Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, writing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has authority, pursuant to the Gun Control Act, to regulate firearms kits and unfinished frames and receivers.

While that might look like a clear ruling, it’s decidedly not. The whole deal started in 2022 when the ATF adopted what they called “a new rule designed to combat the proliferation of ‘ghost guns’”. The rule said, among other things, that parts kits that are designed to or may be “readily completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosion” would now be considered firearms.

The industry protested, using the assumption that “the GCA cannot be fairly read to reach weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers.” The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, vacating the rule’s provisions concerning firearms kits or unfinished frames or receivers. The Fifth upheld that ruling, the ATF appealed, and the question went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

That ends the argument, right? Wrong.

The ruling from the high court said any firearms kit that is “capable of being readily….converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” is covered under the Gun Control Act.

Here’s the rub: the word readily. The Court made a pass a matador would be proud of, declaring that just because some kits (important point) qualify under the GCA, not all do.

According to the high court, the GCA covers kits that can meet these standards:

-conversion to working firearms in less than an hour,

-converted without specialized knowledge; or

-using everyday tools.

Don’t know about your garage/shop, but mine lacks a drill press, end mills, routers, and the other gear that makes that hour deadline reachable.

The Court elected (again) not to define the bounds of the Rule’s application to unfinished firearms and receivers. The majority opinion was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Dissents were filed by Justices Thomas and Alito.

Additional legal challenges are likely, despite the current administration’s reigning in the ATF. There’s no promise that the ATF won’t be “re-weaponized” against gun owners in the future.

Last week’s announcement of Robert Leider’s appointment as the new Assistant Director and Chief Counsel of the ATF is being seen as a very positive sign from 2A advocates. Leider, the former Associate Professor of George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law Center, replaces the prior chief counsel, Pamela Hicks, who was summarily dismissed by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi last month.

Bondi’s reasoning behind the dismissal was simple: “These people were targeting gun owners- not going to happen under this administration. And we’re looking to hire really great people.”

Looks like Leider fits that bill. A strong 2A supporter, Leider is on the record as saying that gun rights advocates could benefit more from reform at the ATF rather than simply scrapping it. Now, he will have a key role in making that happen.

Couldn’t have come at a better time.

If you’ve sat in a courtroom and listened to judges and attorneys opine on topics about which they obviously have zero knowledge, you’ve probably been present for one or more hearings involving the Second Amendment. Having sat through that type of arguments from local courthouses through the Circuit Courts and the United States Supreme Court, I know that in many instances a youngster who’s completed a gun safety court could see how woefully ignorant of guns and their operations, many judges really are.

Writing about convoluted legal decisions, generally reversed by the Supreme Court often leads back to the same source: the Ninth Circuit. Long known in Washington legal circles as “the nutty ninth” it’s renowned for its frequent failure to recognize the Supreme Court as the country’s supreme court. Case in point: the eight year legal saga Duncan v. Bonta -a challenge to California’s ten-round magazine capacity limit.

It began in 2017, after a California ballot initiative set the maximum capacity of magazines at ten. In March of 2019, Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez struck down the law, creating a week Californian’s gun owners called “Freedom Week” - the time between Judge Benitez’ ruling and the Ninth Circuit’s staying it…pending appeal.

In August 2020, a three judge panel upheld the Benitez decision.

In November 2021, an en banc panel reversed Benitez and upheld the law. The California Rifle and Pistol Association appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court issued the Bruen ruling, kicking all previous court rulings on similar topics back to the lower courts.

So….in September 2023, Judge Benitez ruled -again- the magazine ban was unconstitutional.

In March 2024, the same en banc panel hears the case. And again, they rule against Benitez and uphold the ban -despite Bruen.

And last week, the Ninth upheld California’s mag ban. The CRPA is, again, appealing.

Enter Judge Lawrence VanDyke and his dissenting opinion on the ruling. He’s dissented with his fellow judges more than once before, but this time he did something very unusual. Since he realized some colleagues on the bench were either woefully or willingly ignorant about firearms, he did the equivalent of a legal show-and-tell by recording a video to explain how a semi-automatic pistol operates.

He not only demonstrated his pro-gun stance (he used his own guns to illustrate his points), he made it obvious that using the California logic, virtually any part of any pistol could be classified as an accessory. Using his “California logic” would be akin to saying a gas tank was an accessory to an automobile. If that sounds a lot like the logic repeatedly employed by the last administration, you get the picture.

In short, Judge VanDyke’s dissent is not much when it comes to video sophistication, but it’s the first time since The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean, I’ve seen a judge handle a handgun with competence.

His fellow jurists in the majority were decidedly not amused, firing back that he had proclaimed himself an expert in firearms. He responded by thanking them for the compliment, then excoriated them for not taking issue with the same material he used in his written dissent. His explanation was, at least from my vantage point, directly on target. They didn’t mind his written dissent, but his video made the points he made against their ruling difficult, if not impossible, to ignore.

He also demonstrated his ability to hit his target with words: “The majority’s real beef with my video is not that it introduces any new facts, but that it unmasks their invented constitutional test as obviously grounded in a factual fantasy.”

You can easily find Judge VanDyke’s ruling online. You can also find the two opinions on Duncan v. Bonta on the Ninth’s website. They aren’t nearly as entertaining, but the disparity of viewpoints may be even more revealing.

We’ll keep you posted.

—Jim Shepherd