WEBVTT - Ghost Guns & NCAA's $2.78 Billion Settlement 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.400 --> 0:00:13.640 These guns were being purchased and used in crime. They 0:00:13.680 --> 0:00:15.960 were sold to be crime guns. There was a one 0:00:16.079 --> 0:00:19.560 thousand percent increase between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty one 0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:21.640 in the number of these guns that were recovered as 0:00:21.680 --> 0:00:25.239 part of criminal investigations. And it makes perfect sense because 0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:26.960 the whole reason why you would want to get your 0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:31.040 hands on one of these unseerialized, untraceable firearms is if 0:00:31.080 --> 0:00:33.599 you are a prohibited person or you want to use 0:00:33.640 --> 0:00:34.600 that gun in a crime. 0:00:35.120 --> 0:00:39.560 US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelager argued that the Supreme Court 0:00:39.600 --> 0:00:44.960 should uphold the Biden administration's regulation of ghost guns, nearly 0:00:45.120 --> 0:00:48.720 untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home in as 0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:53.279 little as twenty minutes. During oral arguments today, the justices 0:00:53.440 --> 0:00:56.960 grapple with the question of whether ghost guns meet the 0:00:56.960 --> 0:01:01.040 definition of firearm under the Federal Gun Case Act that 0:01:01.080 --> 0:01:04.120 would allow the government to regulate ghost guns in the 0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:09.080 same way it regulates other firearms. The analogies were plentiful. 0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:13.840 Justice Samuel Alito, who seemed skeptical of the government's argument, 0:01:14.480 --> 0:01:17.080 like in gun kits, to cooking ingredients. 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:22.600 I show you I put out on a counter some eggs, 0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:27.440 some chopped up ham, some chopped up pepper, and onions. 0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:30.360 Is that a Western omelet? 0:01:31.160 --> 0:01:34.520 No, because again those items have well known other uses 0:01:34.560 --> 0:01:37.360 to become something other than an omelet. The key difference 0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:40.280 here is that these weapon parts kits are designed and 0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:42.600 intended to be used as instruments of combat, and they 0:01:42.640 --> 0:01:44.440 have no other conceivable use. 0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:48.840 But Justice amy Cony Barrett jumped in comparing gun kits 0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:50.040 to meal kits. 0:01:50.360 --> 0:01:52.480 I know, preloger, I just want to follow up on 0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:56.120 Justice Alito's question about the omelet. Would your answer change 0:01:56.280 --> 0:01:58.800 if you ordered it from Hello Fresh and you've got 0:01:58.800 --> 0:02:01.520 a kit and it was it's like turkey chili. 0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:03.400 But all of the ingredient answer in the kit? 0:02:03.680 --> 0:02:03.920 Yes. 0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:07.680 Joining me is Kevin Tobia, a professor at Georgetown Law. 0:02:08.000 --> 0:02:10.880 Many people might expect that this is a Second Amendment 0:02:10.919 --> 0:02:14.360 case since it concerns guns, But tell us what the 0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:15.840 question before the court. 0:02:15.800 --> 0:02:19.400 Was here, right, So it's not a secondmendent case. It's 0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:23.000 a statutory case. So it concerns the Gun Control Act 0:02:23.000 --> 0:02:26.640 of nineteen sixty eight, And there's two questions in the case. 0:02:26.680 --> 0:02:29.600 And so both of them involve the meaning of different 0:02:29.720 --> 0:02:32.680 language in this statute. So the first one is about 0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:36.720 a provision of the statute that defines firearm to include 0:02:37.040 --> 0:02:39.840 any weapon which will or is designed to or may 0:02:39.880 --> 0:02:42.959 readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action 0:02:43.040 --> 0:02:45.560 and explosive And so the first question is whether that 0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:50.120 definition encompasses gun parts kits. The second question is about 0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:53.040 another part of the STETSUL definition, which includes firearm to 0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:57.200 also include a frame or receiver of any such weapon. 