The Supreme Court is currently deliberating one of the most significant firearms cases in recent years. VanDerStok v. Garland (also referred to as Garland v. VanDerStok in government filings) challenges the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosivesโ (ATF) authority to regulate so-called โghost gunsโ through administrative rulemaking rather than congressional legislation. This case represents a critical juncture for Second Amendment rights, federal regulatory authority, and the future of home firearm building in America.
At its core, this case examines whether the ATF overstepped its bounds when it issued a 2022 rule dramatically expanding the definition of โfirearmsโ to include parts kits and partially completed frames or receivers. The outcome could either affirm Americansโ right to build firearms at home without federal interference or cement the governmentโs power to regulate firearm components that have historically remained out of federal oversight.
What Are โGhost Gunsโ and Why Does This Case Matter?
Before diving into the case specifics, itโs important to understand whatโs at stake. The term โghost gunโ is a politically charged label created by gun control advocates to describe privately made firearms (PMFs) that donโt have commercial serial numbers. These typically include:
- Firearms built by hobbyists from parts kits
- Guns assembled using partially completed frames or receivers
- 3D-printed firearms
For decades, Americans have legally built firearms at home for personal use without federal registration or serialization requirements. This tradition dates back to the founding of the country and has been explicitly protected under federal law.
The ATFโs 2022 โFrame or Receiverโ Rule attempted to change this landscape by redefining what constitutes a โfirearmโ under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The rule sought to:
- Expand the definition of โfirearmโ to include weapon parts kits
- Classify partially complete frames/receivers as firearms if they could be โreadily convertedโ
- Require background checks for purchasing these items
- Mandate serialization of previously unregulated components
Case Timeline: From District Court to the Supreme Court
The legal battle against the ATFโs rule has followed a winding path through the federal court system:
April 2022
- The ATF finalizes its โFrame or Receiverโ Rule (RIN 1140-AA55), dramatically expanding the definition of โfirearmsโ under federal law
August 2022
- Jennifer VanDerStok, Tactical Machining LLC, and other plaintiffs file suit in the Northern District of Texas
- The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation provide legal support
- Plaintiffs argue the ATF exceeded its statutory authority under the GCA
June 2023
- U.S. District Judge Reed OโConnor grants summary judgment for the plaintiffs
- The court vacates portions of the ATFโs rule, finding the agency overstepped its authority
- Judge OโConnor writes that the ATFโs rule โflouts the statutory text and exceeds congressional limitsโ
November 2023
- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms Judge OโConnorโs ruling but narrows the remedyโs scope
- The court holds that the ATF cannot regulate non-functional components as โfirearmsโ
April 2024
- The Supreme Court grants certiorari, agreeing to hear the governmentโs appeal
- The case is officially added to the October 2024 term docket
October 8, 2024
- Oral arguments held before the Supreme Court
- Justices question both sides on statutory interpretation and agency authority
- A decision is expected by June 2025
Legal Arguments: The Battle Lines
The Plaintiffsโ Position
The plaintiffs, supported by the Firearms Policy Coalition, present several compelling arguments:
- Statutory Overreach: The Gun Control Act defines a โfirearmโ as a functional weapon or the โframe or receiverโ of such a weapon. Incomplete frames/receivers and parts kits do not meet this threshold as they cannot fire projectiles without substantial additional work.
- Congressional Intent: The legislative history of the GCA shows Congress specifically rejected broader definitions during debates. Congress has had numerous opportunities to expand the definition but has chosen not to do so.
- Vagueness Concerns: The ATFโs โreadily convertedโ standard is unconstitutionally vague, potentially criminalizing ordinary hobbyists for possessing items that were previously legal.
- Administrative Overreach: The rule represents an agency attempting to create law rather than interpret it, violating separation of powers principles.
As Cody Wisniewski, President of the FPC Action Foundation, stated: โCongress never authorized ATF to regulate non-functional components or raw materials. The agency is attempting to rewrite federal law by administrative fiat.โ
The Governmentโs Position
The Department of Justice and ATF defend the rule on several grounds:
- Public Safety Crisis: The government claims ghost guns represent a growing threat, citing statistics that law enforcement recovered over 72,000 unserialized firearms between 2016 and 2022.
- Textual Flexibility: The GCA includes items โdesigned to or may readily be convertedโ into firearms. The government argues this language provides authority to regulate components that can be easily transformed into functioning firearms.
- Regulatory Necessity: During oral arguments, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued: โThese kits are marketed explicitly to evade regulationโ and that they create a โdangerous loopholeโ in federal gun laws.
- Judicial Deference: Despite the Supreme Courtโs rejection of Chevron deference, the government maintains agencies retain authority to interpret ambiguous statutes.
