In a recent Washington gun law TV episode, President William Kirk brought to light a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding firearms regulation. The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the case of Garland v. Vanderstock, previously known as Vanderstock v. Garland. This case originated in the fifth circuit and challenges the ATF’s rule on unfinished frames and receivers, commonly referred to as 80% lowers.

While the focus may seem to be on 80% lowers, Kirk emphasizes that the case’s importance extends beyond this specific issue. It delves into a broader concern regarding the ATF’s regulatory authority, which often operates without clear legislative backing. Kirk points out that this case mirrors others, like the Cargill case, where the Supreme Court scrutinizes regulatory overreach.

The significance lies in the potential to curb executive agencies’ power, particularly the ATF, in creating de facto laws without congressional approval. Kirk highlights the argument made by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) that the ATF’s rule, aimed at regulating the industry, actually seeks to destroy it. By expanding the definition of what constitutes a firearm, the ATF’s rule exceeds its statutory authority.

Moreover, Kirk underscores the absurdity of the government’s position in treating partially completed frames and receivers as fully regulated firearms. He emphasizes the logical inconsistency in this approach and argues that the ATF’s rule lacks a solid legal foundation.

However, Kirk also addresses the implications at the state level, where many states have enacted their own regulations on untraceable firearms. While a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court could limit federal overreach, it might not affect state laws already in place. States like Washington have passed legislation to ban unserialized firearms, which may remain unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision.

In essence, the acceptance of Garland v. Vanderstock by the Supreme Court signifies another opportunity to rein in administrative agencies’ unchecked power. It represents a chance to uphold the principles of limited government and adherence to legislative processes.