Kyle Sung | Garland v. VanDerStok

INTRODUCTION

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, Congress requires those involved in the business of importing, manufacturing, and selling guns to “obtain a federal firearms license, keep records of the acquisition and transfer of firearms, . . . conduct a background check before transferring a firearm to a non-licensee[,]” and “mark firearms with a serial number.” 18 U.S.C. 922(t), 923(a), (g)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C. 923(i). The goals of the Act’s “comprehensive scheme” are “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who should not have them” and “to assist law enforcement authorities in investigating serious crimes.” Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 180 (2014).

In recent years, certain technological advances have made it easier for gun manufacturers to sell kits that contain firearm parts and easy-to-complete frames and receivers. Many of these manufacturers sold these kits without complying with the Act’s requirements because they believed selling kits that contained the parts of a firearm did not constitute selling a “firearm.” In doing so, these manufacturers essentially have allowed anyone with access to the Internet and basic tools to create a “ghost gun”—that is, a workable firearm assembled from parts that cannot be tracked—in a matter of minutes.

The lack of recordkeeping and a system to track these ghost guns led the ATF in 2022 to update its interpretation of the definition of a “firearm” and to clarify what “frame” and “receiver” means. As such, the Rule revised the definition of a “firearm” to “include 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.” 27 C.F.R. 478.11. Moreover, the Rule clarifies that the undefined term “frame or receiver” in the Act’s definition of “firearm” includes “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.” Id.

After the rule was promulgated by the ATF, the respondents—two individuals, two advocacy organizations, and five manufacturers that may be covered by the Rule—filed a lawsuit. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas vacated the entirety of ATF’s 2022 rules by holding that the Act’s definition of “firearm” does not “cover weapon parts, or aggregations of weapon parts, regardless of whether the parts may be readily assembled into something that may fire a projectile.” Pet. App. 67a114a. Furthermore, it held that “[a] part that has yet to be completed or converted to function as [a] frame or receiver is not a frame or receiver.”  Id. at 26a. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision, citing two rationales: the legislative history suggested Congress did not intend to categorize the definition of a “firearm” to include weapons parts and that assembling a weapons part kits takes too many additional steps to readily convert into a firearm. The court noted that “other provisions of the federal firearms laws contain, or previously contained, language expressly addressing “parts” or “combination[s] of parts.”” Id. at 20a-22a (citation omitted). This suggested to the court that “Congress did not intend to include ‘aggregations of weapon parts’ in the definition of ‘firearm.’” The Fifth Circuit further declared invalid “the provision of the Rule defining ‘frame or receiver’ to include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver.” Id. at 17a-18a.

The ATF challenges the Fifth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that a weapons part kit constitutes a “firearm” and “frame or receiver” that is covered and regulated by the Act.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, does a weapons part kit constitute a “firearm” and does a partially completed or disassembled frame or receiver constitute a “frame or receiver?” 

THE ARGUMENTS

The petitioners argue that a weapons part kit falls within the ordinary meaning of the Act’s definition of firearm. The Act defines “firearm” to encompass “any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). First, the petitioners contend that the word “convert” falls within the statute. Convert is defined as to “change or turn from one state to another: alter in form, substance, or quality: transform, transmute.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged 499 (1968) (Webster’s). As such, the petitioners read “completed”, “assembled,” and “restored” to be similar in function to “convert”. Specifically, all of these words deal with “transformation from one state to another.” To the petitioners, these words support the ordinary meaning of the Act’s definition of firearm as the weapons part kit allows a transformation from an unfinished “firearm” to a finished state. Furthermore, the petitioners assert that the word “readily” fits a similar reading. Since “readily” is defined by the petitioners as “fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy,” it follows that the weapon part kits fall within the statute because they can “readily be converted” into firearms.

