This Week in Guns
September 19, 2024
In Garland v. VanDerStok, the famous “frame or receiver” case at the Supreme Court, the ATF has filed its Reply Brief. Pretty standard hand-waving on the government’s part.
A fun little bit:
Respondents specifically object (VanDerStok Br. 39-40; Defense Distributed Br. 25-26) to the Rule’s clarification that a part is not a frame or receiver if it has not “reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon.” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c). But that provision and the accompanying examples were included at the request of commenters in the firearms industry in order to provide the regulated community with greater clarity about parts that are not covered by the Rule, such as unfinished frame or receiver blanks.
ATF Reply Brief Pg. 21
Thanks for the clarity, guys. This case’s arguments are less than three weeks away in D.C.
In other legal news, the Third Circuit noticed a merits panel for Defense Distributed, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey (CA3 no. 23-3058) in Philadelphia for November 4th.
Oral argument on the question of the free speech value of 3D gun files. In our Great Nation’s first capital. Just in time for the Election of President Harris!
Aside from these updates, it’s been unusually quiet and uneventful in DD litigation land.
If you would like to support these legal actions, please join LEGIO.
