The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Biden era “Ghost Gun” rule by a 7-2 margin.
The case Vanderstok v. Garland challenged a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule that banned the sale of unfinished firearms frames. The Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) filed the case after an executive order by the Biden administration instructed the ATF to create a rule to ban privately manufactured firearms. The rule that was put into place required the serialization of incomplete frames and background checks before they could be sold.
Initially, the rule only applied to complete kits with jigs, and the frames and jigs could be sold independently. However, on December 27, 2022, the ATF issued a letter stating that all unfinished frames are now considered to be firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”). FPC claimed that the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”) because the ATF exceeded its authority in regulating privately manufactured firearms (“PMF”).
A District Court Judge in Texas agreed with the plaintiffs and blocked the rule from being enforced. The ATF appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit upheld the District Court ruling. After the decision, the government asked the Supreme Court for an administrative stay pending a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. The high court would grant the request and ultimately grant cert meaning they would hear the case.
The government’s case hinged on whether kits such as those sold by the now defunct Polymer80 were readily convertible. The ATF argued that they could turn a kit into a working firearm in less than 21 minutes. During oral arguments, Associate Justice Samuel Alito surmised these kits were like going to a grocery store and buying ingredients to make a salad. Associate Justice Amy Comey Barrett shot back and equated it more to a “Hello Fresh” order where all the ingredients are packaged together with instructions.
In its opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, SCOTUS said that the changes in technology made the rule necessary. He highlighted new materials and manufacturing processes in his conclusion. The materials included reinforced polymer, and the manufacturing tools included 3D printers.
Roberts wrote, “Recent years, however, have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold. When Congress adopted the GCA in 1968, “the milling equipment, materials needed, and designs were far too expensive for individuals to make firearms practically or reliably on their own.” 87 Fed. Reg. 24688. With the introduction of new technologies like 3D printing and reinforced polymers, that is no longer true. Today, companies are able to make and sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms in their own homes.”
The Supreme Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ complaints that the ATF considers “jigs,” “tools,” and “instructions” when deciding whether an incomplete “frame or receiver” is close enough to the finished product to fall under the control of the GCA. The court said it didn’t have to decide because what was in question was whether some unfinished frames were firearms. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that they were guns.
Roberts wrote, “As litigated, this case does not call on us to address what weight, if any, ATF may lawfully give jigs, tools, and instructions when deciding whether a frame or receiver is present. This case requires us to answer only whether subsection (B) reaches some incomplete frames or receivers. Saying that it does is enough to resolve the dispute before us.”
The ruling means that selling most unfinished frames without serial numbers is prohibited. Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito dissented.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
This is a bad sign.
I am surprised only by the lopsided vote. The oral arguments did not go particularly well; the lawyer was not a gun guy nor did he try to complete an 80%er in preparation so as to understand the process and difficulty. He did not point out that tracing does not solve crimes. A sad day indeed but a boon for 3D printers.
Supreme idiocy…
Bad! Unconstitutional! Wish I bought that 80 when I could have…..lesson learned.
“Justice Clarence Thomas and Alito dissented.”
The only two on the panel who care about freedom or The Constitution.
scotus isnot following their own rulings someone has got to them, or they are corrupt