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

Racer88

Racer88

Big Kahuna Admin
Staff member
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
18,657
Reaction score
21,587
Points
168
Location
USA! USA!
Courtesy of @USApat An important topic / thread that is of interest to all members.

LIVE ONLINE in about 20 minutes
The Frame Rule hearing with the Supreme Court is Tuesday, October 8, 2024 today.
Today there are two cases and it looks like Vandestok (The Frame rule) is probably the first up to bat on the live link below. It kicks off at 10am Eastern.

GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN. V. VANDERSTOK

Live hearing link:
👇

Live Oral Argument Audio

www.supremecourt.gov

Once the hearing is completed, and hopefully by the end of the day, an "archive" link to the transcript and an MP3 file will be available for download in case you miss it live.

The case should appear in the list of cases at the link below. Currently there are two cases that were heard yesterday and the frame rule case will be listed among these at the end of the day. Clicking on the link will take you to the PDF and MP3 files for the hearing.

2024 Case Archives Listing:

Arguments Audios

www.supremecourt.gov

I will update this post with the direct link to the case once the archive has been placed online.

UPDATED with links and files.
1728411081750.png

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audio of hearing:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/media/audio/mp3files/23-852.mp3

PDF of hearing is attached to this post below.

Link to the same official files online:

Oral Argument - Audio File

www.supremecourt.gov
 

Attachments

  • 23-852_o759.pdf
    519.9 KB · Views: 76
Last edited:
Just started at 10:05

Build a gun in as little as 15 minutes! That's in the opening statement by the lawyer for the DOJ.
It sounds like the same bitty that argued another case. She really has a poor voice and sounds like a real Karen.
 
Terrible attorney on our side. He argued for about 20+ minutes and was on the defensive most of the time with judges. The guy knew nothing technical about building frames, or he simply didn't go into it hardly at all. Meanwhile the other side argued for 50+ minutes.

We are building these things by drilling one hole was the rebuttal of the DOJ's attorney :rolleyes:

We will lose this case if the judges rely mostly on the arguments heard and if the written briefs sucked and aren't sufficient to offset the terrible presentation of the attorney. He was fumbling words and talking in circles.
 
Last edited:
USApat said:
The guy knew nothing technical about building frames
Click to expand...

USApat said:
We are building these things by drilling one hole was the rebuttal of the DOJ's attorney :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

To be fair... NONE of that matters. The level of difficulty or technical challenges or lack thereof or the amount time it takes is all UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. That's not what is on trial here.

The crux of the argument is evasion of the legislative process and ignorance / violation of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act). The Executive Branch cannot make law. Only the Legislative Branch can make law. THE FUCKING END. That's what this is about.

I'm no longer going to try to argue about how hard or easy it is to build a gun. It matters no more for that than it matters how easy it is to publish Free Speech to millions of people at the click of a mouse. It doesn't matter how easy or quick it is to exercise Free Speech.
 
Last edited:
Got to the party late and missed most of the Oral Arguments, but wow, noted that really annoying, nasal voice of that the attorney speaking in "rebuttal" right at the end. Anyone have a synopsis of perceptions on how the arguments went?
 
BeerHunter said:
Got to the party late and missed most of the Oral Arguments, but wow, noted that really annoying, nasal voice of that the attorney speaking in "rebuttal" right at the end. Anyone have a synopsis of perceptions on how the arguments went?
Click to expand...
My post #3 summed it up very quickly. I realize you want the nitty gritty, blow-by-blow on what they argued, but I am not in a position time-wise to sum it up.

I will let you know that what Racer wrote here is completely wrong about what was presented in oral arguments: ( So, I don't know what you're "being fair" about. ;) )
Racer88 said:
To be fair... NONE of that matters. The level of difficulty or technical challenges or lack thereof or the amount time it takes is all UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. That's not what is on trial here.
Click to expand...
IN FACT, DURING THIS HEARING, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MAJORITY of the hearing and arguments discussed.

