Hello again, everyone. Welcome to watching the Gun Law tv. I am Washington Gun Law President William Kirk. Thanks for joining us. Well, listen, I've had a chance to digest everything that happened at the United States Supreme Court yesterday in the matter of Garland v Vander stock. Went back, listened to the oral arguments, went back and took a look at what a lot of other armchair quarterbacks and prognosticators had to say about what went down yesterday. And I got to be honest with you, the feeling universally was not real good. Now, a lot of you may think, well, this really only affects 80% lowers unfinished frames and receivers of things like that. But a contraire, because I went back this week and I did a lot of geeking out on a lot of the other amicus briefs, and I'm going to bring to your attention something that the gun owners of America brought to our attention. Because if you think a loss on this stock case is bad, you don't really realize just how bad it might be. So today, let's get you all educated one more time, and let's talk about how a loss at the Supreme Court on this one could disarm all of us.
Okay, without getting too geeky about what happened yesterday, I know a lot of other people have already been talking about it. The tone of the questions and the types of questions if you're using that to read the tea leaves, was not particularly positive. In fact, there are two justices that are considered to be conservative justices that appeared to not be on board with the respondent's arguments here. Okay? And that is Chief Justice John Roberts, who I will remind everyone is the author of the Rahimi opinion, which I don't think got the ruling wrong, but sure did use an awful lot of unnecessary and problematic language. And then also Justice Comey Barrett, which I think the jury is still out as to whether or not she is truly a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. We're not going to rehash all of that. What we're going to talk about is a potential doomsday scenario that could be created by a couple of things.
Number one, a loss in Vander stock, okay? And right now, most experts would tell you that's where the smart money is at, is that the Fifth Circuit is actually going to get overturned on this, and we could end up with a split ruling or something like that, but we'll geek out about that some other day. So it takes a loss in Vander stock, and then all it takes is some person in the White House who just wants to let the A TF off their leash. Allah, like what we've just experienced for the last three and a half years. So as you can see, neither one of these are really long shots. Okay? Now, when I was geeking out on the amicus brief done by the Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation and all that, a really well done brief, they had a section which really had drawn my attention at the time, and now coming full circle, I sit there and I realize, Ooh, they could have been talking about a doomsday scenario.
And actually, I think the scenario is even worse than that. Let me explain. Part of what GOA argued in their amicus brief was a ruling in favor of petitioners will sanction widespread criminalization of semi-automatic rifles as readily convertible machine guns. That's right, because if you take a look at what the United States government's argument is, is hey, if it's close and it can be converted just by a little bit of work, well then that constitutes the item that we say is prohibited. GOA, put it this way, petitioner's argument is concerning for another reason beyond its departure from the statutory text by Impermissibly equating the terms completed, assembled, and restored with converted A TF has set the stage for future clarification that AR 15 style rifles, the most widely owned, commonly available and popular semi-automatic rifles in America are actually unregistered machine guns by virtue of the minimal remaining machining operations or other changes necessary for their lower receivers to accommodate an auto seer and enable fully automatic fire.
This court's affirmance of the decision below is therefore necessary to prevent such a virus that may spread, if not promptly eliminated. Okay? So you see where GOA is coming from, right? They're saying, Hey, listen, if these chunks of aluminum only require minimal work to turn 'em into fully functional frames, and therefore you're going to call 'em frames, well, where does it stop then? Because the AR 15 does have a lot of similarities. And yes, with someone who knows what they're doing and proper machining can be in fact, converted. GOA also pointed out such extension of petitioner's arguments beyond the facts of this case requires little imagination. Petitioners insist that the rule correctly clarifies that frames and receivers include partially complete disassembled or non-functional frames and receivers that may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as frames or receivers by, for example, drilling a few holes.
This simplification is a seemingly deliberate yet fundamental understatement of the truth, because here's the hook. If drilling a few holes is all it takes for petitioners to consider item A to actually be item B, then the AR 15 is at risk. Now, how hard a work it is? Listen, I'm not a gunsmith, I'll rely on some of you. But according to Goa's amicus brief, indeed one would only need to drill two holes to convert a semi-automatic AR 15 lower receiver into a machine gun, far fewer machining operations than it takes to create a firearm from a polymer 80 frame precursor. Thus applying petitioner's logic, whether the semi-automatic AR 15 lower receiver is a partially complete receiver that may readily be completed, assembled, or restored into a machine gun would be in the eye of the beholder. Okay? Now, here's what GOA pointed out in their memorandum.
