STATEMENT: Supreme Court Hears Arguments Challenging ATF's Overreach on Firearm Parts

Today was a pivotal day for us at 80 Percent Arms and for supporters of the Second Amendment nationwide. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in our lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its authority to regulate unfinished firearm parts and kits.

Questioning the ATF's Expanding Authority

Justice Thomas opened the session by highlighting a critical point we've been making: certain firearm components weren't regulated until recently, even though the government claims that the laws governing them have been in place for decades. This discrepancy underscores our argument that the ATF is overstepping its statutory authority by reinterpreting long-standing laws to encompass items they were never meant to regulate.

What Defines a "Weapon"?

A central point of contention is the definition of a "weapon" under federal law. Justice Samuel Alito pressed the government on this, and their reliance on a broad dictionary definition didn't seem to satisfy the Court. To illustrate the flaw in the government's logic, Justice Alito used some relatable analogies:

• The Grocery List Analogy: He asked if simply owning a pad and a pen makes it a grocery list. The government's stance would imply that possessing the components equates to having the finished product, which doesn't hold up in everyday experience.
• The Omelette Analogy: Justice Alito went further, asking if owning eggs and peppers means you have a western omelette. The government responded that since these items have other uses, they don't necessarily constitute the final dish.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett built on this analogy by asking if ordering a meal kit from a service like HelloFresh changes things. The government conceded that it might, suggesting that a kit designed specifically to produce an end product is more analogous to the firearm kits in question. This exchange supports our position that unfinished parts requiring significant effort to assemble shouldn't be treated the same as completed firearms.

The "Readily Converted" Debate

Justice Gorsuch noted that parts of the law don't include the "readily converted" language the government is leaning on. We've argued that when Congress intended to regulate items that could "readily" become firearms, it explicitly included that language. The government's suggestion that the statute should be read to include this language anyway is a stretch and undermines the principle of separation of powers.

Consistency in the Government's Position

Justice Gorsuch also pointed out that the government had previously argued in court that these objects aren't firearms. This flip-flopping highlights the arbitrary nature of the ATF's current position. We've maintained that the ATF's sudden change in interpretation without new legislation is both unjust and unlawful.

Concerns About Legal Implications for Citizens

Justice Kavanaugh raised important concerns about mens rea—the knowledge of wrongdoing. He asked whether individuals who genuinely believe they're complying with the law could still face charges. The government's admission that they could be prosecuted is alarming. It puts law-abiding citizens at risk of criminal charges for activities they reasonably believe are legal.

Clarifying Industry Practices

Justice Thomas inquired about the "80% rule," an industry term for items that are partially completed and require significant work to become functional firearms. We explained that these items have traditionally not been classified as firearms precisely because they aren't readily convertible without additional machining and expertise. The ATF's attempt to redefine these terms disrupts settled industry practices and legal expectations.

The Slippery Slope of Regulatory Overreach

Justice Sotomayor suggested that since all firearm parts eventually become part of a gun, the ATF should decide where regulation begins. While we respect the concern for public safety, this perspective could lead to an unchecked expansion of regulatory power. If accepted, it could allow the ATF to regulate raw materials like blocks of metal or even common tools, which is beyond the scope of federal law.

Implications for the Future

This case isn't just about unfinished firearm parts; it's about preventing federal agencies from exceeding their legal authority. The ATF's reinterpretation of the law threatens not only our business but also the rights of countless Americans who engage in lawful activities like building personal firearms—a tradition that dates back to the founding of our nation.

Our Commitment to Upholding the Law

We at 80 Percent Arms are committed to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that any regulations are enacted through proper legislative processes, not through administrative overreach. We believe that the law is on our side, and we're hopeful that the Supreme Court will recognize the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legislative intent and agency interpretation.

Conclusion

Today's oral arguments shed light on the critical issues at stake. The Justices raised thoughtful questions about the limits of agency power, the importance of clear legislative language, and the rights of individuals. We remain optimistic that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of preserving the rule of law and protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

We want to thank all our supporters who have stood by us throughout this legal battle. Your commitment to safeguarding our freedoms is what drives us forward. We'll continue to keep you updated as the case progresses.