And, virtually nothing about what Racer posted below was discussed:
Racer88 said:
The crux of the argument is evasion of the legislative process and ignorance / violation of the APA (Administrative Procedure Act). The Executive Branch cannot make law. Only the Legislative Branch can make law. THE FUCKING END. That's what this is about.

I'm no longer going to try to argue about how hard or easy it is to build a gun. It matters no more for that than it matters how easy it is to publish Free Speech to millions of people at the click of a mouse. It doesn't matter how easy or quick it is to exercise Free Speech.
Click to expand...
It is quite clear that Racer did not listen to the hearing.

I would suggest you folks listen to the archive when it's released. I reckon a lot of you are gonna be a little miffed and rather pissed because the attorney arguing our side simply sucked. If I were funding him, I would be pretty pissed.

What everyone in the courtroom heard is that đź‘»guns require one or two holes to be drilled and the tabs nipped off with pliers or a razor blade and then it becomes a firearm. The judges literally think that a "gun kit" is ready to go and bought like Cracker Jacks toys and that a kid can complete it with their fathers drill and a set of pliers.

I could hear in some of the judges voices and tenor that they were mocking the idea that building the gun from a plastic jig and plastic frame was a complicated process. I think even a couple of the female justices felt they could do it with bare-bones tools they have in a pantry. They obviously didn't say this, it's just their tenor and tone reflected it. The judges drew analogies to baking recipes and making grocery lists in the discussions going back and forth. There were no hard hitting questions from the conservative judges and not much from Thomas.

The ATF attorney made it sound so basic and simple and that an 80% is so close to a real frame that the differences were negligible from a serialized frame and thus they had the authority to write the rule under the Gun Control Act. Vanderstock's attorney never refuted this with any force in my opinion.

It pretty much looked like he threw in the towel and the thing was over, yet he still had a lot more time to present his case. He appeared grossly unprepared. Could any of you talk about this matter longer than 20 minutes if you had two years to prepare?

He did use my "working on cars analogy" that I posted in this forum about a week ago. I sent that analogy along to some folks that were involved in the case because I knew the judges would be looking at simple issues having dealt with family legal matters over the past couple of years. I don't know if the attorney got that message, but he did use the analogy, but he presented really poorly and from what I recall he was on a defensive footing when he stated it.

As I said, he argued for about 20 minutes while the other side opened with about 45-50 minutes of arguments. It was quite lopsided time-wise and I couldn't believe it ended so abruptly. So much more could have been presented. Justice Roberts closed his arguments pretty quickly and it didn't appear like he was cutting the attorney off. At this point, I couldn't understand how it was coming to a standstill on our side, so obviously there was visual body language in the court that the attorney on our side was not really interested in arguing his case further. You don't have the luxury of video in these archive recordings by the court. It's just audio, so you can't read the body language or expressions of the attorneys or the judges. Just the shrill voice of the DOJ attorney. She is really bad and it sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Listen to the archive before you start commenting about the details of this hearing. Otherwise, you have no "standing" with your statements here about what occurred in the hearing. It's just your opinions about a case and not factual.

However, after listening to it, I DO HOPE that some folks will be able to slap me with some interpretations about the hearing that makes me entirely wrong about what I heard. But, listen intently to the discussions in the court and not the opinions and discussions you've had on forums for years. The two are quite different.

I am hopeful that the written briefs were more thorough. But from what I've experienced, it is often questionable whether a judge has even read briefs and most of the time it is the hearings where they make their analysis and their decisions unless it is an appeal in a lower court which is often heard without arguments.
 
Last edited:
My first OP (Post #1) has the MP3 recording and the PDF now attached.
Listen and give your $00.02.
 
USApat said:
My first OP (Post #1) has the MP3 recording and the PDF now attached.
Listen and give your $00.02.
Click to expand...
I'm only 90 seconds into the audio and I've already counted several outright LIES told the court in opening argument by the DOJ Attorney, but perhaps one of the most significant is that she claimed that PMFs are responsible for the the criminal use of firearms in the U.S.! I'll listen to the rest and I know it's just an opening argument and not "testimony" or evidence, but there are so many softballs to hit and I've already lost my lunch! 🤮
 
Last edited:
USApat said:
My post #3 summed it up very quickly. I realize you want the nitty gritty, blow-by-blow on what they argued, but I am not in a position time-wise to sum it up.