0:02:57.320 --> 0:02:59.760 So those are the two interpretive questions. And as you say, 0:02:59.760 --> 0:03:01.680 it's second a medic case. So it's in many ways 0:03:01.720 --> 0:03:04.840 it's like last terms case Garland versus Cargol, that bump 0:03:04.840 --> 0:03:08.120 stock case. That was another statutory case that involved questions 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:09.359 related to firearms law. 0:03:09.680 --> 0:03:13.480 So a lot of the oral argument seemed like sort 0:03:13.520 --> 0:03:17.040 of mind numbing, with the justices discussing, you know, the 0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:20.760 partially assembled guns and the pieces tell us what was 0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:23.760 going on there? Is they you know, tried to explore 0:03:23.960 --> 0:03:25.079 the parts of the gun. 0:03:25.720 --> 0:03:27.560 Yeah, it's a great question, and in some ways it 0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:30.440 may also be reminiscent of again that kind of Cargole 0:03:30.520 --> 0:03:33.160 case about the bump stocks. The opinion in Cargol had 0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:35.480 a lot of technicalities about different parts of the gun. 0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:37.600 So the question that in some ways is actually kind 0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:38.960 of simple, right before you get to like all the 0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:40.920 kind of complexity that they were working through, which is 0:03:41.080 --> 0:03:43.760 what counts as a firearm for this law, right, And 0:03:43.840 --> 0:03:46.400 so these gun parts kits are kits that are sold, 0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:49.920 they're marketed and sold as kits that you couldn't buy 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:54.240 and assemble and construct into a functional firearm. And so 0:03:54.360 --> 0:03:56.840 you know, a lot of the conversation was drawing analogies 0:03:56.880 --> 0:03:59.400 to different sorts of goods, playing you know, kind of 0:03:59.440 --> 0:04:02.120 with language and trying to understand you know, what counts 0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:04.160 as an omelet or what counts as a table. Right, 0:04:04.240 --> 0:04:06.560 So you know, even before getting to the technicolity's guns, right, 0:04:06.600 --> 0:04:09.160 some of these examples, like Justice Alito offered this example 0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:11.600 kind of hostile to the government's position that if we 0:04:11.720 --> 0:04:14.560 just have you know, peppers and mushrooms and eggs, that's 0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:16.920 not an omelet yet. So in the same way, right, 0:04:17.040 --> 0:04:19.440 like a collection of gun parts is not is not 0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:22.440 a firearm yet. And just as Barrett, actually you're sort 0:04:22.480 --> 0:04:24.200 of responded and said, well, what if those come in 0:04:24.240 --> 0:04:26.960 a in a Hello, fresh kit. We actually might understand 0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:29.560 that as an omelet even though it's not completely assembled yet. 0:04:29.600 --> 0:04:31.680 And you know, the example of Nikia table came up 0:04:31.680 --> 0:04:33.240 as well. So, as you say, right, some of the 0:04:33.279 --> 0:04:35.760 argument got into the technicalities of like what exactly is 0:04:35.800 --> 0:04:37.960 included in these parts kits? What's a frame and receiver. 0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:40.160 It was also interesting that more broadly, a lot of 0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:43.400 the justices were drawing these analogies to other sorts of 0:04:43.400 --> 0:04:46.640 items that were pretty comfortable to call tables even though 0:04:46.640 --> 0:04:48.960 they're unassembled, or omelets even though they're unassembled. 