On the second issue presented, frame or receiver, the petitioners assert that those terms are correctly interpreted under the statute to include “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c). In other words, a “frame” or “receiver” need not be fully complete or functional to fall within the meaning of those terms. A “frame” is “the basic unit of a handgun which serves as a mounting for the barrel and operating parts of the arm.” Webster’s 902 (emphasis omitted). And a “receiver” is “the metal frame in which the action of a firearm is fitted and to which the breech end of the barrel is attached” or “the main body of the lock in a breech mechanism.” Id. at 1894 (emphasis omitted). Thus, the petitioners make the case that the reading of a statute allows for a partially functional or non-functional frame or receiver to still be considered as a frame or receiver under the Act. In fact, they point to a bicycle analogy, in which a bicycle is still a “bicycle” even if it lacks some component such as pedals or a chain.

In both issues presented, the petitioners also argue that excluding weapons part kits would go against the Act’s design. The petitioners suggest that allowing guns to essentially operate unregulated ensures that anyone can assemble fully functional firearms easily and allows a system in which firearms are not adequately vetted and recorded. This, for all intents and purposes, according to the petitioners, would repeal the core provisions and the intention of the Act itself.

On the first issue, the respondents argue that the ATF necessarily expanded the definition of “firearm” to include “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.” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The argument brought forth by respondents is that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was regulating weapons, and not weapons parts kits. According to the respondents, the ATF added to the definition, and the expanded language did not exist prior to this change.

On the second issue, the respondents assert that ATF again expanded the definition of “frame or receiver” to “include a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver[.]” Id. § 478.12(c). The respondents declare that a “frame or receiver simply is an item that can function as a frame or receiver.” As such, the ordinary definition of frame or receiver does not include the idea that it must be converted in order to fully function as an actual “frame” or “receiver.” The respondents submit that this expanded language was an added feature of ATF’s new policies that was not present in the original statute itself.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the respondents, holding that the Act’s definition of “firearm” does not encompass “weapon parts kit[s] that [are] designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit viewed the Rule’s definition of “frame or receiver” as “materially deviat[ing] from past definitions of these words to encompass items that were not originally understood to fall within the ambit of the [Act].” Pet. App. 16a. The Fifth Circuit also made it a point to note that the legislative history did not support the ordinary meaning of the statute. The court noted that other federal firearms laws mention gun parts, and in doing so, it is clear that Congress did not intend to include “aggregations of weapon parts” in the definition of “firearm.” Id. at 22a. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit held that “weapon parts kits cannot be ‘readily converted’ into a functional firearm and thus are not covered by the Act”. Id. The presence of additional steps required to convert a weapons part kit into a functional firearm is a material difference because it would take too long to functionally create such a firearm to consider it a “firearm.”

LOOKING FORWARD

This case appears similar to Garland v. Cargill. In that case, the Court held that a bump stock is not a “machine gun” under 26 U.S.C. §5845(b). In doing so, the Court ruled that ATF exceeded its statutory authority through this designation. If the case follows the same logistical path, it is likely the Court will rule in favor of the respondents. That is, a weapons part kit is not a “firearm” under 27 C.F.R. 478.11, and “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” does not qualify as a frame or receiver under 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c). Again, the Court would likely hold that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by designating weapons parts kits as firearms. In the former, a bump stock is considered legal until Congress declares otherwise. In the latter, if the prediction comes to fruition, “ghost guns” as part of a weapons part kit would be declared legal until Congress suggests otherwise.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioners, then the Court would hold that the ATF did not exceed its statutory authority, and that a weapons part kit is a “firearm” and “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” qualifies as a frame or receiver. In doing so, the Court’s ruling would allow ATF to continue enforcing their rule. That is, a weapons part kit would be subject to the same regulations as firearms. Thus, gun manufacturers would be required to keep records of the acquisition and transfer of “ghost guns,” and mark the “ghost guns” with a serial number. This seemingly would kill the basic idea of “ghost guns,” given that they are guns without a serial number. This may lead to an easier time make it easier for ATF to track the flow of exchange of guns, potentially allowing them to fulfill their dual goals under the Act: keeping guns away from felons and assisting police in investigating crimes.