On Tuesday, Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.” The case is known as Garland v. VanDerStok.

In April 2022, the ATF published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects.

In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms – a constitutionally protected tradition.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut serves as an attorney of record for the case and was inside the Supreme Court for the arguments.

“We are optimistic that the Justices will reach the right decision, which is the ATF exceeded its authority in promulgating this final rule, and that Congress occupies the field – it’s their prerogative to define a firearm, frame or receiver,” he said.

Smith & Wesson v. Mexico update

Not only were Supreme Court arguments heard in VanDerStok, SCOUTS also recently agreed to hear arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. Mexico seeks to recover $10 billion in damages from Smith & Wesson for the criminal misuse of its products.

SAF filed an important Amicus Brief in the case making clear the total lack of legal support for Mexico’s allegations. Not only is there a lack of legal support, at risk are the consequences for the peoples’ right to acquire firearms if the industry is permitted to be held accountable for an individual’s criminal behavior.

The case had been dismissed by the district court, which was reversed by the First Circuit, allowing the case to proceed. Should the Supreme Court reverse the First Circuit’s ruling, it would ensure that lawsuits stemming from the criminal acts of third parties would not be a viable pathway to bankrupt the firearms manufacturing industry.

Should you have any questions or need more information, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with SAF Senior Vice President/Vice President of Development Lauren Hill at lhill@saf.org. If you would like more detailed information on any of SAF’s more than 55 active cases, visit saf.org where all current cases are listed under the Legal Action section.