National White House article on so-called "Ghost Guns"

[Nick Burkhardt]

Proggie politicians attitude toward the Constitution….

 

[ma96782]

NOT something I'd make.

Photos: Iowa cops seize homemade 'Smith and Meth-son' pistol

Photos: Iowa cops seize homemade 'Smith and Meth-son' pistol The weapon’s owner is a convicted felon who isn’t allowed to possess firearms, police said Apr 20, 2022 By Suzie Ziegler MESKWAKI NATION, Iowa — Tribal police in Iowa took to Facebook on Monday to share photos of a homemade...

theinfidel.co

Aloha, Mark

 

[Rkangel]

 

[Aero Denezol]

Phuck You Joe Biden for determining for me with out my consent, what you think is best for me and mine, instructing me how you think things should be, and to be thankful for such wisdom as you know so much more the I how to live my life!

^^That's pretty much sums up what they do. CANNOT just leave people alone..

 

[arakboss]

Winning!

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/26/supreme-court-ghost-guns

 

[PiratePast40]

Winning!

https://www.axios.com/2025//26/supreme-court-ghost-guns

Really don't see this as a win for us. However, the ruling does say that "some kits" should be considered firearms. People get confused about the difference between a kit that only requires 20 minutes to convert to an operable firearm with an 80% completed piece of aluminum that requires milling and additional components.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1904899040724087060

View: https://x.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1904899040724087060?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_c07d.pdf


—————— 6 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR's suggestion that I have mischaracterized what
the Court has held, ante, at 2 (concurring opinion), demands a response.
Although JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR obviously wishes that the Court had gone
further, all that the Court has actually held is that the ATF rule is not
facially invalid because at least some applications of the rule are consistent with the statute. And the two examples that the Court cites are
(1) a kit that contains all the parts needed to make a semiautomatic pistol and that can be assembled in 21 minutes, see ante, at 8–13, and (2) a
frame that can be made functional simply by clipping off two plastic tabs
and drilling a few holes, ante, at 17–18, 21. The Court has not held that
any other kits or presently non-functional receivers are covered.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This is (one of) the part that grinds my gears


"Recent years, however, have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold," Gorsuch wrote.

In 1968, the milling equipment and materials needed to make a gun at home were far too expensive for most individuals.

"With the introduction of new technologies like 3D printing and reinforced polymers, that is no longer true," Gorsuch said. "Today, companies are able to make and sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms in their own homes."


If he had adhered to the rules of Strunk and White's classic, 'The Elements of Style,' he could have just said:
"It's too easy for the poors to get guns and we need to change that"

 

[Rkangel]

To those with knowledge and skills "difficult" things are simple. I don't recall there being a complexity or technology test or requirement to exercise a constitutional right. A right is a right regardless of whether I have to chew something out of wood with my teeth, or can print it out in minutes on a 3d printer.

One could easily remind the court that firearms didn't always require a serial number... And that serial numbers could be considered one of the first infringements on the second amendment. The problem isn't "ghost guns". The problem is infringements.

 

[wired]

To those with knowledge and skills "difficult" things are simple. I don't recall there being a complexity or technology test or requirement to exercise a constitutional right. A right is a right regardless of whether I have to chew some out of wood with my teeth, or can print it out in minutes on a 3d printer.

Not if SCOTUS says otherwise. They define constitutionality not you.

 

[Ura-Ki]

What happened to "Text as Informed by History and Tradition" that Bruen/Heller spout off about so forcefully, How did they forget to use that test in this ruling!!!

Historically, Americans have always made our own firearms, kits or not, we have a very rich tradition of crafting fine firearms on our own with no government oversight whatsoever!

 

[Rkangel]

Not if SCOTUS says otherwise. They define constitutionality not you.

When the checks and balances are ignored.

 

[User 1234]

What happened to "Text as Informed by History and Tradition" that Bruen/Heller spout off about so forcefully, How did they forget to use that test in this ruling!!!

Historically, Americans have always made our own firearms, kits or not, we have a very rich tradition of crafting fine firearms on our own with no government oversight whatsoever!

That is part of the Constitutional analysis. This new case did not involve any Constitutional claims. It was narrowly focused on the rulemaking's permissibility under the Gun Control Act.

Still not right, but this was not a Constitutional analysis.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It was narrowly focused on the rulemaking's permissibility under the Gun Control Act.

I have seen others point out the same thing, and I would love to be more optimistic about it all, but Gorsuch didn't say "Yes, the wording of the GCA '68 allows for this" He said "It's too easy these days for the poors to get guns, we need to keep an eye on them" A not so subtle difference

 

[Ura-Ki]

That is part of the Constitutional analysis. This new case did not involve any Constitutional claims. It was narrowly focused on the rulemaking's permissibility under the Gun Control Act.

Still not right, but this was not a Constitutional analysis.

Then, what about "Chevron Deference" which was struck down last session, which basically said, no gov agency can step outside it's lane, or Bypass Congress and make up it's own Rules or Policies, and then they let the AFT go ahead and make Rules and Policies all the same!

 

[ATCclears]

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme-court-upholds-regulation-of-ghost-guns-9a463545?st=dSTZBP&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

 

[wired]

Did you guys REALLY think Chevron and Bruen were really going to amount to anything? Really?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Did you guys REALLY think Chevron and Bruen were really going to amount to anything? Really?

It's almost like we're 45 minutes into the game and they still haven't figured out who the patsy is.

 

[Bobbygun]

Did you guys REALLY think Chevron and Bruen were really going to amount to anything? Really?

I'm beginning to believe nothing is going to help us in Oregon. I'm hoping there is some hyperbole built in, but I received the following information in an email I got from NRA/ILA just a few minutes ago regarding some late changes to SB 243:

SB 243 previously a placeholder bill directed at studying background checks, has been significantly amended to include elements of four anti-gun bills. This includes: SB 429, imposing a 72-hour waiting period for the purchase of firearms and firearm parts; SB 696, creating the crime of unlawful transport, manufacture, or transfer of a "rapid-fire activator"; SB 697, prohibiting anyone under 21 years of age from possessing firearms, effectively ending youth shooting sports and youth hunting in Oregon; and SB 698, expanding gun-free zones by allowing public entities to adopt policies that prohibit firearms, even for concealed handgun license holders.

They all suck, but the verbiage regarding SB 697 is particularly concerning. I had some seen something along those lines, but not nearly that far reaching.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Only the two dissenting Justices seem to get it. Alito and Thomas, long held to be Originalists/Textualists. The others are not as firm on the principles.


So once again, lawyers in black robes aren't much help to 2A, possibly for as long as there exists the notion of trusting Federal Courts opinions and judgements meted out by human beings.

 

[User 1234]

Then, what about "Chevron Deference" which was struck down last session, which basically said, no gov agency can step outside it's lane, or Bypass Congress and make up it's own Rules or Policies, and then they let the AFT go ahead and make Rules and Policies all the same!

We're looking at it. The majority is displaying their view of the post-Chevron era where they apply their own, not the agency's, view of what Congress' language means. This is the Loper Bright era on display.

I want to make clear, I am not cheerleading for this ruling, just sharing a perspective.