0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:54.200 And it was interesting when the attorney representing the manufacturers 0:04:54.200 --> 0:04:59.200 and gun rights advocates, Peter Patterson, tried to compare these 0:04:59.320 --> 0:05:03.040 ghost gun kits to a hobby quote, just like some 0:05:03.120 --> 0:05:07.440 individuals enjoy working on their car every weekend, some individuals 0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:12.200 want to construct their own firearms. Chief Justice John Roberts said, 0:05:12.520 --> 0:05:15.480 drilling a hole or two, I would think doesn't give 0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:18.160 you the same reward that you get from working on 0:05:18.200 --> 0:05:21.920 your car on the weekends, And then more pointedly said, 0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:25.520 what is the purpose of selling a receiver without the 0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:26.520 holes drilled in? 0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:29.599 Yeah, so I thought that that line of questioning from 0:05:29.680 --> 0:05:32.720 Justice Roberts was really interesting, I think, especially if you're 0:05:32.720 --> 0:05:34.480 trying to read the tea leaves and sort of think 0:05:34.520 --> 0:05:36.440 about where some of these justices will vote. And I 0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:38.799 think Roberts is a kind of important one in this case. 0:05:38.920 --> 0:05:40.920 He asked, if you say, straight up right, like, what's 0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:43.680 the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled 0:05:43.680 --> 0:05:45.599 in it? Interesting question also because it refers to that 0:05:45.640 --> 0:05:48.360 thing as a receiver, right, which arguably it is. And 0:05:48.600 --> 0:05:51.360 you know, one answer from Patterson, representing Vendorstock is you 0:05:51.400 --> 0:05:53.400 know people buy this as a hobbyist, right, in the 0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:57.000 same way you might buy like a collection of unassembled 0:05:57.440 --> 0:05:59.320 parts to make a ship or like a little toy 0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:01.559 ship or model or something, or working on a car 0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:04.120 and you enjoy it. And Justice Roberts really did not 0:06:04.160 --> 0:06:05.960 seem to be buying that answer, right. He said, you know, 0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:08.440 drilling a hole or two like doesn't really give you 0:06:08.480 --> 0:06:10.120 the kind of reward you get from working on your 0:06:10.120 --> 0:06:13.400 car over the weekend. And I think he's exactly right there, right, So, 0:06:13.440 --> 0:06:15.160 like when you look at how these guns are marketed 0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.920 as well, these parts kits are not marketed for hobbyists, 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:20.279 like they're not described by language like this is a 0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:23.320 really leisurely, enjoyable, difficult build. 0:06:23.400 --> 0:06:23.520 Right. 0:06:23.520 --> 0:06:26.400 They're marketed in terms like this is extremely fast and easy, 0:06:26.440 --> 0:06:29.479 this is ridiculously easy, like this is dummy proof, like 0:06:29.520 --> 0:06:32.080 you can do this really fast with no expertise. And 0:06:32.160 --> 0:06:35.400 so I think that analogy that Patterson was trying to 0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:38.080 draw between buyers of these kits and buyers like hobbyists 0:06:38.120 --> 0:06:39.880 just really fell apart. And I think there's a great 0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:42.680 question from Justice Roberts and also give some insight into 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:44.039 where he might stand on this case. 0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:49.240 Even the justices that you might consider as sort of 0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:53.200 antagonistic to the government's argument, some of the more conservative justices, 0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:57.080 does anyone believe that this is not a kit to 0:06:57.160 --> 0:06:59.920 assemble a gun? I mean, it just seems so op 0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:02.240 VI is what's going on here? Are they just trying 0:07:02.279 --> 0:07:04.160 to look for a loophole to get out of it? 