MILESFORTIS

At least, they exist until after the Supreme Court rules on Vanderstock v. Garland.

As we’ve noted previously, though, the odds don’t look good for pro-gun folks. It seems the Court had at least some interest in keeping the rules in place, which is troubling because it seems pretty clear to me that the ATF overstepped.

However, there was one comment that bothered me more than just about anything else I saw come out of the arguments.

“Drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends… My understanding is that it’s not terribly difficult for someone to do this,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

While it’s easy to ridicule the Chief Justice for this misguided statement, it’s important to consider his sources for the hyperbole, the ATF and the Biden administration.

“Drilling a hole or two” is a demonstrably dishonest take on the process, and I would have particularly enjoyed seeing a kit laid out in front of the Justices for a hands-on show of how “not terribly difficult” it is.

This would have been good for a few laughs.

Representing manufacturers and groups opposing the rule, Peter Patterson pointed out that building the kits is far more complicated than the administration has suggested, however, Patterson wisely remained grounded in his argument, staying with the facts and nature of the litigation, which had nothing to do with how easy or difficult a kit is to build, and everything to do with the ATF overstepping its authority.

Since the conclusion of the day’s oral arguments, the mainstream media has touted the Supreme Court’s disposition during the hearing as signaling a tendency towards the ATF and Biden administration’s arguments regarding lack of manufacturing difficulty and the potential for prohibited individuals to purchase kits and build them at home for criminal intent.

I will point out, however unnecessarily, that violent crime has been around long before 80% receiver kits, and violent criminals have never had an issue arming themselves, sometimes aided by our own government. Just ask Barack Obama and Eric Holder about Operation Fast and Furious.

All of that is absolutely true, of course. It’s a good deal more complicated than just drilling a couple of holes and calling it good, which is why the ATF’s argument regarding how “readily” it can be turned into a firearm is wrong and should be overturned.

But I’m bothered by Roberts’s statement about how it does give “the same sort of reward” that one might get from working on their car.

I wasn’t aware that was the legal threshold for our rights, whether or not a judge finds it satisfying.

Especially when I don’t find working on my car particularly rewarding. If I’m working on my car, it’s because something isn’t right and I can’t afford to take it to a mechanic. Since that’s what my son does for a living now, that’s rare, but that’s how it’s been in the past. For me, it was a task that needed to be accomplished, not something I found enjoyment in.

That’s kind of how hobbies work, though. Some people are really into DIY projects like renovating their bathroom. Others do it because they need the bathroom fixed and can’t afford to hire someone. The first group is the amateurs in the original sense of the word–those who do something for the love of it–while the others aren’t necessarily finding any sense of reward, necessarily.

Some people get a charge out of collecting stamps while others only buy them now to pay bills that don’t have an online presence for whatever reason.

Yet Roberts’s comment, while possibly meaningless, suggests that the justice might well consider whether they see this as a real hobby or not, and if they don’t because they, personally, don’t see anything fun in making one’s own firearms, we have a big problem.