Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Case Challenging Government Overreach in Firearms Regulation

LAKEWOOD, Colo. – There is just one month remaining until the oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States in VanDerStok v. Garland.

The landmark case challenges the ATF’s 2022 regulations about homemade hobby kits, where the ATF reinterpreted its own authority after 50 years of such kits being outside of the definition of “firearm.” By re-defining them, ATF now says that it has regulatory power over them.

VanDerStok v. Garland Case Background

Before the mass production of firearms, the practice of self-manufacture was correctly understood as belonging to the natural right of self-defense. The right to craft and customize firearms enables us to determine which arms we will “keep and bear”—and it ensures that we have access to arms without dependence on a government-approved set of suppliers. Thus, the right of self-manufacture is among the natural rights that came under explicit protection when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Technological changes don’t change our rights, and the American People still have a constitutionally protected natural right to craft and customize guns. But gun control activists and anti-gun politicians have become focused on suppressing this right—especially through use of the misleading term “ghost guns,” a derogatory label. Their intent is to tarnish the good reputation of peaceable citizens like Mike, who have dedicated themselves to helping others be self-sufficient and confident in their abilities to defend themselves, or Jennifer, who protected our community for eight years in law enforcement.

Giving in to pressure from both activists and President Biden, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) decided, in a new rule issued April 2022, to dramatically exceed their authority and violate congressional intent.

This Final Rule, addressing the “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms,” alters the legal landscape surrounding firearms regulation, giving complete discretionary power to the ATF and its Director to decide what the ATF can regulate and how. The ATF is usurping Congress’s legislative power and is wielding the regulation to severely burden the practice of self-manufacture and the businesses that facilitate it.

Un-Checked Federal Agency Overreach

The case presents fundamental issues about overreaching federal agencies, and how they can encroach on our constitutional rights. For that reason, the fight in VanDerStok transcends the issue of whether ATF’s definition is legal or not; it represents a resounding call to arms against government overreach, and a defense of the principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded.

Mountain States Legal Foundation’s Center to Keep and Bear Arms Director, Michael McCoy, said, “Through this Final Rule, the ATF not only exceeded the authority given to it by Congress, but also blatantly ignored 250 years of history and a robust tradition of private gunsmithing in this country in an attempt to infringe upon the constitutionally protected rights of all Americans.”

As we approach the oral argument, Mountain States Legal Foundation remains steadfast in our mission to protect individual liberties and uphold the Constitution. As this case proceeds, we look forward to maintaining our unwavering conviction and resolve.

Mountain States Legal Foundation

Mountain States Legal Foundation is a nonprofit, public-interest legal firm established in 1977. MSLF is dedicated to individual liberty, limited and ethical government, and the benefits of the free enterprise system. MSLF defends its clients through pro bono litigation and seeks victory for its clients at the highest level possible to establish binding legal precedents to benefit millions of Americans. Through its litigation and public discourse, MSLF educates the American public on the threat unrestrained government presents to our liberties. Learn more at mslegal.org