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:07.080 Yeah, so I think everyone agrees that these are kids 0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.200 to be assembled into a gun. You know what kind 0:07:09.200 --> 0:07:11.800 of Vanderstock's argument is that just because of the kid 0:07:11.840 --> 0:07:13.560 that you could assemble into a gun does not in 0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:16.320 fact make it a firearm within the meaning of the statute. 0:07:16.360 --> 0:07:18.640 And so the sort of question, you know is, and 0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:21.640 the government sees the statutory meeting a firearm to include 0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:23.440 these kits, and so you know, one of the kind 0:07:23.440 --> 0:07:24.920 of like interesting thing that kind of came out today 0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:27.080 to your question is like there was some discussion. There 0:07:27.160 --> 0:07:28.720 was a lot of discussion actually about kind of like 0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:30.800 where to draw the line. And I think even Patterson 0:07:31.120 --> 0:07:34.920 conceded that a firearm that's disassembled as a firearm, and 0:07:34.960 --> 0:07:37.000 so the sort of question about like how close does 0:07:37.000 --> 0:07:38.600 it have to be. And so you know, the government's 0:07:38.680 --> 0:07:41.720 argument the ats and with a general plugger, their argument is, 0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:44.560 you know, once it's readily convertible, which these kids they 0:07:44.600 --> 0:07:47.520 think are, or more precisely the sort of APS standard, 0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:49.920 you know, that's good enough. And so the term firearms 0:07:49.920 --> 0:07:53.280 shooting compass these kids which could be readily converted to 0:07:53.360 --> 0:07:55.160 function as firearms very quickly. 0:07:56.040 --> 0:08:02.040 Justice Gorsuch asked questions of a textualist nature. Where do 0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:05.960 you think the textualist analysis gets you here? 0:08:06.840 --> 0:08:09.400 So there's two questions in the case, right, So the 0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:11.880 first one is about whether a parts kit falls under 0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:12.760 the Part. 0:08:12.600 --> 0:08:13.880 A of this statute. 0:08:13.920 --> 0:08:16.000 So any weapon which will is designed to or may 0:08:16.040 --> 0:08:19.400 readily be perverted to expel a projectile by the action explosive. 0:08:19.600 --> 0:08:21.680 As a matter of textualism, I think that question in 0:08:21.720 --> 0:08:24.680 this case is extremely straightforward, that these parts kits fall 0:08:24.760 --> 0:08:27.560 under that language just as part of the ordinary meaning 0:08:27.560 --> 0:08:30.480 of firearm. And then you underscored by the statutory language. 0:08:30.520 --> 0:08:34.400 The statue explicitly contemplates things that could be readily converted 0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:37.079 to expel a projectile, which just seems to be explicitly 0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:39.880 describing things like these parts kits. And in question, the 0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:42.440 sort of second question in the case is about the 0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:45.160 meaning of the frame or receiver of any such weapons 0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:47.640 the statue, and many of Justice Gorsug's questions had to 0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:51.040 do with that second question. So there the question is, 0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:53.960 if these companies sell an eighty percent receiver, which, as 0:08:54.000 --> 0:08:56.040 the government says, you have to drill a few holes 0:08:56.080 --> 0:08:59.000 in to convert this to a one hundred percent functional receiver, 0:08:59.480 --> 0:09:02.200 does that count as a frame or receiver within the 0:09:02.200 --> 0:09:04.920 meaning of the statute? And so, you know, one kind 0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:07.080 of notable fact about the statute is it does not 0:09:07.320 --> 0:09:09.920 have the same sort of readily convertible language when it 0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:13.360 describes frame or receiver. And so Justice Gorsuch was asking 0:09:13.400 --> 0:09:16.280 a number of interesting questions about that, and you know, 0:09:16.280 --> 0:09:17.920 it's kind of going in I think, especially kind of 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:20.079 post Garland versus