A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. __ (2025). It is an administrative law case, not a Second Amendment case, but folks interested in firearms law will still want to know about it. The media has generally described this case as allowing the ATF to ban “ghost guns,” which is not exactly wrong but also is not precise. Read on for more details.
Overview. In recent years, more people have been buying gun parts, or gun kits, and completing the assembly of the firearm at home. Manufacturers and purchasers of these products generally have considered them not to be firearms when sold because they are not operable at that point. On this view, they don’t need to be given a serial number and sellers don’t need to be licensed dealers subject to federal oversight. As more of these products have been sold, more built-at-home firearms have been used in criminal activity. In that context, they are often called “ghost guns” because the lack of a serial number and lack of mandatory record-keeping by sellers makes them harder to trace than other firearms. In response to this trend, federal authorities enacted a new regulation, deeming these products to be firearms under federal law. Proponents of the build-at-home kits sued, alleging that the new regulation was inconsistent with the statute it was supposed to be implementing. Lower courts agreed, but the Supreme Court upheld the regulations, at least for now.
The statute at issue. The statute in question is the federal Gun Control Act. It defines a “firearm” to include “(A) any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(3) (emphases added). Under federal law, firearms manufacturers must place serial numbers on firearms, and firearms dealers must follow certain licensing and record-keeping requirements.
The administrative rule at issue. In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives (ATF) promulgated amendments to 27 C.F.R. 478.11-12, which regulate commerce in firearms. The apparent goal was to combat the increasing prevalence of “ghost guns” made from “parts kits” or “80% receivers” that were widely available online and that were showing up in more criminal investigations. Specifically, ATF amended the definition of “firearm” in the regulations expressly to include “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” And it amended the definition of a “frame or receiver” to include “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”
The legal challenge. Before the new rules took effect, “various gun manufacturers, at-home gunsmiths, and others” challenged the rules, contending that they were “in excess of statutory . . . authority.” 5 U. S. C. § 706. In short, administrative rules are supposed to implement statutes, not contradict or go beyond them – but the plaintiffs contended that ATF’s new definitions of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” were at odds with the statutory ones.
What the lower courts said. A district court, 680 F.Supp.3d 741 (N.D. Tex. 2023), and then the Fifth Circuit, 86 F.4th 179 (5th Cir. 2023), agreed with the plaintiffs.
What the Supreme Court said. The majority opinion, which was issued per curiam, noted that the plaintiffs raised what they described as a “facial” challenge to the regulations. Essentially, the plaintiffs claimed that the new regulations are so categorically at odds with the statutory definitions that none of the products covered by the regulations are within the scope of the statute. But the majority determined that there are at least some parts kits that meet the statutory definition of a firearm because they are “weapons” that may “readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” For example, the Court considered
Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit. It comes with “all of the necessary components to build” a Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol. And it is so easy to assemble that, in an ATF test, an individual who had never before encountered the kit was able to produce a gun from it in 21 minutes using only “common” tools and instructions found in publicly available YouTube videos.
I will add that Polymer80’s website states on the front page that it is “particularly known for its ‘80% frames’ that allow enthusiasts to build their own firearms legally in many jurisdictions.”
The Court concluded that the kit is a weapon because it is an “instrument of combat.” The fact that some assembly is required does not negate its character, any more than the fact that a child’s Christmas bicycle remains a bicycle even though a parent must attach the front wheel and insert the seat post before it is ready to ride. Or take the Court’s example: “A friend might speak of the table he just bought at IKEA, even though hours of assembly remain ahead of him.”
The Court also concluded that the kit may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive. Indeed, that is the whole point of the kit. It acknowledged that some kits are closer to finished than others, and some kits may not meet the statutory definition. But some do, and that is enough to defeat a facial challenge.
For similar reasons, the Court determined that at least some “partially complete” receivers qualify as “receivers” under the statute. In the Court’s view, if a chunk of polymer is identical to a firearm receiver but for a few extra plastic tabs that can be removed by an average person in a few minutes, common usage supports describing the item as a “receiver.”
Justice Kavanaugh concurred, noting that there is some judgment call in determining whether an item is a “firearm” or a “frame or receiver” under the regulations, and emphasizing that good faith disagreements or misunderstandings on that point should not result in criminal prosecutions.
Justice Sotomayor concurred, noting that any business that is uncertain whether its product is a “firearm” or a “frame or receiver” under the regulations can seek clarification from ATF.
Justice Jackson also concurred.
Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that the statutory definitions of “firearm” and “frame or receiver” are intentionally narrow and apply only to completely finished products. They further contended that treating an item (a parts kit) as what it might become (a firearm) opens the door to treating AR-15 rifles as machine guns, because they can be converted into fully automatic weapons with “relative ease.”
What’s next? More litigation, and perhaps more politics. On the litigation front, it is important to note that the majority’s opinion focuses on the idea that there are some potential parts kits that can fairly be described as firearms, defeating the plaintiffs’ facial challenge. But the fact that a close-to-finished kit like Polymer80’s can be regulated doesn’t tell us whether a less complete kit can be. At some point – 70% complete? 50% complete? – the kit becomes just a bunch of raw materials or components that haven’t yet taken on the character of a firearm. Drawing the line is a linguistic and philosophical puzzle, one that the Court left for another day. But companies that manufacture those kits and consumers who use them are likely to litigate whether this kit or that kit is covered by the ATF’s new rule.
On the political front, these rules were issued by the ATF under then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. But now we have a new president and a new attorney general. Will the new rules get amended again, or even withdrawn? It is safe to say that the new administration and the previous one don’t see eye to eye on gun law, so that seems entirely possible.