BREAKING! Chuck Michel on Garland v. Vanderstok Oral Arguments
This morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Garland v. Vanderstok, a case from the Fifth Circuit challenging a regulation promulgated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms relating to so-called “ghost guns”. The plaintiffs in this case challenged the ATF’s authority to make such a broad definitional change.
The case not only represents the most high profile 2A case the Court has heard since Bruen, it also touches on the Chevron doctrine, which the Court struck down earlier this summer. To help break down the various issues at play and what they might mean to the overall battle over the Bruen standard, CRPA President Chuck Michel joined CRPA TV host Kevin Small for an interview.
WATCH CRPA TV NOW!
In 2022, ATF redefined “firearm” within its regulatory framework to include a much wider range of products that can be converted into a firearm or even just a function “frame” or “receiver”. ATF concocted this definition on its own, without any involvement from Congress, which is where the Chevron doctrine comes into play. Before the Court struck it down, lower courts could rely on the decisions of regulatory agencies as the sole basis for deciding legal challenges. In short, if the ATF said something was illegal, then its word was good enough.
Vanderstok is one of a handful of cases related to firearm regulation that the Court has considered taking up, and others could still be heard as the session continues. Cases heard by the Supreme Court this fall will have their decisions announced next spring.
The Court’s decision in Vanderstok, and other cases should the Court take them up, will weigh heavily on how the Bruen standard must be implemented across the country going forward, so the stakes could NOT BE HIGHER!