Cargill. I would not have kind of 0:09:20.120 --> 0:09:23.040 as a matter of politics, expected Justice Gorsage to be 0:09:23.120 --> 0:09:25.920 favorable to the government in this case, but his questions 0:09:26.240 --> 0:09:28.960 sort of suggested some openness to following the text in 0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:30.880 this case to a place that might not lead to 0:09:31.080 --> 0:09:34.040 the sort of conservative politics. So he was asking, you know, 0:09:34.240 --> 0:09:36.520 when you look at this statue and look at the context, 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:40.520 every other part of the statute is contemplating convertible parts 0:09:40.559 --> 0:09:43.880 in addition to fully functional parts, and so in that context, 0:09:43.920 --> 0:09:46.400 might we understand frame and receiver kind of just giving 0:09:46.440 --> 0:09:48.920 them the ordinary meaning in that context to also include 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:52.080 things that are extremely close to functional and frame and receivers. 0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:54.280 I thought it was a really interesting kind of exchange 0:09:54.320 --> 0:09:56.280 between Gorsuch and this was the general from that point. 0:09:56.720 --> 0:10:00.040 So you think that Gorsich might come out on the 0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:01.040 government side here. 0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:02.920 You know, these predictions are always kind of tricky. 0:10:03.160 --> 0:10:04.640 I know I'll make some though, too, So. 0:10:05.280 --> 0:10:07.360 I would say, going into the case, you know, I 0:10:07.360 --> 0:10:09.560 think kind of politics tells you a lot about how 0:10:09.600 --> 0:10:11.240 these cases are going to come out. But after the 0:10:11.360 --> 0:10:16.040 oral argument, I think Justices Robert Barrett Kavanaugh, and Gorsich 0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:18.960 all asked questions that I think were indicating that they 0:10:18.960 --> 0:10:21.559 were taking the text really seriously, and we're I think 0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:25.160 seriously contemplating the persuasive arguments from the government about the 0:10:25.160 --> 0:10:27.400 straightforward textual meaning of the statue. So yes, I think 0:10:27.440 --> 0:10:29.800 all four of them are sort of conceivably votes for 0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:31.559 the government here, as are the. 0:10:31.520 --> 0:10:35.880 Three liberal justices. Of course, before the oral argument, the 0:10:35.920 --> 0:10:39.560 Court intervened twice to allow the regulation to remain in 0:10:39.640 --> 0:10:42.760 place until it issues a decision here, and one time 0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:47.400 it was over the descents of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, 0:10:47.600 --> 0:10:50.679 Neil Gorsich, and Brett Kavanaugh. So a lot of people 0:10:50.679 --> 0:10:54.640 were looking at this and sort of predicting that the 0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:58.520 Chief Justice and Justice Barrett might be the ones to 0:10:58.600 --> 0:11:01.240 side with the liberals here, and that certainly seemed to 0:11:01.240 --> 0:11:03.000 be the case from the oral arguments. 0:11:03.280 --> 0:11:05.480 I think that's right. So I think Justice Barrett as 0:11:05.520 --> 0:11:08.800 always asked them really kind of insightful questions. So when 0:11:08.880 --> 0:11:11.240 Justice Alito was giving these examples about you know, well, 0:11:11.280 --> 0:11:13.400 like if you have like eggs and ham and pepper, 0:11:13.440 --> 0:11:15.560 like is that an omelet, right, Barrett says, well, you know, 0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:17.840 she essentially says, is that the right analogy, right, like 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:19.800 to a gun parts kit, like if these things are 0:11:19.800 --> 0:11:21.600 all sold together in a Hello Fresh kit, like that 0:11:21.600 --> 0:11:23.679 actually is more like an omelet. And so it's sort 0:11:23.679 --> 0:11:26.640 of an interesting response that seems, you know, again kind 0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:28.880 of as a textual matter, favorable to the government's reading. 