We will hear argument first this morning in case 23-852 Garland v. Vanderstock. General Preliger.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the Gun Control Act imposes straightforward but

essential requirements. Firearm sellers and manufacturers must mark their products with serial

numbers, maintain sales records, and

conduct background checks. The industry has followed those conditions without difficulty for more

than half a century, and those basic requirements are crucial to solving gun crimes and keeping

guns out of the hands of minors, felons, and domestic abusers. But in recent years, companies like the

respondents here have tried to circumvent those requirements. They've begun selling firearms

as easy to assemble kits and frames and receivers that require minimal work to be made functional.

They've advertised the products, in their words, as ridiculously easy to assemble and dummy proof,

and touted that you can go from opening the mail to have a fully functional gun in as little as 15 minutes,

no serial number, background check, or records required.

Those untraceable guns are attractive to people who can't lawfully purchase them or who plan to use

them in crimes. As a result, our nation has seen an explosion in crimes committed with ghost guns.

In the face of that public safety crisis, ATF promulgated this rule to underscore two points about

the Gun Control Act's plain text. First, a weapon parts kit that can readily be converted to

function as a gun with common tools, often in under an hour, is a covered firearm.

Second, a product is a frame or receiver under the Act, even if the buyer must drill a few

holes or remove a few superfluous pieces of plastic to make it functional.

Both of those points are consistent with how ATF has interpreted and implemented the Act across five decades and 11 different presidential administrations.

Respondents now seek a sea change in the Act scope. They claim that if a firearm isn't

100% functional, if it's missing just one

...