In a controversial ruling that was a major setback to gun rights organizations and the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Biden-era rule regulating so-called “ghost guns.”
Also often called the “frame or receiver” rule, the Biden Department of Justice published the final rule in 2022. The case, Garland v. VanDerStok, challenged the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past.
In April 2024, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge, and oral arguments began last October.
At issue was whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously ruled in a 2023 case that the DOJ had overstepped its bounds in making the final rule, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter.
In that ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.
“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt wrote in the opinion. “But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”
On Wednesday, however, Supreme Court justices voted 7-2 to uphold the Final Rule, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.
“Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 24-page opinion for the majority. “But criminals also find them attractive. The ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit can be ‘readily converted’ into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise or specialized tools to complete.”
In the end, Gorsuch said there was no question that the Final Rule should be upheld.
“The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” his opinion concluded. “Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that firearms parts shouldn’t be subject to a regulation that could open the door to rules on other popular weapons.
“The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm,’” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.”
For its part, the gun-rights organization Firearms Policy Center (FPC) said in a released statement that it was “disappointed” with the ruling.
“The Court’s majority opinion twists the plain language and meaning of the statutes to uphold the ATF’s rule,” FPC wrote. “The Supreme Court cynically built up a falsework to shore up the ATF’s improper rule in spite of the text and history of the statutes. We will also continue communicating with the White House, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to encourage a full repeal of the ATF’s rule and take other FPC-supported actions.”
What a load of guano! And Saint Thomas gave the dissent 🙄
This opens the door to other regulation– like of 3D printers and milling machines. Not good. Trump though can fix it with a call to Bondi.
What could Bondi do? It’s a serious question; thanks.
All the admin has to do is repeal the rule, right? The problem is that this gets decided by whatever administration is controlling the rule book.
Trump can work toward changing the rule, but that does not erase the precedent.
Again, as usual, the law seeks to punish the law abiding in the fool hardy attempt to curb some criminal from being one.
The sad thing, I read Neal Gorsuch’s book. He knows its wrong. He actually knows, in his head, that his decision is, in fact, the wrong one. Yet, he did it anyway.
So sad.
Gorsuch has said that if a judge is personally happy with every ruling, then they are likely not doing their job, i.e., ruling based on the law rather than personal ideology. I am interested in what he has to say on this, though I agree that allowing any un-elected bureaucrat to re-write the plain text of legislation is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.
RE: “The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,”
The 1968 Gun Control Act. Most people see that title do not know Gun Control is an agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. Proves Ignorance is Bliss.
RE: “Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 24-page opinion for the majority. “But criminals also find them attractive.”
So gorsucks your honorable shtbag….Criminals and Gun Contol an agenda History confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide are in control of a Constitutional Right.
So killing Chevron and neutering the ATF nets all of nothing.
Neat.
So conservatives are for a Living Constitution now?
No more SCOTUS picks without Thomas and Alito giving their seal of approval. They’re the only ones I trust.
“No more SCOTUS picks without Thomas and Alito giving their seal of approval”
You are educating for an unconstitutional procedure.
Supreme Court nominees are selected by the president, and subject to confirmation by the Senate, that’s the constitutional requirement, to advocate otherwise is un-American.
Lol yeah after they are vetted same as your commies did during the Biden years.
You’re making stuff up again, Miner. Do you think Trump chose those justices all by himself? No. He detailed how he would make his picks. He said he would choose from the Federalist Society short list. Among that list, I can guarantee you that he still heard recommendations from various people. I’m saying to replace those people with Thomas and Alito.
Like I have said before. Trumps judges were not 2nd amendment solid enough for me.
But again, Trump him said ban silencers and take the guns before due process.”. oh… let’s not forget what he did about bumpstocks..
How dare you slander Saint Trump.
Bailiff, whack his pee pee.
Cheech & Chong reference. I had that cassette tape.
I’ve not got time to listen to cassettes. I’m to busy re-primering the Jeep
Yeah, Victor B. I’m sure Trump intentionally chose people to derail the 2A. Brilliant take.
Trump never actually did take the guns or ban suppressors. He played the long game on bump stocks and won. At that time, Congress was about to redefine bump stocks as machine guns which they had the authority to do and which would have been much harder to repeal. By ordering the ATF to unconstitutionally redefine bump stocks as machine guns, he both headed off Congress passing a ban and set up the ATF to get slapped down by SCOTUS. The result is that we have bump stocks again.
Those who fear your enemies more than they fear you will side with your enemies.
The terrorists/Democrats have been openly threatening them for a few years now. Amy probably looks at a blown up Cybertruck and thinks that could be one of her 20 kids.
Demonstrating to the terrorists that their tactics work will only make the world more dangerous for her kids.
The appropriate response is a)rigging the Teslas to shoot flames at their attackers ala Robocop or b)send the terrorists to El Salvadore.
The left keeps whining about us deporting foreign gang members so let’s throw them a bone and start deporting home-born ones. Equal treatment.
So much for that “conservative super majority” on scotus. They’re all going to turn now, just watch. Either bought or threatened.
