Order here, in Aposhian v. Barr.
This might be Supreme Court material, not as to 2A issues, but as to “Chevron deference,” the degree to which a court should defer to an agency’s interpretation of the statutes it enforces. Justice Gorsuch has taken particular difference with the idea of such deference. This might be a prime case, since ATF initially ruled that such stocks (at least those not using springs) were not NFA arms, then reversed that and ruled that they were. Why is the second position less worthy of deference than the first? Should court turn a 180 on their read of a law because an executive branch agency did the same?