0:11:29.040 --> 0:11:31.400 In response to the first question presented Roberts, who I 0:11:31.480 --> 0:11:33.960 mentioned before, right, you know, ask this kind of pointed 0:11:34.040 --> 0:11:36.200 question about what's the purpose of even selling these eighty 0:11:36.240 --> 0:11:38.560 percent receivers, And he did not seem to be buying 0:11:38.600 --> 0:11:40.720 the idea that they were sold for hobbyists, but rather 0:11:41.280 --> 0:11:44.240 the arguments that these are sold, you know, basically for 0:11:44.360 --> 0:11:47.199 teenagers or other people who cannot purchase a normal firearm 0:11:47.600 --> 0:11:50.080 to you know, also potentially commit crimes. So I think 0:11:50.080 --> 0:11:53.640 both Roberts and Barrett their questioning suggests sort of favorability 0:11:53.640 --> 0:11:56.240 with the government's reading. And then surprisingly, I think, you know, 0:11:56.280 --> 0:11:58.920 in light of the stay decision, Justice Kavanaugh right said 0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:02.040 today to the government, your statutory interpretation has forced So 0:12:02.120 --> 0:12:05.800 Justice Kavanaugh seemed also pretty persuaded by a lot of 0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:07.520 what the government had to say. And as I was 0:12:07.520 --> 0:12:10.319 discussing previously, Justice Gorsich was asking a number of questions 0:12:10.360 --> 0:12:12.679 that suggested that his reading of the text seemed to 0:12:12.720 --> 0:12:15.080 overlap quite a bit with the government. So I was 0:12:15.080 --> 0:12:17.240 surprised by those latter two given the vote. 0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:17.480 On this day. 0:12:17.679 --> 0:12:19.560 But it was interesting to see all four of those 0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:22.320 justices asking questions at least kind of suggested that they're 0:12:22.320 --> 0:12:23.600 reading the text in that way as well. 0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:26.720 Coming up, but what about the Supreme Court's recent decision 0:12:26.920 --> 0:12:29.760 tossing out a ban on bump stock. This is bloomberg. 0:12:32.040 --> 0:12:35.719 The Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a Biden administration 0:12:36.000 --> 0:12:40.520 regulation on ghost guns, the difficult to trace weapons found 0:12:40.559 --> 0:12:44.160 in increasing numbers at crime scenes. I've been talking to 0:12:44.200 --> 0:12:48.800 Professor Kevin Tobia of Georgetown Law. So the Solicitor General 0:12:48.920 --> 0:12:54.160 mentioned several times the explosion in crimes committed using ghost 0:12:54.280 --> 0:12:58.360 guns and that the new regulations are crucial for solving 0:12:58.400 --> 0:13:01.400 gun crimes. And also you had a group of twenty 0:13:01.480 --> 0:13:05.120 major cities filing with the Supreme Court saying that the 0:13:05.160 --> 0:13:08.880 regulation appears to have been effective at reducing the use 0:13:08.920 --> 0:13:12.240 of ghost guns. Where does that fit into the Supreme 0:13:12.280 --> 0:13:16.800 Court's analysis, especially if it's a textualist analysis. 0:13:17.200 --> 0:13:19.320 So that's interesting so right. So, you know, if you 0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:23.120 think about textualism sort of as stated, with the idea 0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:25.480 that the court will resolve this question just by looking 0:13:25.520 --> 0:13:28.640 at the statutory text and giving that language the meaning 0:13:28.679 --> 0:13:31.000 it would have in the eyes of an ordinary reader, 0:13:31.640 --> 0:13:35.079 you might think those conserations about the practical consequences are irrelevant. 0:13:35.120 --> 0:13:37.920 Like that's exactly the sort of political, you know, consequential 0:13:37.960 --> 0:13:40.720 decisions that they're trying to screen off with textualism. So 0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.520 what's interesting is if that's right after today, it looks 0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:45.760 like actually a majority of the justices are inclined to 0:13:45.760 --> 0:13:48.040 read the text in line with the government. That would 0:13:48.040 --> 0:13:51.520 be the three Democratic appointees and then potentially Roberts, Kavanaugh, 0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:57.200 Barrett Gorsich. I think Roberts in particular was responsive to 0:13:57.360 --> 0:14:00.840 some of the government's arguments about the practical consequences kind 0:14:00.840 --> 0:14:02.920 of over and above the text, right to this idea 0:14:02.960 --> 0:14:05.240 that and there's a kind of relationship between the consequences 0:14:05.280 --> 0:14:05.600 and the text. 0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:05.800 Right. 