Snaprays v. Lighting Defense Group

Oral argument

• Argued

  30 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the ambiguity may not trigger the rule unless it is “grievous”
• deciding whether the firearm was \readily restorable\ based on the claimant's expert testimony
• noting that the Bureau’s rulings define “the ‘designed’ prong ‘to include weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by simple modification or elimination of existing component parts’”
• declining to answer question of what deference is due to ATF rulings
• \[T]he definition of `restore' does not preclude an object from being considered `restored' without returning it to a condition in which it previously existed.\
• considering an ATF ruling interpreting § 5845(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).