SCOTUS Hears ‘Ghost Gun’ Case, Takes up Smith & Wesson's Fight with Mexico | News Update

Free Dispatch trial here: thedispatch.co...
Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I recap how oral arguments over the ATF’s reclassification of unfinished firearms parts kits went this week before the Supreme Court. We also discuss the justices’ decision to take up the case over Mexico’s lawsuit against the American gun industry later this term. Then, we turn to the politics behind Kamala Harris’ decision to reveal that she owns a Glock handgun. Finally, we wrap up with a brief update on the grassroots movement to repeal Massachusetts’ new omnibus gun control law via the ballot and a discussion of The Reload’s reporting being cited in other national outlets.
----
Chapters
00:31 SCOTUS Oral Argument
15:17 Mexico v. S&W Cert Grant
23:47 Kamala Harris’ Glock
29:12 MA Petitions Submitted
30:37 Outlets Citing the Reload

[@narr0wm1nd49]

I would suggest we should frame the question about creating your own firearms differently than trying to look at 'why' people do things. Freedom doesn't require why. Lets approach the question from this other direction. Does the second amendment mean you have a right to create your own firearms? I would suggest yes. First it had always been the case and understanding, people have created their own firearms since before the founding. Second if you have a right to own and to carry you must have the right to acquire, how could there be any more fundamental method to acquire than to self manufacture. So lets assume for argument that the second amendment protects self manufacture. Then the point that something becomes a firearm and regulated is very important. Because to self manufacture you are going to acquire materials and tools. For self manufacture those must not be regulated. Once self manufacturing has occurred then that item might be regulated. For some time ATF defined the line between regulated and not regulated. Now they are changing the rules because people were complying with the rule and they didn't like it. As for home manufacture there might be a bunch of people finishing glock and other guns. But look at the 1911 kits. There you can get a good kit for a few hundred bucks and all you really need is hand tools to finish it. At the end of the process you can have a hand fit 1911 that can be on par with 3 or 4k guns ala Nighthawk customs. So the idea there is no value in home manufacturing is just plain wrong. Further why isn't anyone challenging the government on their crime stats for 'ghost guns'. The DOJ is back up to their old bad record keeping to inflate numbers. Just like they talk about 'gun deaths' and ignore the fact that up to 3/4 can be suicides. After the DOJ started going after 80% they started to keep track of 'ghost guns' found at crime scenes. The problem is that any gun without a serial number is now considered a 'ghost gun', which includes many guns that had their serial numbers obliterated which is already a crime. The SKS used by the second Trump assassination attempt technically is a 'ghost gun' but are we believe that removing 80% receivers will stop criminals from using chinese SKS's? This new rule should fall on the APA. Even if we are to assume 'frame or receiver' ambiguous the agency already got a chance to define it broadly (critical machining). Now they want to go back and try again because the current administration doesn't like the outcome. Well if this is so critical why are they avoiding the legislative process. Let the administration make their case to congress and get a bill passed to amend the law. If that isn't possible then it must not be the problem this administration sees it as.

[@AnarchyArmed]

Another thing that didn't come up was the 4 components of a receiver and how most modern firearms don't have all 4 in the lower receiver.

[@Bodhi1satva]

People want these because they enjoy creating their own stuff from scratch or as close to scratch as possible. I doubt that many criminals have the time, patience or ability to go through the entire process. Much less want to spend the money. And yes that also speaks to the freedom from corporate influence to tinker with MY stuff. It’s a whole lot more about privacy than secrecy. The world has lost its way when it comes to individual privacy and I’m old school sick and tired of hearing the back assward thinking that ‘if you have nothing to hide…’ argument. I would gladly serialize my own stuff for protection from theft. But we all know too well where the next step of registration leads us too!