In a disturbing blow to defenders of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has upheld a Biden Administration rule targeting “ghost guns,” the untraceable firearms that have long symbolized freedom for patriots and hobbyists across our great nation.
In a 7-2 decision, the court endorsed an audacious overreach by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), requiring serial numbers, background checks, and age verification for gun kits purchased online.
Previously, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued that a 2022 rule regarding weapons assembled from parts bought online without a background check overstepped the agency’s authority.
The rule has controversially redefined the legal meaning of “firearm,” “frame,” and “receiver” as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Judge Kurt Engelhardt commented in the decision that, “law-making power—the ability to transform policy into real-world obligations—lies solely with the legislative branch.”
“An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day and felonious the next—yet that is exactly what ATF accomplishes through its Final Rule,” he wrote.
Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, lambasted the ATF with a barrage of sharp criticism.
“ATF’s overarching goal in the Final Rule is to replace a clear, bright-line rule with a vague, indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test. ATF’s rationale: The new uncertainty will act like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of American gun owners,” Oldham wrote, drawing on an ancient tale of a deadly blade suspended by a single strand of horsehair.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court supported the Biden regime’s regulation imposing stringent controls on so-called “ghost guns.”
The pivotal case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, involved the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s 2022 rule that redefined “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to encompass certain weapon parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers—items that law-abiding hobbyists, veterans, and collectors have utilized for years to construct their own firearms legally at home.
Despite the clear language of the statute, the Supreme Court—led by Justice Neil Gorsuch and supported by the Court’s liberal bloc—determined that the ATF’s extensive interpretation was not “facially inconsistent” with the law. This decision represents a significant victory for the previous administration.
In plain terms, your semi-milled piece of aluminum is now a “firearm” because the ATF dictates it.
Even more perilous is the precedent this sets: if the government can label an unfinished product as a “weapon,” what’s to stop them from extending that logic to raw materials, tools, or even 3D printer files?
This 7-2 decision mandates that firearm kits sold online must include serial numbers and that purchasers must undergo background checks and age verification.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito stood firm, dissenting in their defense of constitutional gun rights.
Justice Thomas, in a powerful dissent, accused the Court’s majority of rewriting federal law to grant more power to the executive branch—specifically unelected bureaucrats at ATF. He warns that by accepting the ATF’s interpretation, the Court opens the door to further regulatory overreach without Congressional authorization.
Thomas rejects the majority’s reliance on the concept of “artifact nouns” (used to describe unfinished objects), asserting that this linguistic theory has no place in serious statutory interpretation.
Alito agrees with Thomas and adds that the ATF’s rule targets people who lawfully build firearms at home, with overly vague regulations. Alito criticizes the ATF for regulating not just nearly-complete frames, but also tools, jigs, and even instructions. He warns this is a massive expansion of power.
Alito highlights the risk of selective enforcement: lacking clear boundaries could mean innocent Americans may face prosecution without realizing they broke any law.
Read the full ruling below:
