Bondi vs Vanderstok ( the frames and receivers case )

Metal god · March 27, 2025, 08:20 PM

I’m surprised nobody here is talking about this yet .

Supreme court 7-2 ruling with Thomas’s descent , oops sorry spoiler alert
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-852_c07d.pdf

In a nutshell , if you have the tools and can convert it in a short amount of time . The ATF gets to regulate . Once again SCOTUS screws up a 2nd amendment case after Bruen ! The amount of GRAY EREA in this opinion, the ATF will be able to drive a truck through . I just don’t get SCOTUS anymore . Maybe I never did . This is the first decision/descent that I’ve ever seen with pictures. Haha . Maybe it’s a normal thing. I’ve just never seen it before.

zukiphile · March 27, 2025, 08:46 PM

Quote:

In a nutshell , if you have the tools and can convert it in a short amount of time .

Close, but not exactly.

The challenge was that there is no circumstance in which the reg could be a constitutionally valid reg. That doesn't mean that every application of the reg is permissible.

I would have been in the dissent, but that doesn't mean that the majority opinion is a categorical vindication of the reg.

Metal god · March 27, 2025, 11:49 PM

Correct but they gave no real guidance . As Thomas showed in the picture. Two different 80% lowers. The one by it self , not a firearm . One with a jig and drill bits is a firearm . What does that mean , 80% ok as long as not sold in a kit with the jig and dill bits . Well we don’t know cus once again SCOTUS did not narrow the scope in which the government can infringe on the right . Can a 70% and jig and drill bits still be sold and what happened to us being able to make our own firearms ? Is it that if I have a bunch of fancy tools that makes it supper easy for me to make my own firearm quickly , I no longer can do so because it’s to easy for me ? Then I see they through in there the good old “in common use” verbiage we all so Love to quote . What ….. they think 3D printers aren’t going to be in common use in the future ? Remember when printers were the size of refrigerators and now we ALL have one in our homes . What happens when we all have or at least 3D printers are in common use ? That would make this whole decision moot !

I said it before and I’ll say it again . Since Bruen they’ve done nothing but walk Bruen back . It’s as if they all got together without Justice Thomas and said ( let’s let him have this one ( Bruen) and we will simply walk it back with subsequent rulings ) . It seems they still want to interest balance even though they said no more of that .

The Dunkin case (High cap mags) will be the the test case IMO . They GVR’d that case when deciding Bruen . That case was just decided again with an enbanc panel at the 9th circus . The most telling part of that case is the first enbac panel ruled that mags were protected by the second amendment but they used the interest balancing to say they can still be regulated . SCOTUS after Bruen GVR’d that case for them to take another look at based on Bruen’s new precedent . Now that very same panel in there second try at the case after the GVR says mags are not protected under the second amendment and therefore can be regulated . An absolute stunning reversal on there reasoning in order to get to the same conclusion .

What SCOTUS does with that case will say all we will ever need to know on what direction this SCOTUS plans to go as it relates to the second amendment . I wish all judges had the guts the progressive judges have . I may not like many of there decisions but I respect the fact they are willing to give strong and forceful ones . Wish I could say the same about the so-called originalist judges .

**Aguila Blanca** · March 28, 2025, 12:20 AM

The whole 80% thing is nothing but an arbitrary line in the sand anyway. That's not law -- that's an ATF interpretation. Somebody needed to decide at what point a chunk of metal becomes a firearm, so they chose 80% of completion. But that has always been a fuzzy line.

A good many years ago at some event I don't even remember, I spoke briefly with a gentleman who was in the business of selling 80% lower receivers for AR-15s. He said he had one configuration that he submitted to the BATFE, they approved it and he started selling them, then they walked it back and he had to change the configuration to make them happy that it still needed 20% of the work to finish it.

Metal god · March 28, 2025, 07:26 AM

The percentage appears to be irrelevant in this ruling . As far as I can tell, it can be a 99%. Receiver made of diamonds. As long as it’s super hard to finish and not able to be finished quickly, you should be good to go. Again the gray area in this ruling is massive. As far as I can tell, this ruling has made it clear that the government may continue to arbitrarily infringe on the right . Which in my opinion means it’s no real ruling at all just a waste of time other than chipping away at Bruen .

Brian Pfleuger · March 28, 2025, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metal God

What ….. they think 3D printers aren’t going to be in common use in the future ? Remember when printers were the size of refrigerators and now we ALL have one in our homes . What happens when we all have or at least 3D printers are in common use ?

3D printers have been in common use by any normal definition of the phrase for some years now.
I personally know many people that have them and several people that have 5 or 6 of them.
They are sold at Sam's Club, right on the shelf, and many other ordinary retailers for only a few hundred dollars. (No more than any other decent printer in many cases)

Metal god · March 28, 2025, 12:51 PM

Thanks for that , just another example of a poor rulng

**44 AMP** · March 28, 2025, 02:52 PM

I don't care if it is a 3d printer or $20,000 worth of machine tools, or just a set of files a caliper, a hand drill, and a lot of patience, the principle should not be that something that isn't made (functional) is a regulatable item based on how difficult it is to finish it into something functional.

Constructive possession is a flawed concept, but one the govt has been using to their advantage for some time now.

