Gun Kits vs. Embryos: The Hypocrisy of Democrats

There were so many instances sitting in the SCOTUS courtroom watching Garland v. Vanderstok I wanted to jump out of my seat and start screaming the TRUTH. I was thrilled when Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett used clever analogies and probing questions to challenge the government’s argument that kits—specifically unassembled parts—should be considered firearms under federal law. Their questions highlighted some key legal and practical concerns surrounding the issue of intent and use when it comes to firearm regulation. The main problem was it was never followed up on our end, The justices challenged but we didn't knock it down to provide wide examples in our industry on how kits are used. In this blog post, I'm going to talk about what I saw with the back and forth with the justices. Before anyone chimes in down below in the comment section, let me be clear, the FPC lawyer did a bang up job arguing the case facts. This is an APA case from our standpoint. It is the government trying to make it an emotional firearms case.

Justice Alito’s Pad and Pen Example: A Simple but Powerful Challenge

At one point in the oral arguments, Justice Alito held up a pad and pen and asked the government if these objects could be considered a grocery list under the logic that a set of parts, when intended to be assembled, should be regulated as the final product. The government argued that the pad and pen are not a grocery list because they serve multiple purposes,.

Alito’s analogy may seem lighthearted, but it strikes at a deeper question: Can something be classified as a firearm simply based on its potential to become one, even if it’s currently just a collection of parts? Alito’s skepticism toward the government’s argument revealed the potential overreach in regulatory logic, particularly when applied to kits that have not yet been assembled.

Justice Barrett’s HelloFresh Kit Analogy: Unpacking the Kit Concept

Justice Barrett took the analogy even further by introducing a comparison to a HelloFresh meal kit. She pointed out that a HelloFresh kit contains specific ingredients designed to create a specific meal, such as turkey chili, but each component of that kit, like the turkey or spices, could theoretically be used for something else. This raised the question: does a set of unassembled firearm parts really become a "gun" just because its primary purpose is to eventually create one?

Barrett’s analogy illustrated the line between intent and current use. A kit is just a collection of parts until it is assembled into something specific. By comparing firearm parts kits to a meal kit, she challenged the idea that the intent behind the sale of a kit automatically transforms it into the final product under the law. Her questioning aimed at exposing the potential weakness in the government’s position that kits should be regulated as firearms simply because their end result is intended to be a gun.

The Core Issue: How Do We Define a Firearm?

At the heart of the Garland v. Vanderstok case is the government’s argument that kits designed to assemble into firearms should be treated as firearms themselves, even though they are, in essence, just unassembled parts. This position is rooted in the belief that the intended purpose of these parts is what matters.

However, as Justices Alito and Barrett pointed out through their analogies, intent alone may not be enough to classify something as a firearm. Kits, by nature, are collections of components, and those components may have alternative uses or never be assembled into the intended product. This raises important questions about regulatory overreach and how far the law can go in defining something as a firearm when it is, at the moment of sale, incomplete.

These points were being argued by lawyers, not builders like us who understand the hands-on reality. The people in that courtroom don’t have the same level of knowledge we possess, nor do they fully grasp the wide range of uses for these kits beyond the government's narrow perspective. For years, our community has demonstrated that enthusiasts enjoy kits for countless reasons that have nothing to do with illegal activity.

One claim that went unchallenged was the idea that there’s no joy in building your own firearm because it supposedly can be done in under an hour. This is flat-out false. We, as builders, know that creating a firearm from a kit is not only more cost-effective than buying one off the shelf but also allows us to customize every detail to suit our needs and preferences. The customization opportunities are endless, thanks to these kits.

In doing it ourselves, we not only save a significant amount of money, but we also end up with a far superior product—one tailored exactly to our standards—something you can’t achieve in the retail space. The government’s arguments ignore this reality and the satisfaction that comes with building something with your own hands.

