The case of Garland v. VanDerStok has caught national attention as several states are stepping up to challenge the ATF’s recent attempts to regulate gun parts kits and unfinished frames as firearms.
In a brief filed by 27 state attorneys general, including West Virginia and Montana, the states argue that the ATF is once again overreaching its statutory authority by expanding the Gun Control Act’s (GCA) definition of “firearm” to include parts kits and incomplete frames.
The states are urging the Supreme Court to rein in the ATF, arguing that such a move infringes on 2A rights and ignores the original intent of Congress.
ATF’s Pattern of Overreach
This isn’t the first time the ATF has tried to push the boundaries of its rule-making authority, and the states make that clear.
They point to past actions where the ATF has stretched the meaning of laws to fit political agendas—like classifying bump stocks as machine guns and regulating stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles.
Both of these moves have already faced heavy legal challenges, with courts striking down or questioning the ATF’s authority.
In the VanDerStok case, the ATF issued a rule trying to classify weapon parts kits and unfinished frames as firearms, claiming they can be “readily completed” into fully functioning guns.
This, according to the attorneys general, is not what the GCA or the National Firearms Act (NFA) ever intended.
States Fight Back Against ATF’s Attempts
The states’ argument is simple: the ATF is acting beyond the law, and the courts need to pull it back.
They argue that Congress never intended for weapon parts kits to be classified as firearms and that the agency has a history of ignoring the limits of its power.
In their brief, the states emphasize that the rule is more about imposing a political agenda than actually following the law.
They also highlight procedural issues, such as the ATF not allowing adequate time for public comment on the rule, making it difficult for states and others to challenge the rule before it was implemented.
This type of “act-now, justify-later” behavior, the states argue, shows a clear disregard for the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and should be scrutinized heavily by the courts.
Bottom Line
The states’ message to the Supreme Court is clear: the ATF has a history of stretching the law to fit its own goals, and the VanDerStok case is no different.
Whether it’s bump stocks, stabilizing braces, or now parts kits, the states are standing firm in their belief that the ATF is operating far outside its legal authority.
They urge the court to rule against the ATF and reaffirm that Congress—not a regulatory agency—decides what is and isn’t a firearm.
With so many states involved, this case could set a major precedent for future 2A cases.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE! ***
