Supreme Court Upholds Ghost Gun Regulation

In Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. ____ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to cover certain products that can readily be converted into an operational firearm or a functional frame or receiver is not facially inconsistent with the act. The decision allows the ATF to regulate so-called “ghost guns” by requiring serial numbers, sales receipts, and background checks.

Facts of the Case

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requires those engaged in importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms to obtain federal licenses, keep sales records, conduct background checks, and mark their products with serial numbers. The Act defines “firearm” to include “(A) any weapon . . . which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; [and] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”

As the Supreme Court explained in its opinion, recent years have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold, with companies now able to sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms at home. These kits vary widely in how complete they come and in how much work is required to finish them. Sales have grown exponentially, with law enforcement agencies reporting a dramatic increase in untraceable “ghost guns” used in crimes—from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 in 2021.

In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule (27 CFR §478.11) interpreting the Act to cover weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile,” and “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames or receivers. Before the ATF could enforce its rule, gun manufacturers and others filed what they described as a facial challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the GCA cannot be read to reach weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers.

The District Court agreed and vacated the rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that §921(a)(3)(A) categorically does not reach weapon parts kits regardless of completeness or ease of assembly, and that §921(a)(3)(B) reaches only finished frames and receivers.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 7-2. “The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

The Supreme Court first found that Section 478.11’s provisions addressing weapon parts kits are not facially invalid under §921(a)(3)(A). “As presented to us, this case does not ask us to resolve whether ATF’s new regulations in §478.11 and §478.12 may be lawfully applied to particular weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Instead, the plaintiffs have pursued what the lower courts called a ‘facial’ pre-enforcement challenge to the agency’s authority to regulate any weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. In a challenge like that, the government represents, ‘the possibility that [ATF’s regulation] may be invalid as applied’ in some cases ‘does not mean that the regulation is facially invalid.’ Instead, [the plaintiffs’] burden is to show that the Rule itself is inconsistent with the statute on its face.’”

Justice Gorsuch went on to note that Section 478.11 has two requirements. First, there must be a “weapon.” Second, the “weapon” must “be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” be “designed to do so,” or be “susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way.”

The Court ultimately concluded that some kits will satisfy both requirements, and, thus, the Gun Control Act allows the ATF to regulate partially finished frames and receivers.In support, it cited that like “weapon,” the artifact nouns “frame” and “receiver” may describe not-yet-complete objects. It further noted that statute uses these terms to encompass some unfinished items elsewhere, as in §923(i)’s serialization requirements for incomplete weapons, silencers, and destructive devices, and the ATF has for decades interpreted the statute to reach some unfinished frames and receivers.

Finally, Justice Gorsuch acknowledged that while the statute authorizes the ATF to regulate at least some incomplete frames or receivers that take minutes of work with common tools to complete, the Court’s reasoning has its limits. “Some products may be so far from a finished frame or receiver that they cannot fairly be described using those terms,” he wrote. “But this case, requires us to explore none of that.”