"Official" Thread SCOTUS Upholds Biden's Frame and Receivers Rule in VANDERSTOK case

I've seen some short videos / transcripts from the hearing. So apparently the build time for an 80% pistol is down to 15 minutes! LOL! Some lady said she built one in 15 minutes. Yeah... RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Did you fire it?
What a bunch of absolute bullshit.

Let ME testify! 😤
 
Racer88 said:
I've seen some short videos / transcripts from the hearing. So apparently the build time for an 80% pistol is down to 15 minutes! LOL! Some lady said she built one in 15 minutes. Yeah... RIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Did you fire it?
What a bunch of absolute bullshit.

Let ME testify! 😤
Click to expand...
I saw a video a couple of years ago, and I think I downloaded it, where a young gal competed one of the Glock Store’s “SS80’s”.
It was done in around 20 minutes, if my memory serves me, and was drilled with a hand drill. From my experience with the SS80, and I think Hawkeye may concur, I would be afraid of firing it. You can’t rush these things.
 
seniormoment said:
It was done in around 20 minutes, if my memory serves me, and was drilled with a hand drill. From my experience with the SS80, and I think Hawkeye may concur, I would be afraid of firing it. You can’t rush these things.
Click to expand...

But was it really "done?" I think we all know the answer to that.

To me, "done," means tested thoroughly for function and safety (with dummy rounds) before live fire testing at the range. Done means it can fire 100 (at least) rounds without a single malfunction. I wouldn't consider a build worthy of self-defense duty until it had at least 1000 rounds fired without malfunctions.

Ending up with a final "product" that simply LOOKS like a gun isn't "done."
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
But was it really "done?" I think we all know the answer to that.

To me, "done," means tested thoroughly for function and safety (with dummy rounds) before live fire testing at the range. Done means it can fire 100 (at least) rounds without a single malfunction. I wouldn't consider a build worthy of self-defense duty until it had at least 1000 rounds fired without malfunctions.

Ending up with a final "product" that simply LOOKS like a gun isn't "done."
Click to expand...
I agree, but most do not understand that, or care to. It’s getting to be if it looks like a gun then it is a gun. I witnessed a 3rd grader get reprimanded by the principal for drawing a picture of a gun. Guns are so evil
 
If I may, I'd like to draw your attention to two videos regarding the Garland v. VanDerStok case that will be decided by SCOTUS, most likely early next year, both from Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner [for those that have trouble listening to him, unlike manyh of his other video postings, IMHO both of these videos are mostly playing audio from Oral Argument and NOT a lot of quirky, repetitive analysis of minutia about the case, but one can also adjust the playback speed to 1.25x or 1.5x speed to get through it faster]:
1) First up is an important video reviewing excerpts of the main points presented in Oral Arguments before the SCOTUS last Monday (7 OCT 2024) by Solicitor General Prelogar for the Respondent, AG Merrick Garland, et. al. and Attorney Pete Patterson, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Jennifer VanDerStok, et. al. before the United States Supreme Court in Garland v. VanDerStok and this is the key recording of the arguments by the lawyers. . . AND analysis by Mark W. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner (I've also included the timestamps if you only want to watch specific parts):


View: https://youtu.be/aW_eZG0aNPI

-----------------TIMESTAMPS-----------------
0:00 Supreme Court ATF Fight Over "👻guns"
1:30 This Isn't A True "2A Case"
3:00 SG Prelogar's Arguing For ATF
6:00 Patterson's Argument Against ATF
9:07 SG Prelogar Rebuttal to Patterson
14:40 Timeline Going Forward

