The Supreme Court’s blockbuster gun case is a shot at redemption
Last week, the Supreme Court heard Garland v. VanDerStok, a blockbuster case concerning “ghost guns”. These are “gun parts kits” that can be converted into functional guns by novices with a few hours and the right YouTube tutorial.
Currently, the Biden administration treats these kits as firearms, subject to background checks and age requirements. The court’s decision will determine whether that treatment continues, or whether minors and those who would fail a background check can evade basic firearm regulations by purchasing a ghost gun.
In past cases, the conservative court has often sided with the gun industry. Earlier this year, for instance, the court announced its decision in Garland v. Cargill, which tested regulations of bump stocks. That case divided the court 6-3 along ideological lines lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion holding that a bump stock (a device used in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting) is not a machine gun.
However, in last Tuesday’s ghost gun oral argument, several justices gave the impression that they are inclined to follow the law’s clear text, even where that text leads to gun regulation.
VanDerStok tees up a question of linguistics: Do these gun-making kits fall within the meaning of the word “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968? The justices will interpret the law under the framework of “textualism” — the philosophy that legal disputes should be resolved by considering what ordinary speakers of English would understand the text of the law to mean.
The gun industry representatives challenging the regulation argue that the word “firearm” excludes gun parts kits. As scholars of linguistics, we find this unpersuasive.
The word “firearm” denotes a class of human-created objects; it is what linguists call an artifact noun. As Justice Neil Gorsuch’s oral argument questions clarified, artifact nouns often refer to things that function only upon additional assembly or finishing with additional tools.
Justice Samuel Alito asked, skeptically, whether separate eggs, chopped ham and pepper constitute an “omelet.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett proposed a tighter analogy to the gun part kits at issue: “Would your answer change if you ordered it from HelloFresh?”
We would understand that kit to be an omelet — just as a gun parts kit, designed and readily convertible to become a functioning firearm, is a firearm. The justices discussed other examples, such as an IKEA table (which we understand to be a table, even when unassembled).
Even ghost gun sellers and buyers recognize this linguistic fact. In our amicus brief to the court, we highlight advertisements that repeatedly refer to parts kits as firearms.
“Introducing the AR-40 4.5" MOD1 Billet Upper Receiver Pistol Build Kit," reads one example, "a powerful and compact firearm designed to deliver outstanding performance in the dynamic world of pistol builds."
We have documented scores of instances on the internet where the word “firearm,” “gun” or “rifle” plausibly refers to a ghost gun kit. To complement this textual evidence found on the internet, we conducted a survey of ordinary American speakers of English, half of them Republicans, and the other half Democrats. Respondents read a description of a gun parts kit and were asked whether it is a firearm.
The majority agreed: The gun parts kit is a firearm. Insofar as the textualist court seeks the “ordinary meaning” of “firearm,” the answer is simple: Gun parts kits fit.
That ghost guns are “firearms” is further underscored by the law’s context, an essential ingredient of interpretation that is emphasized in Justice Barrett’s context-sensitive jurisprudence.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 defines “firearm” as including any weapon “which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” When Americans in our survey were presented with the language of the statutory definition, an even stronger majority said that it applies to gun parts kits.
The court will resolve a second question in VanDerStok, about the meaning of “frame” and “receiver” (which are not explicitly defined in the law). Frames and receivers are the lower parts of a gun that hold the firing central mechanism. So-called “80 percent” frames and receivers require some additional at-home finishing before they are functional.
Even so, we find that gun parts manufacturers advertise these as simply a “frame,” not “a piece of metal.”
Gorsuch’s questions underscored the role of statutory context in the meaning of “frame” and “receiver.” The statute repeatedly emphasizes that nearly functional and readily convertible parts (firearms themselves, mufflers, silencers, destructive devices) count. In such a context, the best reading of “frame” and “receiver” includes objects that are readily convertible to a functional form.
Other justices recognized the strength of the government’s position.
Kavanaugh agreed that the government’s “statutory interpretation [argument] has force.”