Federal law defines a machine gun as any weapon which can be readily restored to shoot automatically more than one shot without manual reloading by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under control of a person. So yeah, an adverse ruling from the United States Supreme Court would allow a TF to run amuck and take anything that could be readily converted or restored into a prohibited item and essentially call it a prohibited item. But you see, I don't think GOA actually went far enough. I think they could have gone actually a little bit further. Take for example, the federal definition of rifles. Well, a rifle is considered to be under 18 United States Code Section 9 21.
The term rifle means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire only a single projectile through a rifle bore for each single pole of the trigger. But guess what? If you take a look at the definition of sharp barrel rifle also in 18 United States Code Section 9 21, well one could determine that converting a rifle to a short barrel rifle is actually very simple. Now, some people think it may be as simple as just sawing the barrel off to a certain point, and certainly that has been done before. But for those in the AR platform, it's as simple as swapping out the upper receiver, which takes all of about what, 20 seconds, 18 United States Code Section 9 21 to find shotgun as the term shotgun means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of an explosive to fire through a smooth bore, either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pole of the trigger.
But if you go ahead and take a look at the same statute as to what the definition of a short barrel shotgun is, it is the gun that we just described that either has a barrel less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches, which means with a hacksaw, could not any shotgun be readily restorable to a short barrel shotgun? Oh, handguns, you think handguns are actually off limits here? No, because if anything is readily restorable or convertible to a machine gun, that too would be considered a banned firearm, which puts every single Glock handgun currently in circulation right now in risk of being outlawed by the A TF because some illegal company is making illegal products that attach to Glocks and turn 'em into automatic fire weapons. And listen, if you really have just a little bit of imagination and you have any understanding how the A TF if let off the leash will just absolutely run amuck, there is actually the potential with an adverse ruling in this Vander stock case that many, many things that we don't even consider to be firearms at all could then come under the purview of the A TF.
Why is that? Well, again, if you look at the same statute 18, United States Code Section 9 21, how do they define a firearm? The term firearm means any weapon including a starter gun, which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive B, the frame or receiver of any such weapon. C, any firearm, muffler, firearm, silencer, or D, any destructive device such term does not include an antique firearm. And then again, we can get into all of the other devices that may be readily convertible to muffle the noise of a firearm, and then we get into all of that area as well. So for all of you out there who think that, Hey, this just deals with 80% lowers and that's not really my thing, so it's not going to affect me. Or you live in a state that's already outlawed, uns, serialized frames and receivers, and so you think this case is going to have no effect on you, you're wrong.
You're wrong because an adverse ruling in stock coupled with just the wrong person in the White House, coupled with just the wrong message sent to the A TF, could take a ruling in Vander stock and run rough shot over your inalienable Second Amendment rights, and could theoretically allow the A TF to start regulating just about every single thing under the sun. Now, oral arguments, as we know were held just yesterday, we're probably not going to get a ruling on this until late spring or early summer. There's plenty more to keep us busy in the meantime, but as soon as we have some news on this case, obviously we will let you know the case. Once again is Garland v Vander stock. We'll link it up down below so that you can geek out on it for yourself. If you've got any questions about this or anything else related to what's left of our Second Amendment rights, you guys should know how to get ahold of Washington Gun Law by now.
If you don't, that's okay. That information's down there in the description box. Maybe you got an idea for a video we should be doing around here. If you do, go ahead and click on that link right there. Let us know. It's probably going to be better than any idea we come up with. If you just want to be part of our monthly newsletter, the ability to sign up for all of that is right down there in the description box. And then finally, and most importantly, America, let's remember that part of being the lawful and responsible gun owner, like we talk about all the time here, is to know what the law is and every situation, how it applies to you in any instance that you may find yourself. Until next time, thanks for watching and stay safe.
YouTube Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BadwE-r24hA
Credit: William Kirk, Esq. Washington Gun Law