Firearms Owners Against Crime
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
by: James Stoker
Many of us in the gun world read the Supreme Court’s ruling on Bondi v VanDerStok with dread. Some saw it as no big deal, and some saw it as the end of all things good. In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And that middle is a massive span of gray area that will have to be determined as we go. I tend to lean toward “it’s a terrible decision for gun owners and private manufacturers, but it also could have gone worse.”
The main concern I have seen is that the Supreme Court just allowed the ATF to change the definition of the word “receiver” without the legislative authority to do so. That’s not exactly what happened, and we have to be careful to not read too deeply into this issue. What DID happen (which is not good) is that they have determined that 80% kits are close enough to being finished and simple enough to complete that they are to be regulated as firearms. Again, that’s KITS, not receivers. The majority opinion here is that the degree of completeness is the issue, and that leaves us the question of… where exactly is that line?
On a positive note, the Supreme Court mildly addressed the possibility of the ATF then shifting the burden of completeness to AR-15 receivers. In this case, the government stated that they do not consider AR-15 receivers as machinegun receivers under any interpretation of the definition, and the Supreme Court touched upon it by saying they do not believe the ATF has the authority to regulate them as machinegun receivers. While not a concrete opposition, it is a statement apparently meant to reinforce to the ATF that such regulation is discouraged.
So where is the line over completeness of a kit? Unfortunately, there is no way to know until particular manufacturers take their product to the courts. Right now, the Supreme Court just decided that the ATF has the right to regulate some parts kits, depending on how close they are to finished and how simple they are to complete. How close is too close is what is up in the air. Suffice it to say, Polymer80’s “buy, build, shoot” kits and the like appear to be done for without an FFL transfer. But now, we wait and see what entrepreneur out there develops something new that’s not close enough to be regulated, but close enough that people still want to use them to manufacture their private arms.
What does all this mean for you? You can no longer buy near-complete KITS without a transfer through an FFL. You can still buy 80% receivers individually without other components included. You can order parts from different manufacturers and websites individually to assemble in your own home. You can assemble any kits you already own without fear as the ruling affects sales, not possession. You can 3D print whatever you want, just bear in mind the ever-present rule about using metals in the firearm so it is “detectable.” As of right now, you just won’t see a one-time package or kit with everything you need included in the box.
Bear in mind, this was a facial challenge to the Administrative Procedures Act in how the ATF handles these matters. This was not a 2nd Amendment challenge, or a Chevron-type challenge. There may be other challenges to this ruling to come from national gun rights organizations. We will keep tabs on this as time passes and new product lines release. Hopefully, somebody will step up to fill the gap and keep the home manufacturing business growing. The 3D-print game just got a popularity boost, and you know that is what the anti-gun leaders will be targeting next.
x