In a 7-2 ruling on March 26, the Supreme Courtroom upheld the ATF’s controversial regulation that permits the company to deal with sure gun elements kits (aka “ghost weapons”) as firearms below the Gun Management Act.
The case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, centered across the ATF’s 2022 rule that expanded the definition of a “firearm” to incorporate some unfinished frames, receivers, and gun kits that could possibly be “readily transformed” into working firearms.
These are sometimes called “ghost weapons” by legacy media as a result of they are often constructed at dwelling and lack serial numbers, making them tough to hint.
The Fifth Circuit beforehand sided with the plaintiffs—producers and personal gun homeowners—discovering that the ATF had overstepped its statutory authority.
We’re dissatisfied with the Supreme Courtroom’s misguided choice however acknowledge this is just one battle in a multi-generational struggle over the scope of presidency and pre-existing proper to maintain and bear arms. https://t.co/BEjVgoyO2O
— Firearms Coverage Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 26, 2025
However the Supreme Courtroom reversed that call, saying that as a result of some kits are so near functioning firearms, the ATF can regulate them.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for almost all, mentioned that kits like Polymer80’s “Purchase Construct Shoot” set might be accomplished in about 20 minutes with frequent instruments, and subsequently qualify as “weapons” below the Gun Management Act.
The Courtroom emphasised that the ATF rule was not unconstitutional “on its face,” which means it may nonetheless be challenged in future instances on an as-applied foundation.
The Larger Downside? The Grey Space
Whereas the ruling confirms that some kits are honest recreation for regulation, it leaves producers and gun homeowners guessing the place the road is drawn.
Justice Gorsuch acknowledged the “grey space” created by the ruling, noting that not each package or unfinished half will meet the brink of “readily convertible.” That authorized uncertainty opens the door to extra litigation—and potential overreach by the ATF.
Justice Thomas dissented, warning that the ruling invitations abuse by govt businesses and erodes the rule of legislation.
Washington Gun Legislation’s Take: Someplace Between a Blow and a Shrug
William Kirk of Washington Gun Legislation described the choice as “someplace within the center.” He careworn that the plaintiffs confronted a steep problem as a result of they introduced a facial problem—arguing the rule was invalid in all circumstances.
Because the Supreme Courtroom discovered that some kits clearly qualify as firearms, that problem was sure to fail.
Kirk warned, nonetheless, that the ruling places gun homeowners and producers in a “huge grey space,” giving the ATF vast latitude to determine what counts as a firearm. He likened it to “taking the leash off a canine in a crowded park.”
Backside Line:
The ATF received this spherical, however the Supreme Courtroom left so much unsaid. Producers nonetheless don’t know the place the road is between a authorized hunk of polymer and a “firearm” below federal legislation.
That uncertainty—and the facility it offers federal businesses—is what has many within the 2A group on edge.
*** Purchase and Promote on GunsAmerica! ***