How convenient appointed for life can be.
7of9 wasn’t she a Borg?
7 of anyone should not be able to bend the United States Constitution to the way they want it.
IF, BIG IF, Trump has Bondi repeal that rule and write a new one. Saying what it should say and ignoring the public comment period like sleepy joes administration did……..
All,
Please keep in mind “We the People” have 4 boxes to use for our lawful purposes.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, and Ammo.
Americans have been building their own firearms since before the founding of this great nation, and they will continue to engage in such activities, regardless of what the Supreme Court has to say about such matters. If at some point in our future, a Supreme Court decides the second amendment is no longer an individual right and gun bans coupled with confiscation can proceed. Americans will resist this too.
“If at some point in our future, a Supreme Court decides the second amendment is no longer an individual right and gun bans coupled with confiscation can proceed. Americans will resist this too.”
Depends on the outcome of the culture war, which isn’t over yet.
Between overwatch (and other games) and the Covid lockdowns the kids may be ok. Still need to burn the commie influences to the ground though.
Current younglings grew up watching liberal hell unfold thanks to Obama and the Puppet. Add in the fact that their Gen X parents are more likely to be conservative than the Boomer parents, and you have a perfect storm for young conservatives that, data tells us, are likely to become more conservative as they get older.
So because a criminal could (potentially) do the same thing (for which there are already laws for felon in possession), the law-abiding citizens must be restricted.
Yeah, because that’s how dangerous freedom works.
I hope FPC challenges on 2A grounds now. This was just on procedural grounds. That is, serializing firearms and requiring background checks is not in the longstanding history and tradition of this nation.
“I hope FPC challenges on 2A grounds now. This was just on procedural grounds. That is, serializing firearms and requiring background checks is not in the longstanding history and tradition of this nation.”
That is exactly what must happen.
Open your wallets and donate to those doing the work, people…
Amy Coney Barrett Could Be A Superb Supreme Court Justice. She’s Choosing Not To Be.
“What Barrett fails to realize is that her failure to consistently abide by originalist doctrine is placing Americans’ constitutional rights at risk.
…
During her time as a justice, the former Notre Dame law professor has been instrumental in overturning Roe v. Wade and Chevron deference, upholding certain religious liberty protections, and several other high-profile matters that have come before the high court in recent years.
However, what continues to stump constitutionalists and Barrett hopefuls alike is the associate justice’s abject failure to consistently apply originalist doctrine in her rulings.
The latest example of this dynamic came on Wednesday, when Barrett signed on to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. Vanderstok. In its 7-2 ruling, the high court’s majority upheld restrictions put forward by the Biden ATF on so-called ‘ghost guns’ that, according to Fox News, Second Amendment advocacy groups have characterized as ‘unconstitutional and abusive’.
…”
https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/27/amy-coney-barrett-could-be-a-superb-supreme-court-justice-shes-choosing-not-to-be/
If a computer assisted milling tool or 3D printer can transform raw material into a firearm, would the tool itself or the raw material itself be considered a “firearm” because a criminal or prohibited person can make a firearm? Therefore, is it constitutional for a non-legislative agency to ban or redefine the raw material or tool as a “firearm”? I say “NO”!!!! The madness of infringing upon 2A protected rights must end!
“would the tool itself or the raw material itself be considered a “firearm” because a criminal or prohibited person can make a firearm?”
That all depends on how long it takes one to turn parts into a working firearm. That time limit is apparently arbitrary based on Gorsuch’s feelz.
I think everyone needs a serial number tattooed on their wrist and forehead.
“Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 24-page opinion for the majority. “But criminals also find them attractive.”
Is that the kind of twisted logic they teach in law schools these days?
He could say the same about cars. “Some commuters enjoy driving them, but criminals also find them attractive.” So Gorsuch would ban all cars?
Or he could say it about computer printers: “Some computer owners enjoy printing papers, but kidnappers also find them attractive for printing ransom notes.” So Gorsuch would ban computer printers?
In fact, you could say it about any object on Earth: ““Some law-abiding people enjoy using them, but criminals also find them attractive.” So ban everything? Gorsuch isn’t using the law or logic; he’s intent on banning homemade guns because he’s joined the hoplophobic tyrannical Left and its allies on both the Left and the Right.
This isn’t Left against Right, or the Libs against the Conservatives. This is the Elites agains the Non-Elites
Thanx Huntmaster, nobody else seems to get it.
What is to stop Trump for ordering the ATF to rescind its final rule and go the other way? He’s the head of the executive branch and if those people want to have jobs they had better toe the line.
Ok, am I understanding this ruling correctly:
The ruling specifically addressed the ATF’s authority to regulate certain weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers with the focus being primarily on pistol build KITS, like Polymer80’s ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kits.
This decision does not automatically ban 80% AR lowers when sold by their self without jigs. (you can still purchase the jig separately).
AR lowers are not banned.
This ruling does not apply to all 80% products.
It primarily impacts 80% pistol frames bundled in kits.
so….76% Frames are still legal.