23 Comments
User's avatar
Susie's avatar

The irony of Alito’s “is this a grocery list? Is this a western omelette?” nonsense when he also fervently holds that a fertilized egg constitutes an infant…

David J. Sharp's avatar

Ah, ghost guns—the NRA is “agin.” Let’s take a look (a slight digression).

As I understand it, the NRA was a haven for hunters, collectors and hobbyists until the late 1960s/early 1970s when it became the political powerhouse it is now. The change? The evolving civil rights movement and the fear of uprising by them Big Black Bucks and the need for the Flowers of (White) Christianity … Ginni Thomas, for example. Shoot me if I’m wrong.

Richard La France's avatar

During the time you mentionef above, Grover Lindquist of the NRA got together with Republicans in Congress and demanded they take an oath to back the NRA in any matters of lawmaking. They signed up, thus breaking their oaths of office to work for We the People.

Richard La France

defineandredefine's avatar

The lesson? Never trust anyone named Grover and whose last name ends in "quist."

Jason's avatar

I only really learned about who Prelogar is last week but I sorta think she's the coolest

rawrtigerlily's avatar

Oh Jason, she is indeed the coolest. I listen to several podcasts about the court, and Solicitor General Prelogar is so quick on her feet, so flipping smart, and manages to often serve the justices bitter little pills wrapped in sugar with the utmost poise and professionalism.

I think it must be hard a times to uphold her professional decorum when these so called Supreme justices propose such intentionally obtuse questions.

I’d be tempted to audibly groan and smack my forehead.

Crip Dyke's avatar

With respect to whether ghost guns are guns, I think one salient question that must be asked is this:

If Ikea were to sell various parts of a gun with graphic instructions and an Allen wrench in a flat packed box, would an Ikea customer ask, "What section of the store holds various metal and plastic components that could conceivably be reassembled via plasma beam epitaxy into virtually any shape but might most easily and enjoyably be assembled by a hobbyist into a firearm?"

Or would the Ikea customer ask, "Where is the gun section?"

Does anyone really come home from Ikea and announce, "Honey! I bought several pressboard planks and various accoutrements that a hobbyist might spend time playing with instead of working on a car this weekend. I was thinking that maybe we would see if we could find an arrangement of these pieces that would enable books and tchotchkes to rest on a surface above floor-height."

Of course not. They say, "Honey! I bought a bookshelf!"

An Ikea bookshelf is a bookshelf. A ghost gun is a gun.

defineandredefine's avatar

That was really well put.

Lynn's avatar

These religious zealots are so far to the right, and so scornful of precedent

that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they found for the plaintiffs.

Freedom for gun owners but none for pregnant women.

defineandredefine's avatar

I heard about this on NPR today. The whole argument seemed pretty asinine to begin with, but even still I'm honestly surprised that the conservative justices appeared to be skeptical of it.

rawrtigerlily's avatar

The fifth circuit has really made a name for itself the last decade in making asinine judgements, that require Supreme Court intervention. It’s not a good feeling to know the only thing keeping those wing nuts in check are some other wing nuts who just take their positions slightly more seriously.

defineandredefine's avatar

Indeed. I'm glad they still find it within themselves to not let the comically nonsensical rulings (eg that horse shit about mifepristone "harming" a bunch of dentists) stand.

Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Kagan once tossed Prelogar a lay-up about if this was a case of "the agency just taking over what is really Congress's business" & it came off to me as a subtweet to Gorsuch.

Robert Douglass's avatar

I'm assuming the government could prove the willfulness requirement if someone was quietly acquiring parts to a specific weapon, one or two at a time over an indeterminate period, until one had all the necessary parts to assemble into the firearm in question and render it functional. Where does that case go from here? Is the part collector merely attempting to acquire a weapon as a collector's item that otherwise would be unsalable and otherwise unavailable, and how would one prove the absence of ill intent in collecting parts for said weapon?

Pilgrim's avatar

Butbutbut Originalism! In Constitutional days Appalachian ruralists built their own flintlock rifles, that was how you got one. The classic Foxfire series gave the how-to, as so many other once and future useful skills. https://www.amazon.com/Foxfire-Ironmaking-Blacksmithing-Flintlock-Hunting/dp/0385143087

defineandredefine's avatar

I heard someone on NPR make this actual argument verbatim and I shouted "that's fucking stupid" at my radio.

Cam’s Corner's avatar

Chris, do we know yet when U.S. v. Skrmetti will be argued?

Chris Geidner's avatar

No offense to SCOTUSblog, but that’s not the court, and you’ll probably hear it from me first. 😉

Joe From the Bronx's avatar

Ha. There's a link to the court website though.