Exploring Alternative Uses for Glock Kits

The analogies presented by Alito and Barrett means they get it. Unfortuantely s stated above we as builders are not able to testify and knockdown the governments assertions that there are no other uses, The anti-gun lobby who pushed the governement to write this rule in the first place loves to tout if it walks and talks like a duck than its a duck. Thats the argument from the government I witnessed sitting in the oral arguments. I wanted to jump out of my chair and highlight that we use kits for other beneficial reasons. I know builders have their own, but here are just some very specific alternatives I have personally used kits for besides constructing a firearm:

1. Educational and Training Tools

This is literally the definition of what I do. I am a Glock educator that uses kits to teach firearm assembly and disassembly. More importantly, as you all know I use kits to teach firearm safety. I also use kits extensively to teach gunsmithing techniques, how to prep parts, diagnose problems, and instruct on quality individual components over cheap Taiwan imported clone fakes. These kits primary purpose to me are an educational tool rather than a functioning firearm.

2. Collector’s Item

This is another big one. I can easily name several highly sought-after kits that collectors in our space want to keep untouched and un-built. Examples include white frame kits, Robbins egg blue kits, CL frame kits, Spectre frame kits, and Strike kits. These kits are prized by collectors who wouldn’t dream of constructing them—they want them mint in the box, exactly as they are.

3. Firearm Repair

Many gun owners buy kits to use as a source of replacement parts for an existing firearm. Kits are cheaper than buying a complete firearm, as they should be due to the user having to complete it themself. Instead of assembling a new gun, they use specific components—such as a slide or trigger—to repair or upgrade a firearm they already own.

4. Props

The individual parts from a Glock kit and P80's have been used as props in movies, television, and even gaming productions. In this context, the parts might be assembled into a non-functioning firearm, or simply remain unassembled for safety reasons, serving a purely cosmetic purpose.

5. Machinist or Metalworking Projects

Machinists and hobbyists frequently use parts from a Glock kit in non-firearm-related projects, such as crafting custom tools and practicing their machining skills. You've all watched me in countless videos destroy P80's and their parts to further understand everything from polymer blends to parts durability in machining. These demonstrations have served purposes far outside the realm of firearm assembly.

6. Non-Firing Display Models

Glock kits could be assembled into non-firing display models. Ever watch a DLD After Dark Stream? He uses the wall of kits as his featured background in every stream with no intention of building any of them.

The Limits of Intent-Based Regulation

The clever questioning by Justices Alito and Barrett during the Vanderstok v. Garland oral arguments exposed a key flaw in the government’s argument: intent may not be sufficient to define what is, and what isn’t, a firearm. Just because a Glock kit can be assembled into a gun does not mean that it always will be.

The potential alternative uses for firearm parts kits further illustrate that regulating these kits as complete firearms based on intent alone is wrong. A kit is, after all, just a set of parts, and until the frame is machine finished and the corresponding parts are put together, they remain versatile components that could serve a variety of purposes.

One of the most troubling things for me to wrap my head around is the hipocracy of the democrats aguing this case. They believe a P80 kit is "readily convertible" into a firearm, but yet an embryo isn't "readily convertible" into a human.

I understand that trying to logically reconcile many of the left’s positions can be challenging, but what stands out to me is how the Democrats' two primary focuses—gun control and abortion—are at odds with each other when you really look at them side by side. On one hand, they push hard for gun control, arguing that a Polymer80 (P80) kit, for instance, is "readily convertible" into a firearm, and therefore, must be heavily regulated. Yet, when it comes to abortion, they take the opposite stance: an embryo, which is undoubtedly “readily convertible” into a human being, is not afforded the same protection or recognition.

It’s hard to reconcile how the potential to become something more—a firearm or a human life—can be such a central argument for one issue, but is dismissed entirely in the other. This contradiction between their positions on gun control and abortion reflects an inconsistency in the logic they use to frame these debates, yet both remain central to their platform.

I encourage you to participate in the discussion in our forum below:

https://www.marinegunbuilderforum.com/