I will let you know that what Racer wrote here is completely wrong about what was presented in oral arguments: ( So, I don't know what you're "being fair" about. ;) )

IN FACT, DURING THIS HEARING, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MAJORITY of the hearing and arguments discussed.

And, virtually nothing about what Racer posted below was discussed:

It is quite clear that Racer did not listen to the hearing.

I would suggest you folks listen to the archive when it's released. I reckon a lot of you are gonna be a little miffed and rather pissed because the attorney arguing our side simply sucked. If I were funding him, I would be pretty pissed.

What everyone in the courtroom heard is that đź‘»guns require one or two holes to be drilled and the tabs nipped off with pliers or a razor blade and then it becomes a firearm. The judges literally think that a "gun kit" is ready to go and bought like Cracker Jacks toys and that a kid can complete it with their fathers drill and a set of pliers.

I could hear in some of the judges voices and tenor that they were mocking the idea that building the gun from a plastic jig and plastic frame was a complicated process. I think even a couple of the female justices felt they could do it with bare-bones tools they have in a pantry. They obviously didn't say this, it's just their tenor and tone reflected it. The judges drew analogies to baking recipes and making grocery lists in the discussions going back and forth. There were no hard hitting questions from the conservative judges and not much from Thomas.

The ATF attorney made it sound so basic and simple and that an 80% is so close to a real frame that the differences were negligible from a serialized frame and thus they had the authority to write the rule under the Gun Control Act. Vanderstock's attorney never refuted this with any force in my opinion.

It pretty much looked like he threw in the towel and the thing was over, yet he still had a lot more time to present his case. He appeared grossly unprepared. Could any of you talk about this matter longer than 20 minutes if you had two years to prepare?

He did use my "working on cars analogy" that I posted in this forum about a week ago. I sent that analogy along to some folks that were involved in the case because I knew the judges would be looking at simple issues having dealt with family legal matters over the past couple of years. I don't know if the attorney got that message, but he did use the analogy, but he presented really poorly and from what I recall he was on a defensive footing when he stated it.

As I said, he argued for about 20 minutes while the other side opened with about 45-50 minutes of arguments. It was quite lopsided time-wise and I couldn't believe it ended so abruptly. So much more could have been presented. Justice Roberts closed his arguments pretty quickly and it didn't appear like he was cutting the attorney off. At this point, I couldn't understand how it was coming to a standstill on our side, so obviously there was visual body language in the court that the attorney on our side was not really interested in arguing his case further. You don't have the luxury of video in these archive recordings by the court. It's just audio, so you can't read the body language or expressions of the attorneys or the judges. Just the shrill voice of the DOJ attorney. She is really bad and it sounded like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Listen to the archive before you start commenting about the details of this hearing. Otherwise, you have no "standing" with your statements here about what occurred in the hearing. It's just your opinions about a case and not factual.

However, after listening to it, I DO HOPE that some folks will be able to slap me with some interpretations about the hearing that makes me entirely wrong about what I heard. But, listen intently to the discussions in the court and not the opinions and discussions you've had on forums for years. The two are quite different.

I am hopeful that the written briefs were more thorough. But from what I've experienced, it is often questionable whether a judge has even read briefs and most of the time it is the hearings where they make their analysis and their decisions unless it is an appeal in a lower court which is often heard without arguments.
Click to expand...