Apparently, under the new "ruling" they can continue to do so.

zukiphile · March 31, 2025, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metal god

...just another example of a poor rulng

I agree, and not only in the sense that I disagree with the result.

The majority and concurrences seem like a hash not only of the facts of 80% receivers (the oral argument is painful in that it is a room full of people with an iffy understanding of what finishing a "partially complete" [sic] receiver involves) but what the nature of the legal challenge was.

If the controversy is what ATF defines a receiver to be, it is no reasonable answer that the ATF definition should stand if there are any kits to which it could reasonably apply. A definition, by definition, is categorical and must apply to everything it is offered to define.

This is so muddled across so many different axes that may leave the issue open to a lot of later challenge.

March 27, 2025, 08:20 PM	#1
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 7,123	Bondi vs Vanderstok ( the frames and receivers case ) I’m surprised nobody here is talking about this yet . Supreme court 7-2 ruling with Thomas’s descent , oops sorry spoiler alert https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-852_c07d.pdf In a nutshell , if you have the tools and can convert it in a short amount of time . The ATF gets to regulate . Once again SCOTUS screws up a 2nd amendment case after Bruen ! The amount of GRAY EREA in this opinion, the ATF will be able to drive a truck through . I just don’t get SCOTUS anymore . Maybe I never did . This is the first decision/descent that I’ve ever seen with pictures. Haha . Maybe it’s a normal thing. I’ve just never seen it before. __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

March 27, 2025, 11:49 PM	#3
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 7,123	Correct but they gave no real guidance . As Thomas showed in the picture. Two different 80% lowers. The one by it self , not a firearm . One with a jig and drill bits is a firearm . What does that mean , 80% ok as long as not sold in a kit with the jig and dill bits . Well we don’t know cus once again SCOTUS did not narrow the scope in which the government can infringe on the right . Can a 70% and jig and drill bits still be sold and what happened to us being able to make our own firearms ? Is it that if I have a bunch of fancy tools that makes it supper easy for me to make my own firearm quickly , I no longer can do so because it’s to easy for me ? Then I see they through in there the good old “in common use” verbiage we all so Love to quote . What ….. they think 3D printers aren’t going to be in common use in the future ? Remember when printers were the size of refrigerators and now we ALL have one in our homes . What happens when we all have or at least 3D printers are in common use ? That would make this whole decision moot ! I said it before and I’ll say it again . Since Bruen they’ve done nothing but walk Bruen back . It’s as if they all got together without Justice Thomas and said ( let’s let him have this one ( Bruen) and we will simply walk it back with subsequent rulings ) . It seems they still want to interest balance even though they said no more of that . The Dunkin case (High cap mags) will be the the test case IMO . They GVR’d that case when deciding Bruen . That case was just decided again with an enbanc panel at the 9th circus . The most telling part of that case is the first enbac panel ruled that mags were protected by the second amendment but they used the interest balancing to say they can still be regulated . SCOTUS after Bruen GVR’d that case for them to take another look at based on Bruen’s new precedent . Now that very same panel in there second try at the case after the GVR says mags are not protected under the second amendment and therefore can be regulated . An absolute stunning reversal on there reasoning in order to get to the same conclusion . What SCOTUS does with that case will say all we will ever need to know on what direction this SCOTUS plans to go as it relates to the second amendment . I wish all judges had the guts the progressive judges have . I may not like many of there decisions but I respect the fact they are willing to give strong and forceful ones . Wish I could say the same about the so-called originalist judges . __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

March 28, 2025, 12:20 AM	#4
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 19,041	The whole 80% thing is nothing but an arbitrary line in the sand anyway. That's not law -- that's an ATF interpretation. Somebody needed to decide at what point a chunk of metal becomes a firearm, so they chose 80% of completion. But that has always been a fuzzy line. A good many years ago at some event I don't even remember, I spoke briefly with a gentleman who was in the business of selling 80% lower receivers for AR-15s. He said he had one configuration that he submitted to the BATFE, they approved it and he started selling them, then they walked it back and he had to change the configuration to make them happy that it still needed 20% of the work to finish it. __________________ NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic

March 28, 2025, 07:26 AM	#5
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 7,123	The percentage appears to be irrelevant in this ruling . As far as I can tell, it can be a 99%. Receiver made of diamonds. As long as it’s super hard to finish and not able to be finished quickly, you should be good to go. Again the gray area in this ruling is massive. As far as I can tell, this ruling has made it clear that the government may continue to arbitrarily infringe on the right . Which in my opinion means it’s no real ruling at all just a waste of time other than chipping away at Bruen . __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . Last edited by Metal god; March 28, 2025 at 12:08 PM.

March 28, 2025, 12:51 PM	#7
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 7,123	Thanks for that , just another example of a poor rulng __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

March 28, 2025, 02:52 PM	#8
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 30,458	I don't care if it is a 3d printer or $20,000 worth of machine tools, or just a set of files a caliper, a hand drill, and a lot of patience, the principle should not be that something that isn't made (functional) is a regulatable item based on how difficult it is to finish it into something functional. Constructive possession is a flawed concept, but one the govt has been using to their advantage for some time now. Apparently, under the new "ruling" they can continue to do so. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.