Talyn
SAINT
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday, October 8th in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case that centers around whether or not the ATF and the Biden administration have the legal authority to circumvent the legislative process whenever they feel they can appeal to what they present as a greater purpose.
Garland v. VanDerStok resulted from the ATF publishing a “Final Rule” in April of 2022, changing the regulatory definition of “firearm” to include parts that could become functional frames and receivers via additional manufacturing, unilaterally shifting the legislative goalposts yet again. This rule is aimed at manufacturers of 80% receiver kits who have supported the right of private citizens to make firearms for personal use at home, a tradition that does not carry with it the obligation to serialize those guns.
www.firearmsnews.com
Garland v. VanDerStok resulted from the ATF publishing a “Final Rule” in April of 2022, changing the regulatory definition of “firearm” to include parts that could become functional frames and receivers via additional manufacturing, unilaterally shifting the legislative goalposts yet again. This rule is aimed at manufacturers of 80% receiver kits who have supported the right of private citizens to make firearms for personal use at home, a tradition that does not carry with it the obligation to serialize those guns.
The Truth Behind the Garland v. VanDerStok “Ghost Gun” Case - Firearms News
The Truth Behind the Garland v. VanDerStok “Ghost Gun” Case
www.firearmsnews.com