I didn't imagine it... :geek:​


Americans also have a system of government in which the president (Executive Branch) is elected to enforce the laws made by Congress, not to make new laws by dictating to compliant bureaucrats. The ATF’s actions are done purely by executive decree through federal agency rulemaking and “adjusting” its interpretation of congressionally passed law.

mslegal.org

VanDerStok v. Garland - Mountain States Legal Foundation

VanDerStok v. Garland
mslegal.org mslegal.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1728419035707.png

Congress delegated authority to ATF through the Attorney
General to “prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 926(a).
Such a grant of authority from the legislature to an executive agency is generally policed by
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which allows courts to set aside
agency action found to be, among other things, “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.
”
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). Thus, a core inquiry in a case such as this one is whether the
proposed agency rule is a lawful extension of the statute under which the
agency purports to act, or whether the agency has indeed exceeded its
“statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”
 
Last edited:
I am fairly certain that SCOTUS decisions are seldom, IF EVER solely based on oral arguments and most likely based on their reading of the Constitution, Federal Law, and perhaps informed by the arguments presented in written briefs for both sides and a little more from oral arguments. IMHO, "The Fat Lady" has not yet sung, far from it! 🙏
 
BeerHunter said:
I am fairly certain that SCOTUS decisions are seldom, IF EVER solely based on oral arguments and most likely based on their reading of the Constitution, Federal Law, and perhaps informed by the arguments presented in written briefs for both sides and a little more from oral arguments. IMHO, "The Fat Lady" has not yet sung, far from it! 🙏
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with you at SCOTUS level. They may twist things like a pretzel in their opinions like the health care fiasco, but the nature of appeals and also the SC issues are heavily weighted with legal briefs and support documents from "friends of the court" and amicus briefs.

But it is hard to disagree that the lawyer on our side kinda sucked. At least that's my opinion.
And it is hard to tell in just an audio recording if it was mostly the liberal justices yacking the loudest with a squeaky wheel. But the male judges were pretty timid in general. And Amy Barrett, I have no confidence in her.

On the written forefront, there are 20+ attorney generals that wrote in on an Amicus Brief which was pretty decent out of the documents I did read. They brought up a lot of the things about other cases where the ATF has overreached during the past few years and were overturned by the courts. I just wished the attorney had brought this up in today's hearing because it shows how the ATF continues to write laws outside their authority. There are so many things the attorney could have said and he nipped it off early. Very frustrating. You only get a few swings at the plate when you're in the batter's box.
 
I know many here don't like to listen to Professor Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner and I almost always listen to his videos at either 1.25 or 1.5 x normal speed. However, his 14 min video on today's Oral Arguments IS informative; he believes it will likely be a 5-4 decision, perhaps with Chief Justice Roberts siding with Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, while Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas on the other and the case decided by how Barret and Kavanaugh decide.

Mark W. Smith was encouraged by 1) Justice Alito's questions using the metaphor of making an Omelet, 2) Justice Barrett picking up that with a lot more questions, and 3) Justice Kavanaugh's laser focus on the huge "Mens Rea" effects of the Aye-Tee-Eff's expansion of the "Frame or Receiver" definition of a firearm in the Gun Control Act of 1968 that would "implicate the definition of a firearm throughout ALL Federal Statutory Law!"

In particular, Professor Smith was very encouraged by Justice Barrett's detailed questions regarding the implications of overturning of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision by Judge Andrew S. Oldham deciding in favor of Vanderstock and against the Aye-Tee-Eff and Justice Kavanaugh's numerous questions regarding the Aye-Tee-Eff's new definition of what constitutes a firearm, which they (I forget if he was talking about Justice Barrett's or Justice Kavanaugh's concerns here) seemed very concerned that if SCOTUS overruled the 5th Circuit decision for Vanderstock, how that would implicate the argument that "an AR-15 would become a semi-auto firearm that's [too] easily converted into machine gun."

In summary, Professor Smith feels this will be a tight decision, that Justice Barrett and Kavanaugh were both asking great questions trying better understand the text and meaning of terms in the GCA, suggesting they may both may have big problems with the Aye-Tee-Eff expansion of those definitions!

So I'm hoping Professor Smith is correct here that a SCOTUS decision will be close, but should affirm the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision from Judge Andrew S. Oldham and we would ultimately prevail on this case! However, I thought the SCOTUS decision on Obama Care was a "slam dunk" and I've never understood Chief Justice Roberts' Decision in that case that even went against the government's argument that Obama Care was NOT a tax, and then decided that it WAS just a tax (e.g., the "Fix was in")!
 