2) In this second video that admittedly might be slightly repetitive of the first, but emphasises how a loss in Garland v. VanDerStok could be catastrophic for Semi-Auto AR-15, AR-10, AK47, etc. owners by illustrating precisely how IF the government wins the Garland v. VanDerStok case supporting the ATF's REdefinition of what is a "frame or receiver," then under a Harris or future Democrat (Socialist) Administration, the government/ATF eventually WILL argue that the receivers for the semi-auto rifles like those listed above are "readily convertible" into a Machine Gun and make every owner of those semi-auto rifles, not just 80% receiver owners INTO A FELON! I really don't think that would happen, but I also never would have expected the political situation to get to the point it already has, etither! Anyway, I've indexed the video to where he gets to the point by eliminating the first 3:30 m:s of the preliminary BS most would rather not listen to and once again, I've included the timestamps for those who want FF to watch specific parts:


View: https://youtu.be/ip9stuqUgvU?t=210

-----------------TIMESTAMPS-----------------

0:00 News From Major SCOTUS Argument
1:30 Changing Focus of Definition
3:07 This is a Huge Deal!
5:00 Justice Barrett and SG Prelogar Exchange
7:53 Justice Alito and Patterson Exchange
10:45 VanDerStok Lawyer Goes For The Knockout
14:00 What The Anti-Gunners Actually Want
 
The waaaaiiiting is the hardest part!

If I recall, a decision is expected in either June or July... I forget.

Anyone got anything? Maybe we can get back to talking more about builds! I've got plenty of frames to keep me busy for a while. But I've been on a building hiatus - for no particular reason. Just been lazy, I guess. Other things on my mind.

But I'd love to see the forum "get busy" with more building projects.

If the SCOTUS decision is favorable, I wonder if someone will pick up where Polymer80 left off.
 
Don’t think the case will continue and shocked that the DOJ didn’t pull it. A negative opinion would be devastating so no opinion would mean status quo from where we were before Garland.
At this point and even though the presentation to the SCOTUS was terrible from the defendants, they should rule for the legality of 80% frames as there is a long history of PMF’s. Barret is a big concern though and it is not a slam dunk with her on the court.
 
The USSC has ruled on Garland v. VanDerStok in favor of the ATF.

BONDI v. VANDERSTOK

Article from the AP
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-👻guns-bf404db1d4ece56203c8748b2544dc02

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Biden administration regulation on the nearly impossible-to-trace weapons called 👻guns, clearing the way for serial numbers, background checks and age verification requirements to buy them in kits online.
Click to expand...
 
That sucks... 😠 I got to section 2b which was enough for now. :rolleyes: Gorsuck talking about starter pistols and repeating the hoax that one can assemble a P80 in 20min... :rolleyes:

Gorsuck's head is clearly up his ass, out his mouth and up Robert's ass. Robert's hands and feet are up the women justice's asses...

DEFUND THE ATF!!!

PS: apparently the Vanderstok side did not have a sufficient enough argument. By assuming an unserialized gun would or could be used in a crime, Gorsuck is calling us ALL criminals... :rolleyes:🖕
 
Last edited:
Bobster said:
That sucks... 😠 I got to section 2b which was enough for now. :rolleyes: Gorsuck talking about starter pistols and repeating the hoax that one can assemble a P80 in 20min... :rolleyes:

Gorsuck's head is clearly up his ass, out his mouth and up Robert's ass. Robert's hands and feet are up the women justice's asses...

DEFUND THE ATF!!!

PS: apparently the Vanderstok side did not have a sufficient enough argument. By assuming an unserialized gun would or could be used in a crime, Gorsuck is calling us ALL criminals... :rolleyes:🖕
Click to expand...
Yeah I don't trust the government one bit and won't ever again after this one.
 
Ultimately, what does this ruling mean?
What do you predict will happen?
 
Last edited:

ATF Rule On ""👻guns" Upheld​


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGSxx4qY9DA
The rule dictated that 80% receivers and kits are now reclassified as “firearms,” placing them under the Gun Control Act.
This classification required serialization of 80% frames and lowers by 80% manufacturers and also forces consumers to undergo background checks prior to purchasing these parts and kits from an FFL.
The Final Rule also stated that dealers or gunsmiths taking unserialized guns into inventory must serialize them before reselling them.
 
Back
Top