0:14:05.840 --> 0:14:08.679 So, currently, federal law prohibits selling firearms to twenty one 0:14:08.720 --> 0:14:11.840 year olds. It requires backgrounds, text serialization, all these requirements, 0:14:12.280 --> 0:14:16.280 and if the court decides that these kits are not firearms, right, 0:14:16.280 --> 0:14:18.680 those requirements will not apply at the federal level. And 0:14:18.760 --> 0:14:21.080 so there's a real concern right that, again, if people 0:14:21.120 --> 0:14:23.080 who are buying these kits are not hobbyists but rather 0:14:23.120 --> 0:14:26.080 people who just want a firearm, there's a real circumvention 0:14:26.200 --> 0:14:28.880 concern that, you know, basically all of the law that 0:14:29.360 --> 0:14:33.440 would apply to firearm regulation, you know, effectively is meaningless 0:14:33.880 --> 0:14:35.960 because someone could just get a ghost gun and build 0:14:35.960 --> 0:14:38.360 their own kit in twenty minutes or however long it takes. 0:14:38.560 --> 0:14:40.320 And so, you know, some of Robert's questions, I think 0:14:40.520 --> 0:14:43.120 we're very much kind of responsive to that set of 0:14:43.480 --> 0:14:46.840 concerns and the principle that if you read the statute 0:14:46.880 --> 0:14:48.400 and in sort of that way the way van Astock 0:14:48.440 --> 0:14:51.560 wants it to, you'll render you a big chunk of 0:14:51.760 --> 0:14:54.680 federal law meaningless. And so I think that that was 0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:56.440 also a point that was un besides but both of 0:14:56.480 --> 0:14:59.200 us those are general but then also by Justice Roberts 0:14:59.240 --> 0:15:01.680 in some of his his questions, was. 0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:06.280 There any argument about agency power and whether Congress gave 0:15:06.320 --> 0:15:10.560 the ATF the power to change the definition of firearms 0:15:10.600 --> 0:15:11.760 to cover these kits? 0:15:12.120 --> 0:15:14.680 There was like sort of scattered discussion of that question 0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:18.120 throughout the oral argument. You know, just just as Jackson 0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.960 and I think in particular with asking an intriguing series 0:15:21.960 --> 0:15:24.360 of questions that are you sort of think of as 0:15:24.360 --> 0:15:26.640 like in a Postloper Bright world. She was asking questions 0:15:26.680 --> 0:15:29.440 about like what's the court's role, what's Congress role, what's 0:15:29.480 --> 0:15:32.359 agency's role. I'm not really sure how much those considerations 0:15:32.400 --> 0:15:35.000 are going to sort of ultimately make a difference here. 0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:36.680 I have a feeling that, you know, the court is 0:15:36.720 --> 0:15:38.400 just going to kind of proceed and treat this as 0:15:38.400 --> 0:15:41.120 a sort of stastal interpretation case. There's no invocation of 0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:44.000 major questions, doctrine and those sorts of concerns at least 0:15:44.000 --> 0:15:46.600 explicitly with all those questions, right, I'm sort of waiting, 0:15:46.640 --> 0:15:49.480 as with everyone else, kind of what interpretation and what 0:15:49.520 --> 0:15:51.200 will look like in a post Looper world. I mean, 0:15:51.200 --> 0:15:53.840 there's some emphasis from the vander Stock side as well. 0:15:53.880 --> 0:15:56.800 There's some dispute about like did the ATF change their 0:15:56.840 --> 0:15:59.960 interpretation over time? So solicars and our player Leger describe 0:16:00.200 --> 0:16:03.600 the ATFS approach as very much consistent. Right, So there's 0:16:03.600 --> 0:16:07.920 actually nothing dramatically new about the ATF. They've always been 0:16:08.440 --> 0:16:12.400 attempting to categorize as firearms weapons that are extremely close 0:16:12.440 --> 0:16:14.360 and what's changed is just the state of the world. Right, 0:16:14.360 --> 0:16:16.960 there's now these parts kits that are readily convertible to 0:16:17.040 --> 0:16:20.520 functional firearms that didn't exist, you know, at that scale 0:16:20.520 --> 0:16:22.600 in nineteen sixty eight. So there's a little bit of 0:16:22.600 --> 0:16:24.200 back and forth about that question. Some of the most 0:16:24.240 --> 0:16:26.720 interesting discussions was Justice Jacksonville, though I'm not sure we 0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:28.520 got a kind of complete answer and certainly not that a 0:16:28.520 --> 0:16:31.640 complete answer from the CORD about yet, what interpretation is 0:16:31.640 --> 0:16:34.240 going to look like in the in the post Sloper world. 