Justice John Roberts asked about “the point” of selling these gun parts kits: Are they for hobbyists, or simply for those who seek to evade basic firearm regulations? He noted that one might enjoy building a car as a hobbyist, but it seems strange to think that people are buying these kits and drilling a few holes — in as little as 21 minutes — as a “hobby.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar underscored the merit of this concern in her closing argument: Ghost guns are used frequently in crimes and are purchased to easily evade basic firearms regulations.
Before the oral arguments, many expected the court’s decision in VanDerStok to turn on the justices’ political ideology rather than honest linguistic analysis. But there are hints that the textualist justices may follow the text, thereby restricting access to firearms by potential terrorists, minors, felons, domestic abusers, and those who would otherwise fail a background check.
In a time of historically low public approval of the Supreme Court, VanDerStok offers the justices an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to the textualist principles they espouse.
Kevin Tobia is a professor of Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University. Nathan Schneider is an associate professor of linguistics and computer science at Georgetown University. Brandon Waldon is a Georgetown University postdoctoral associate in computer science and linguistics.
Date: |
Topics
-
World - The New York Times
Supreme Court Ruling Means Italy’s ‘Bunga Bunga’ Saga Is Not Over
The ruling sets the stage for yet another trial related to the scandal involving Silvio Berlusconi, the former prime minister of Italy who died last year.Yesterday -
Politics - CBS News
Supreme Court tosses decision that shielded officers who arrested citizen journalist
A Texas citizen journalist was arrested after she published two news stories to her Facebook page that included information she sought from a police source.2 hours ago -
Politics - The Hill
Trump makes latest bid at moving hush money case to federal court
Former President Trump’s attorneys on Monday made their latest bid at moving his hush money criminal case to federal court, telling an appeals panel that a lower judge’s refusal to do so was ...14 hours ago - Donald Trump -
Top stories - ABC News
Trump again asks appeals court to move New York hush money case to federal court
Former President Trump has again asked an appeals court to move his New York hush money case into federal court in a bid to stall his sentencing or toss his conviction.2 hours ago - New York -
Politics - The Hill
Supreme Court turns away self-proclaimed Republican’s defense in claiming party’s support
The Supreme Court turned away a failed Minnesota state Senate candidate’s challenge to rulings that he falsely implied to have the Republican Party’s support during his 2022 write-in campaign. The ...2 hours ago -
Politics - The Hill
Supreme Court turns down Michael Avenatti’s appeal of Stormy Daniels identity theft conviction
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti’s appeal of his aggravated identity theft conviction for stealing book proceeds from porn actor Stormy Daniels. A ...1 hour ago -
World - Yahoo News
'I'm oblivious to being shot at by Russians'
6 hours ago - Russia -
Top stories - BBC News
Murder investigation launched after man found shot
A man, believed to be in his 30s, was pronounced dead at the scene, said police.2 days ago -
Sports - The New York Times
A Tennis Trick-Shot Maestro Reveals His Secrets
Pablo Cuevas, who retired recently, could pull off the spectacular like few others.20 hours ago
More from The Hill
-
Politics - The Hill
Geraldo Rivera unsure how Latino voters with 'any self-respect' could back Trump
Television personality Geraldo Rivera questioned how any Latino voter with "self-respect" or "self-esteem" could vote for former President Trump in November, citing what Rivera labeled as ...35 minutes ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
Five things to know about Harris and Trump on taxes
Tax policy is set to take center stage after the election, as major portions of the tax code are due to expire by the end of 2025. Key portions of Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — his marquee 2017 ...41 minutes ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
As an anti-war voter, I refuse to support either Trump or Harris
We need a president who knows how to keep the peace.46 minutes ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
CNBC host says Trump canceled interview
Former President Trump was set to appear on CNBC this week but ultimately canceled on the network, a leading anchor on the network said Tuesday. "Well, Trump canceled," CNBC's Joe Kernen said on ...54 minutes ago - Donald Trump -
Politics - The Hill
One-quarter of applicants ruled out colleges because of states' political climate: Poll
Just over a quarter — 28 percent — of students ruled out a school because of the politics, policies or legal situation in the college or university's state, according to a new poll from the Art and ...56 minutes ago