I will go listen to Smith. I don't dislike him but I like Grieve better. Smith you definitely need to hit 1.25X or 1.5X speed on playback. It's funny you mention Smith released his video. I drafted the paragraphs below right after my last post but decided not to post it up so I didn't dominate this thread. My draft below:

===================

I will be interested in hearing from decent online attorneys about this like Tom Grieve. Not the click bait Vloggers, but the one's that have a brain and can interpret the tea leaves.

But, I'm surprised that the Vloggers didn't cover this live. All of the main ones choked. They cover Federal and appellate courts, but they missed the boat on doing this one live. It kinda shows how 80% building is kinda the fringe part of the industry.

I find this case more important for gun laws over the pistol brace ban or the bump stock ban. Both of those other two cases the Vloggers were all over it. Other than the pistol brace ban affecting so many more people, I don't think it has/had near the impact that this case does because this matter deals with the core issues of what a firearm is and whether the AFT can modify things on the fly about what it considers a firearm.
 
I can make a mean PBJ in 30 seconds. And I have a right to cook and eat.

Yes, yes badassery abounds in us Americans. And I don't trust Justice Roberts farther than I can throw him...
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:

I didn't imagine it... :geek:​


Americans also have a system of government in which the president (Executive Branch) is elected to enforce the laws made by Congress, not to make new laws by dictating to compliant bureaucrats. The ATF’s actions are done purely by executive decree through federal agency rulemaking and “adjusting” its interpretation of congressionally passed law.

mslegal.org

VanDerStok v. Garland - Mountain States Legal Foundation

VanDerStok v. Garland
mslegal.org mslegal.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
View attachment 24625

Congress delegated authority to ATF through the Attorney
General to “prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to
carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 18 U.S.C. § 926(a).
Such a grant of authority from the legislature to an executive agency is generally policed by
the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which allows courts to set aside
agency action found to be, among other things, “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.
”
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). Thus, a core inquiry in a case such as this one is whether the
proposed agency rule is a lawful extension of the statute under which the
agency purports to act, or whether the agency has indeed exceeded its
“statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations.”
Click to expand...
BOOM!!!! End of story. PERIOD.
 
@BeerHunter I watched the Smith video.
In all the bloviation from everyone over the past two years, a guy in the comment section under Smith's video had the best argument I've heard in two years! It's perfectttttttt!

The Vanderstock lawyer should have used his two sentences as his final thought and statement to the justices. LOL. :D

==============================

@slee2819 ​

2 hours ago
America: where we now cannot define what a woman or a firearm is.
The founding fathers would be pissed.
 
USApat said:
@BeerHunter I watched the Smith video.
In all the bloviation from everyone over the past two years, a guy in the comment section under Smith's video had the best argument I've heard in two years! It's perfectttttttt!

The Vanderstock lawyer should have used his two sentences as his final thought and statement to the justices. LOL. :D

==============================

@slee2819 ​

2 hours ago
America: where we now cannot define what a woman or a firearm is.
The founding fathers would be pissed.
Click to expand...
I believe I saw that comment and it's definitely a good one, but does little to show how SCOTUS might decide this case.

I too prefer Tom Grieve's legal analysis on 2A issues. As annoying as Mark W. Smith's quirks are to me, he has argued cases to SCOTUS himself and follows SCOTUS cases quite closely, has previously read all the Amicus Briefs, and astutely listens to all Oral Arguments, listening to today's, and pays really close attention to the specific questions each Justice asks as they spar with those arguing for each side. So he is very perceptive on how that back and forth discussion might frame the decision SCOTUS eventually hands down, likely next Spring!
 
Last edited:
So, are oral arguments just one day, and that's it?
 
One Ping Only said:
BOOM!!!! End of story. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
That is the hope and I agree with Racer that it's going to be really hard NOT to hand down a favorable decision FOR Vanderstock and against the Ate-Tee-Eff! :unsure:
 

Share this page

Back
Top