Expert Analysis: What the Specialists Say
Legal experts and firearms policy specialists have weighed in from both sides:
Pro-Second Amendment Perspectives
- Brandon Combs, FPC Founder: โThe ATFโs interpretation could criminalize ordinary hobbyists who have been building firearms at home since before the founding of our nation.โ
- Judge Reed OโConnor: In his district court ruling, Judge OโConnor concluded that the ATFโs rule โflouts the statutory text and exceeds congressional limits.โ
- Timothy Lytton, Georgia State Law: โThis case tests whether agencies can bypass legislative intent in the post-Chevron era.โ
Pro-Regulation Perspectives
- Eric Tirschwell (Everytown Law): โThe Fifth Circuitโs decision puts gun lobby interests above public safety.โ
- Miriam Becker-Cohen (Constitutional Accountability Center): โCongress intended broad authority to regulate evolving firearm threats.โ
Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Key Moments
During the October 8, 2024 oral arguments, several key exchanges highlighted the central tensions in the case:
- Justice Thomas questioned whether the ATFโs interpretation would make hardware stores liable for selling components that could potentially be converted into firearms.
- Justice Kagan probed the governmentโs position on where the line should be drawn between regulated and unregulated components.
- Justice Alito expressed concern about the vagueness of the โreadily convertedโ standard, asking how ordinary citizens could know what items might suddenly become regulated.
- Justice Barrett questioned whether the ATFโs interpretation aligned with the original understanding of the GCAโs text.
- Chief Justice Roberts focused on whether Congress, rather than an administrative agency, should be the one to expand firearm definitions given the Second Amendment implications.
Court observers noted that several justices appeared skeptical of the governmentโs expansive interpretation, though others seemed concerned about the public safety implications of striking down the rule entirely.
The Bigger Picture: Beyond VanDerStok
This case doesnโt exist in isolation. It follows other significant Second Amendment decisions:
- Cargill v. Garland (2023): The Fifth Circuit struck down the ATFโs bump stock ban, finding the agency exceeded its authority by redefining โmachine gun.โ
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022): The Supreme Court established a new test for Second Amendment cases requiring gun regulations to be consistent with the nationโs historical tradition of firearm regulation.
- West Virginia v. EPA (2022): The Court limited federal agenciesโ ability to make โmajor questionsโ decisions without clear congressional authorization.
These precedents suggest the Court may be skeptical of expansive agency interpretations, especially in areas touching on constitutional rights.
Potential Outcomes and Implications
The Supreme Courtโs decision, expected by June 2025, could have several outcomes:
If the Court Rules Against the ATF:
- The โFrame or Receiverโ Rule would be invalidated, at least in part
- Americans could continue to build firearms at home without federal serialization requirements
- Federal agencies would face stricter limits on their ability to reinterpret statutes
- Congress would need to pass new legislation if it wants to regulate ghost guns
If the Court Upholds the ATFโs Rule:
- Parts kits and partially completed receivers would require serialization and background checks
- The home-building firearms tradition would face new federal restrictions
- Federal agencies would gain broader authority to reinterpret existing statutes
- Similar regulatory approaches might be applied to other firearms components
The Constitutional Stakes
This case represents more than just a technical dispute about statutory interpretation. It touches on fundamental constitutional principles:
- Second Amendment Rights: The ability to build firearms at home has been a tradition since before the founding of the United States.
- Separation of Powers: Should unelected bureaucrats have the power to criminalize previously legal activities without congressional action?
- Administrative State Boundaries: How much authority should federal agencies have to reinterpret decades-old statutes to address new technologies?
- Rule of Law: Citizens must have clear notice of what activities are prohibited by law.
Current Status and Whatโs Next
As of now, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments but has not issued a ruling. The decision is expected sometime before the end of the Courtโs term in June 2025.
In the meantime, the ATFโs rule remains partially in effect, though its application varies by jurisdiction due to lower court rulings. The firearms community is watching closely, as the outcome will shape the future of home firearm building in America.
The Firearms Policy Coalition continues to lead the legal challenge, providing updates through their dedicated case page at firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok.
Conclusion: A Watershed Moment for Second Amendment Rights
VanDerStok v. Garland represents a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights and federal regulatory authority. The case will determine whether Americans can continue the long tradition of building firearms at home without federal interference or whether the government can expand its regulatory reach through administrative reinterpretation of existing laws.
Beyond the immediate question of ghost guns, this case will establish important precedents about the limits of agency power and the role of Congress in making significant policy changes. For supporters of the Second Amendment, the stakes couldnโt be higher.
As we await the Courtโs decision, one thing is clear: this case will significantly impact Americansโ right to build and possess firearms without government registration for generations to come.
