Supreme Court Sides With Biden’s ATF 7-2 (This Hits Gun Owners Hard)

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 7-2 decision that upheld a Biden-era federal rule targeting “ghost guns.” This case, known officially as Bondi v. Vanderstok, represents a major blow to gun rights advocates. The regulation in question redefines unfinished gun parts kits – often sold online and assembled at home – as firearms under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

That change brings new requirements like serial numbers, background checks, and sales records. According to NPR’s Nina Totenberg, the ruling will likely reduce untraceable guns on the streets – but not without raising serious legal and constitutional questions.

The Faces Behind the Ruling

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, made clear that kits such as Polymer 80’s “Buy Build Shoot” sets fall within the legal definition of a firearm because they are easy to complete in under an hour. Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, expressing deep concerns about agency overreach and regulatory abuse. As noted by Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk, this wasn’t a Second Amendment case directly, but rather a test of the ATF’s authority under the Gun Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Still, the consequences for the firearm community are very real.

Facial Challenge: A High Legal Bar

The plaintiffs in Bondi v. Vanderstok faced a massive uphill battle. Kirk explained in his video that this was a “facial challenge” – meaning they had to prove the rule was unconstitutional under every imaginable circumstance. That’s a near-impossible standard. The court concluded that because some kits are clearly “readily convertible” into working firearms, the challenge failed. Gorsuch’s majority opinion argued that “readily convertible” is a long-accepted part of ATF’s interpretation of the law, dating back decades.

A Gray Area the Size of a Battlefield

One of the main concerns voiced by Kirk and echoed in other sources is the wide-open gray zone the court’s ruling leaves behind. While some parts kits now fall under ATF regulation, others may not – and the Supreme Court didn’t draw a hard line. That creates uncertainty for gun kit manufacturers, dealers, and buyers alike. In Kirk’s words, it’s “like putting the ATF in a dog pen and taking the leash off.” With no clear rules, future enforcement could swing wildly depending on political leadership or internal ATF policies.

Unfinished Kits Now Count—Sometimes

Copper Jacket TV’s host William described the ruling as a “complete blowout” for gun owners. He pointed out that the Supreme Court didn’t say all kits were firearms, just that some are, and that’s enough to uphold the rule on its face. What counts as “readily convertible”? That’s still vague. And that’s a big part of the problem: gun owners and companies don’t have a clear standard. William of Copper Jacket warned this ambiguity will lead to more lawsuits, more arrests, and more confusion.

Legal Limits… or Legal Chaos?

While the court upheld the ATF’s power, it also left the door open to future challenges. According to Guns & Gadgets host Jared Yanis, the court admitted there are limits to the ATF’s authority. Not all kits are firearms. Not every unfinished receiver qualifies. But because Polymer 80’s kits were easily assembled, the ATF’s regulation isn’t “facially invalid.” In plain English, the court said: “This rule isn’t illegal in every case, so we can’t throw it out.” That’s not much comfort to Americans unsure whether their kits will make them felons overnight.

Gorsuch’s Logic: The Kit Says It All

In a particularly pointed part of his opinion, Gorsuch wrote that the name “Buy Build Shoot” was enough to explain the kit’s purpose. That sounds clever, but it raises questions about what standards are being applied. Are we making law based on product branding? As Four Boxes Diner attorney Mark W. Smith explained, the court relied on “artifact nouns” like “weapon” that can include disassembled or incomplete items if their function is obvious. This logic opens the door for the government to apply broad power to many objects that aren’t technically firearms – yet.

A Dangerous Precedent?

Justice Thomas sounded the alarm in his dissent. He argued that by expanding what counts as a firearm without congressional input, the court was effectively rewriting the law to empower bureaucrats. Yanis agreed, calling this a dangerous road where regulatory agencies slowly chip away at freedom. He warned that if we let agencies decide what’s a gun today, there’s nothing stopping them from doing the same with magazines, parts, or even cleaning kits tomorrow. That slope, once you’re on it, is steep and slippery.

Not a Second Amendment Case… But Still a Big Deal

Every source pointed out that this wasn’t a Second Amendment case – at least not directly. That might explain why the ruling didn’t apply the court’s own 2022 standard from the Bruen case, which says gun laws must be rooted in historical tradition. But even without touching the Second Amendment, this case touches every gun owner. Now, legal homemade gun kits are suddenly regulated like commercial firearms. The practical result? Gun control gets stronger without a single vote in Congress.

Could Trump Undo It?

There’s still a political card to play. Both Mark Smith and Yanis pointed out that a future Trump administration could repeal this ATF rule. The Supreme Court didn’t say the regulation must exist – just that it can under the current law. A new administration could toss it in the trash. Smith even floated the idea of rewriting clearer, fairer rules that draw a firm line between hobbyist projects and easily assembled weapons. Whether that happens depends on who holds power in 2025 and beyond.

A Court Sending Mixed Signals

Nina Totenberg of NPR highlighted a key contradiction: while the court ruled against gun rights here, it also recently upheld a ban on firearms for domestic abusers – without requiring historical precedent. That goes against its own Bruen ruling. And in 2022, the court expanded gun rights dramatically. Now, it seems to be retreating from that position. The result? Confusion. As Professor Adam Winkler put it, the signals are mixed. This isn’t the strong pro-Second Amendment court many thought it was.

Why This Case Matters So Much

Here’s what makes this decision so important: it tests the line between homemade freedom and government control. The idea that Americans can build firearms at home is older than the country itself. This ruling doesn’t erase that right, but it makes exercising it riskier, murkier, and a lot more bureaucratic. And while the court insists that only some kits are affected, the fear is clear – once that door is open, regulators can swing it wide. Gun control by interpretation is still gun control.

A Tactical Loss, but Not a Strategic Collapse

Yes, this is a loss. The Supreme Court handed a powerful tool to the ATF. But as Mark Smith emphasized, this ruling was narrow. It didn’t greenlight a ban. It didn’t rewrite the Constitution. And it left space for new cases to push back. Gun rights attorneys still have plenty of room to fight. The battlefield just shifted. The decision hurts – but it’s not the end. Now more than ever, staying informed and engaged is critical, because the next ruling might cut even deeper – or flip the script entirely.

To dive deeper into this topic, check out the NPR article here, and the full video on Washington Gun Law here, on Copper Jacket TV here, on Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News here, and on The Four Boxes Diner here.