completes the receiver (performs the final step that makes it functional) is the manufacturer.

Sorry didn’t realize that was in the federal text of building your own firearm .

[44 AMP]

Sorry didn’t realize that was in the federal text of building your own firearm .

This entire matter is about govt regulation of things that are not specially written in the text of Federal law.

Along with this is the idea that the govt can determine that an item can only be used for one purpose. I cannot think of any mobile object on Earth that can only be used for one single purpose. I can think of things that have only one practical use, but practical isn't in the law or regulations, is it?? I also think that using the marketing of an item as the only possible use for that item is wrong.

The designer's and marketer's intended use is certainly a thing, but is it the right thing to use for defining the legal status of something, particularly something that, as sold, (such as an unfinished receiver) will not function as sold and need additional work to be completed and useable?

I don't think it is.

[mehavey]

This entire matter is about govt regulation of things that are not specially written in the text of Federal law.

Should not the latest SCOTUS ruling on Chevron Deference now come into play?

[Metal god]

Hey man I agree with you all , my point has been very narrow to the recipe and grocery list analogies and how the state countered them . A pen and paper can be a multitude of things and not only can it be a multitude of things they are used for multiple things and people consider them just by looking at them as being used for multiple things. This is also true with food, just sitting out on the counter. I personally know how to cook and can look at things on the counter. Let’s say things that fit in a Denver omelette. I don’t look at those things and think Denver omelette. I look at those things and think any multitude of different types of recipes I can make with them and I think of them as each individual piece. Can anybody hear honestly say they do the same thing when looking at an 80% frame or receiver? Or do we look at it and say oh that’s for a Glock 19 or that’s for an A.R. 15 . There is no other practical use for those items and we can see it at a glance. I may not like it, but I have a hard time denying it.

As it relates to marketing and if that should matter on it being regulated, the only thing I can say is . Solvent trap.

[44 AMP]

There is no other practical use for those items and we can see it at a glance. I may not like it, but I have a hard time denying it.

Why deny anything?? SO what if its obvious the only practical purpose is to be turned into a firearm receiver? The unfinished item is NOT a receiver, and won't be, unless it is finished. UNTIL THEN, its not a firearm and not regulatable under firearm law.

This is the point I see, that since SOME people seem to think the only use it to make a firearm, they seek to regulate and restrict an UNFINISHED PART as IF IT WERE A FIREARM.

Isn't it a lot like banning a book that hasn't been finished, because you're afraid of how it might end???

[mehavey]

Again see Post# 11.
Which may (should?) turn all of this what-if discussion moot.

[Metal god]

Isn't it a lot like banning a book that hasn't been finished, because you're afraid of how it might end???

That was a good one , the Justices should have said that .

[Metal god]

I REALLY thought that Chevron Deference ruling was going to be a game changer . However this court does not seem to care about their own precedents. I don’t remember which case but they already ignored their own Chevron Deference precedent . Then there is Bruan that this court does not seem to want to follow either .

That said , no I don’t think it will matter but probably should . In fact I don’t even remember anyone mentioning it during oral arguments so …… ?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Why deny anything?? SO what if its obvious the only practical purpose is to be turned into a firearm receiver? The unfinished item is NOT a receiver, and won't be, unless it is finished. UNTIL THEN, its not a firearm and not regulatable under firearm law.

This is the point I see, that since SOME people seem to think the only use it to make a firearm, they seek to regulate and restrict an UNFINISHED PART as IF IT WERE A FIREARM.

Isn't it a lot like banning a book that hasn't been finished, because you're afraid of how it might end???

Thank you. That's the point. It doesn't matter who hasn't finished it yet, or how much or how little work is required to finish it. Until that hunk of metal (or plastic) can accept a trigger and sear mechanism, it is NOT a firearm. In reality, just as I think the entire premise of state-issued permits/licenses to carry firearms (a supposedly constitutionally guaranteed right) is unconstitutional out of the gate, I think the same applies to an 80% receiver.

[5whiskey]

what exactly is leftist ghetto culture?

You know I'm actually quite curious about that myself. If I say that Democrats are immoral and the enemy (hyperbole, I don't actually believe that) I can stand by to get my post modified and a PM from a moderator... but this comment is apparently OK?

I understand that immigrants from Nigeria are black, but with a different background and culture than a 4th or 5th generation Black American who grew up in inner city DC. And I'm far from PC, but there's phrases that should be obvious to all.

[44 AMP]

what exactly is leftist ghetto culture?

It's a phrase that is quite off topic to discuss in this thread. If you want to find out what he meant, take it to PMs. We're not going there in the open forum.

[Danb6177]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It's a phrase that is quite off topic to discuss in this thread. If you want to find out what he meant, take it to PMs. We're not going there in the open forum.

Agree, which is why I asked what he thought it meant. It clearly doesn't belong in this conversation.

[Skans]

I would bet that a lot of people who purchased 80% receivers or frames never actually did anything with them. Maybe they just keep them around for SHTF scenario. Also, some folks buy things just because they are going to be banned.

I remember my own mother buying one of those cabbage patch dolls that ate hair just because they were going to be "banned". She never even played with it.

[44 AMP]

Until that hunk of metal (or plastic) can accept a trigger and sear mechanism, it is NOT a firearm.

While the law does (and I think they made an error doing so), I don't think that being able to accept a trigger /sear mechanism alone makes something a firearm. My personal definition would include all the parts needed for function (Like a barrel, for example) ASSEMBLED into a functional form. Otherwise, its just a collection of parts.

“The law may upset reason but reason may never upset the law, or our whole society will shred like an old tatami. The law may be used to confound reason, reason must certainly not be used to overthrow the law.” ― James Clavell, Shōgun

This is the view of tyrants, despots, and even elected government officials who are more concerned with their own authority and power than with the rights of their "subjects".

I see the root cause of gun control laws as fear. The govt's FEAR of what someone MIGHT DO, and regulating, restricting, or even banning inanimate objects (which do nothing on their own, and can't) to "protect" us from...ourselves, I guess...

Its a boondoggle, or in plainer language, lies.