In a 7-2 ruling on March 26, the Supreme Court upheld the ATF’s controversial regulation that allows the agency to treat certain gun parts kits (aka “ghost guns”) as firearms under the Gun Control Act.
The case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, centered around the ATF’s 2022 rule that expanded the definition of a “firearm” to include some unfinished frames, receivers, and gun kits that could be “readily converted” into working firearms.
These are often referred to as “ghost guns” by legacy media because they can be built at home and lack serial numbers, making them difficult to trace.
The Fifth Circuit previously sided with the plaintiffs—manufacturers and private gun owners—finding that the ATF had overstepped its statutory authority.
We are disappointed with the Supreme Court’s misguided decision but recognize this is only one battle in a multi-generational war over the scope of government and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. https://t.co/BEjVgoyO2O
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 26, 2025
SEE ALSO: Springfield Armory Shakes Up The TRP Lineup
But the Supreme Court reversed that decision, saying that because some kits are so close to functioning firearms, the ATF can regulate them.
Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that kits like Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” set can be completed in about 20 minutes with common tools, and therefore qualify as “weapons” under the Gun Control Act.
The Court emphasized that the ATF rule was not unconstitutional “on its face,” meaning it could still be challenged in future cases on an as-applied basis.
The Bigger Problem? The Gray Area
While the ruling confirms that some kits are fair game for regulation, it leaves manufacturers and gun owners guessing where the line is drawn.
Justice Gorsuch acknowledged the “gray area” created by the ruling, noting that not every kit or unfinished part will meet the threshold of “readily convertible.” That legal uncertainty opens the door to more litigation—and potential overreach by the ATF.
Justice Thomas dissented, warning that the ruling invites abuse by executive agencies and erodes the rule of law.
Washington Gun Law’s Take: Somewhere Between a Blow and a Shrug
William Kirk of Washington Gun Law described the decision as “somewhere in the middle.” He stressed that the plaintiffs faced a steep challenge because they brought a facial challenge—arguing the rule was invalid in all circumstances.
Since the Supreme Court found that some kits clearly qualify as firearms, that challenge was bound to fail.
Kirk warned, however, that the ruling puts gun owners and manufacturers in a “massive gray area,” giving the ATF wide latitude to decide what counts as a firearm. He likened it to “taking the leash off a dog in a crowded park.”
Bottom Line:
The ATF won this round, but the Supreme Court left a lot unsaid. Manufacturers still don’t know where the line is between a legal hunk of polymer and a “firearm” under federal law.
That uncertainty—and the power it gives federal agencies—is what has many in the 2A community on edge.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Amen
The NFA and GCA is totally unconstitutional, so therefore any regulations or rulings made by the criminal ATF is also unconstitutional and the damn Supreme Court needs to start backing the U.S. Constitution as written, and explained by the founders, and not some criminal agency of the US government!
Ridiculous
Unbelievable that the Conservative Justices sided with the liberals on this. The ruling goes against the Constitution.
The U.S. is gone. Freedom is dead. The world got what it wanted. Criminals WILL still make these because CRIMINAL DON’T CARE ABOUT THOSE LAWS!!! They have only stopped law abiding citizens from making the 80% lowers. F*cking idiots.
Amen
With this SCOTUS ruling, ATF could find anyone in the U.S. who has a small workshop to be in possession of a handgun, as zip guns are easily fashioned from a handful of common plumbing supplies and scrap pieces of wood. Thanks SCOTUS!
Just as soon as Pam Bondi took over as AG she should have dropped the case to begin with and the “regulation” which it was based on removed by the ATF because it is clearly unconstitutional or at least because it should be re-evaluated due to it being at odds with the position of the new administration. Everyone knew this case had the potential to go sideways because of how it makes no sense and combine that with a majority of the Supreme Court knowing nothing about guns and a propensity towards far left ideologies. They knew this had the potential to create a multitude of additional problems but as usual, this new administration is good at talking the talk but terrible at walking the walk.
The case was poorly argued so the loss was not a great surprise. And of course Robert’s typically narrow and squishy opinion leaves things worse than before. The next step is for Patel to remove the Biden era Frame and Receiver regulation and/or replace it with a very liberal and concise definition.
In response to @Frank, I suggest that 19 April (the anniversary of Lexington & Concord) be also celebrated as National Open Carry Day.
I meant to say Gorsuch’s atypical and squishy opinion plus Kavanaugh’s disappointing concurrence …
Gorsuch is wrong! It takes hours to machine a plastic receiver to work properly. The metal receivers take much more time. If someone is machining several at a time, yes, it can be done much more efficiently. Doing several at a time is manufacturing. That is already illegal. Another point: Do you really trust the Biden’s ATF to actually give the Court accurate numbers of “Ghost Guns” seized from criminals? I say HECK NO!!! The new, honest, ATF and FBI need to audit those facts and figures and re-present this case to the Court. Personally, I suspect that thousands of seized firearms that had been “neutered” (serial numbers removed by criminals) were included in the ATF’s bogus numbers. Stay safe and keep fighting. j
Yet one more reason to defund, disband, demolish, and destroy the ATF. If there is no ATF, they can’t continue their innumerable attempts to ignore and erode the God-given Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
The 250th anniversary of Lexington and Concord is upon us, and it’s worth remembering that the greatest Revolution in the world, which gave birth to the greatest nation in the world, began because the government was attempting to deny the People’s rights, by seizing and destroying the People’s Arms. Our greatest problem is that an ever-increasing number of people in this country know neither God nor our nation’s history.
If in the machining, you make an unrepairable error, you now have a registered paper weight. The AR takes a lot longer than ten minutes to complete.
outlaw ghost guns and only spooks will have ghost guns
No; only criminals will have them (same as now).
You think that’s good?
bitch bitch bitch
Immature response instead of an actual answer (why am I not surprised?).
you’re the smart guy that knows all figure it out
Looks like snowflake “paul I’ll call you what I want/1st Amendment” got his panties in a knot and blocked further responses to his inane comments.
Maybe “paul I’ll call you what I want/1st Amendment” didn’t block responses to his comment: my comment won’t accept responses either and I didn’t block anything.
you are a laugh riot….blocking you….name calling…….whats next?