The United States Supreme Court reconvened on Monday for the start of its October 2024 term. Among the cases on the docket for the first four weeks of oral arguments are consequential cases related to gun laws and veterans’ benefits.
Garland v. Vanderstok concerns the federal government’s authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns,” while Bufkin v. McDonough centers on veterans’ right to appeal the fair application of the more than century-old “benefit of the doubt” standard when determining their eligibility for service-related benefits.
Garland v. Vanderstok
The case of Garland v. Vanderstok is centered on a 2022 federal rule aiming to regulate “ghost guns” — or firearms without serial numbers that can be created using a plastic printer — which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has said can be assembled by nearly anyone with parts purchased online or by mail.
While the ATF has argued that the rule is necessary to address an “urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis” created by the “exponential” increase in these weapons, gun owners and manufacturers have challenged the law, suggesting that it exceeds the agency’s authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Under this law, Congress imposed “licensing, background-check, record keeping, and serialization requirements on persons engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms.”
According to Supreme Court documents for this case, this law defines a “firearm” as “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” as well as “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”
In 2022, the ATF adopted a rule which expanded this definition to include products “that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver.”
The Court is now tasked with determining whether the items now included under expanded definitions of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” adopted by the ATF in 2022 are consistent with those which are regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The Fifth Circuit held that the ATF’s definitions were inconsistent with this law, leading Attorney General Merrick Garland to petition the Supreme Court for reconsideration.
Jennifer VanDerStok — the named respondent — brought this case in 2022 alongside Michael Andren, manufacturer Tactical Machining, and Firearms Policy Coalition, a 501(c)(4) organization.
Oral arguments Garland v. Vanderstok on Tuesday, October 8.
Bufkin v. McDonough
The case of Bufkin v. McDonough will see the Supreme Court decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must consider if a veteran received the “benefit of the doubt” concerning their eligibility for service-related benefits — a guarantee to which they have been entitled for more than a hundred years — or if they only must review the Veterans Administration’s (VA’s) factual findings for “clear error.”
Under the Veterans Benefits Act, a law approved in 2002, the Veterans Court is required to “take due account” of the VA’s application of the longstanding “benefit of the doubt” rule.
The veterans who brought this case — Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton — argue that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims did not assess on appeal whether the VA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had properly given them the benefit of the doubt as required by law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, on the other hand, has argued that they are not required to take the application of the “benefit of the doubt” standard into consider. Instead, they contend that it is only their responsibility to determine whether or not there was clear error based on the VA’s factual findings.
In petitioning the Supreme Court to consider their case, Bufkin and Thorton argue that the “benefit of the doubt” rule one of “the oldest and most fundamental building blocks of the veterans’ claims system.”
The Federal Circuit held previously in this case that the law does not require the “Veterans Court to conduct any review of the benefit of the doubt issue beyond the clear error review” of underlying factual finds.
“If left to stand,” the veterans bringing this case to the Supreme Court argued, “[the lower court’s ruling] will severely narrow the Veterans Court’s review, resulting in many veterans being denied benefits which they have earned through their service and to which they are entitled by law.”
Oral arguments for this case are scheduled for Wednesday, October 16.
First, second and fourth amendments are constantly being attacked by wannabe tyrants.
It’s been legal to build yer own firearms since before the USA, was the USA,…..