0:16:34.640 --> 0:16:37.360 So tell me, I know you wrote a brief in 0:16:37.360 --> 0:16:38.880 the case in Amicus priest. 0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:40.560 In this case and some others. I've been working with 0:16:40.680 --> 0:16:43.520 linguists to you know, one way Ton't kind of think 0:16:43.520 --> 0:16:46.200 about what we're doing is, you know, mirroring what historians 0:16:46.200 --> 0:16:51.320 are doing for originalism with linguistics intextualism. Right, So the 0:16:51.360 --> 0:16:53.560 CORD is going to approach this case. I think today's 0:16:53.600 --> 0:16:55.520 oral argument clarifies they're going to purchase the case as 0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:58.920 textualists trying to give the language its ordinary meaning. And 0:16:59.480 --> 0:17:02.600 there's you know, decades of work in linguistics that would 0:17:02.640 --> 0:17:05.000 be relevant to that sort of linguistic question. Right, like, 0:17:05.240 --> 0:17:07.440 what does the mean? What's the ordinary meaning of firearm? 0:17:07.520 --> 0:17:09.359 You know, how do we use that and understand that 0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:12.200 in ordinary context? And so in this case, I worked 0:17:12.240 --> 0:17:14.560 with a group of linguists to do a couple of things. 0:17:14.760 --> 0:17:17.679 I'll just kind of mention two. One is, you know, 0:17:17.680 --> 0:17:19.920 we just looked at just in kind of in context, 0:17:19.920 --> 0:17:22.199 like how do people use the term firearm and especially 0:17:22.280 --> 0:17:25.840 how do the buyers and sellers of these terms describe them? 0:17:26.280 --> 0:17:27.720 And one thing that's you know, might be sort of 0:17:27.720 --> 0:17:30.000 surprising is that at least some of the marketers and 0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.840 sellers of these gun parts kids just explicitly describes on 0:17:33.880 --> 0:17:36.199 this firearms. They don't say like these these are just 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:38.040 these are mere parts that could be a firearm. They 0:17:38.080 --> 0:17:39.679 say this, you know, this is a firearm. This is 0:17:39.680 --> 0:17:41.879 a gun, This is a rifle. And so, you know, 0:17:41.960 --> 0:17:43.399 part of the point that we make in the brief 0:17:43.480 --> 0:17:47.080 is it just seems like even the sellers and also 0:17:47.080 --> 0:17:50.720 buyers of these kids in their customer reviews, understand these 0:17:50.800 --> 0:17:53.680 to be firearms, even though they're like technically not assembled 0:17:53.960 --> 0:17:56.240 or technically not finish. You got an eighty percent receiver 0:17:56.359 --> 0:17:58.439 that's you know, requires a little bit of drilling. The 0:17:58.440 --> 0:18:00.719 second thing we did is we ran a survey of 0:18:00.800 --> 0:18:03.960 ordinary Americans. So we presented participants in a survey study 0:18:04.000 --> 0:18:06.360 with a description of gun parts kits and ask them 0:18:06.359 --> 0:18:08.399 whether they thought it's a firearm, and we found them 0:18:08.440 --> 0:18:11.040 that the majority of participants said yes. And so you know, 0:18:11.119 --> 0:18:13.119 this and some other kind of work in linguistics, I 0:18:13.119 --> 0:18:14.760 think just kind of like fills in I think the 0:18:14.760 --> 0:18:17.119 background for the quarter. That's what we're hoping to do 0:18:17.200 --> 0:18:19.600 anyway with our brief that you know, to interpret the 0:18:19.640 --> 0:18:22.000 statue here, the term firearm to include these parts kit 0:18:22.480 --> 0:18:25.520 is completely consistent with how we ordinarily understand terms like that, 0:18:25.840 --> 0:18:28.600 and it's also nothing special about firearms. So in lots 0:18:28.600 --> 0:18:32.480 of different contexts we understand categories like these artifact nouns 0:18:32.520 --> 0:18:36.280 like firearm, table, bicycle to include members that are like 0:18:36.400 --> 0:18:39.359 not perfectly complete. And so you know, if you buy 0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:42.160 a table from Ikia, as an example, the government has 0:18:42.520 --> 0:18:44.359 kind of invoked, I think effectively, if you buy a 0:18:44.359 --> 0:18:46.760 table from Ikia that's not assembled, but it's still a 0:18:46.760 --> 0:18:48.920 table even though you have to put it together. If 0:18:48.920 --> 0:18:51.920 you buy a customizable belt and you have to punch 0:18:51.920 --> 0:18:54.040 holes in it, you got to buy the extra tool 0:18:54.080 --> 0:18:56.000