Supreme Court Oral argument in 5 days-self made firearms

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/10/0...he-right-to-bear-arms/?mpweb=2534-4592-963077

this case will be argued next Tuesday and it concerns individuals making their own firearms

the issue is that the ATF under Garland has expanded the definition of what constitutes a firearm which has limited the ability of private citizens to make their own guns.

Here is the summary of the issues to be heard

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garland-v-vanderstok-2/

ssues: (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.

 

"readily completed" equates to "requires precise machining", under the ATFs interpretation.

 

wanna bet how this one will turn out?

 

Oh they're not trying to take your guns.... But they turn around and do things like this

 

ATF loss, in every way.

 

It's an agency that should not exist in the first place.

 

Another basic English lesson for gun advocates: "keep and bear arms" is not the same as "make arms".

 

Well supposedly liberals just want to pass common Sense gun regulation to make the world a safer place.... Can you demonstrate where someone making their own gun has been a problem?

 

You have the right to own a gun.
If, for whatever reason, you are not in a position to buy a gun - location, lack of inventory, lack of funds, etc, you have the right to make one.
Because you have the right to own a gun.

 

He and one of our other second amendment deniers, claim keeping and bearing is not something that includes OWNING

 

The -actual- question here is if an incomplete receiver - an 80% lower - is a firearm as defined under federal law.

It's not. You cannot in any way assemble it into a weapon which can propel an projectile using an explosive.
It's also not a frame or receiver because it is not a part of a projectile weapon 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).

ATF, going down.

 

While still in secondary school I made several BP zip guns and a few slamfire guns. Then at at age 14 I used WWII plans, of the kind the allies distributed throughout Europe to build a sterling sub machine gun, making some parts in my uncle’s machine shop; not too difficult as it operates on the same principle as a slamfire… the hardest part of the build was making magazines, but I got a few from my network.
In my college years I made several Black powder rifles from kits (still being sold) which I used for hunting. One, a .50 Hawken could easily and reliably hit coffee cans at 100m with open sights. Nobody made these kits objects of concern.
Guns aren’t that difficult to make, so how do you draw the line?

 

I am wondering how many criminals will take the time and effort to make a ‘ghost gun’? I have never understood the concern. Criminals have far easier ways to obtain a firearm than to complete the building of a kit gun. Seems to be a non issue to me. Can someone explain the threat to me?

 

Such technicalities ignorant of logic are meaningless. In order to bear arms, arms must be made. Are you suggesting you think it would be constitutional to ban all arms manufacturing?

Would you apply this same 'logic' to legalizing marijuana but also banning it from ever being grown?

 

They think what the Second should have said (ignoring the tenth) the right of the people to keep, use, carry, own, transport, sort, store, trade buy sell, create repair, lend borrow, clean repair, fix collect, arms shall not be infringed.

 

Given there is north of 1/2 billion guns in civilian hands in the US and the vast majority are not registered, again, I as what the concern is about regarding ghost guns since they would add negligible numbers to the vast number of unregistered guns in the US; seems a MSM manufactured, hyped danger, being sold to the low information public for cloaked political objectives. Again, what is the concern?

 

the goal is to set precedents for banning so they can whittle away at lawful gun ownership

 

How can one bear something that has not been made?

 

its such a moronic argument. they argue that the founders should have stated, the right to keep bear, own, carry, transport, buy, sell, make, repair, maintain, use, barter trade, modify, create, manufacture, machine, arms shall not be infringed.

they ignore the fact that nothing in article one section eight ever gave the federal government any gun control powers

 

Yep, a continual effort at A deliberate slippery slope strategy.
Then there is the continual attempts at banning things like aftermarket magazines, triggers, stocks, etc under penalty of law that provides a basis for discretionary arresting political opponents that possess these items, if they aren’t registered.I maintain many of the gun control laws conceal the goal of registering the political opposition. Then, using those lists to harass those in opposition; you say this in NYC when newspapers got their hands on gun permits list via open records filings, the
N proceeded to publish the lists.Hmmm, Let’s see, do criminals use the lists to target burglaries to get guns or find where residents are unlikely to mount armed resistance?

 

If I have a gun without a SN what does that mean? Non of the black powder guns I made had serial numbers; I have since sold all of them. So what?

 

Last I checked, guns designed to be used only with black powder are not considered 'firearms' by the ATF.

 

As usual, gun advocates churn out weak arguments. What part of "keep and bear arms" do they not understand?

 

what part of Shall not be infringed do you fail to grasp. what part of this do you constantly ignore?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


can you cite anything in the constitution or the amendments that says anything about the federal government having any gun control power concerning private citizens. can you find a single founder who wanted to exclude "ownership" from Keep and bear?

 

This has been addressed, bub.
Try to keep up.