Justice Thomas Slams SCOTUS Firearm Ruling

On March 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of upholding a Biden-era regulation allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” These are weapons assembled from kits or parts that can be purchased online and are often untraceable because they lack serial numbers. As reported by Amy Howe for SCOTUS Blog, the justices agreed by a vote of 7-2 that the Gun Control Act of 1968 gives the ATF authority to regulate at least some ghost guns. However, the decision was not without strong pushback.

Thomas Voices Sharp Dissent

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a forceful dissent, arguing that the majority had essentially rewritten the law. “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one,” Thomas wrote, “but it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted.” In a separate article by Jenna Sundel for Newsweek, Thomas also warned that the ruling could lead to “unforeseeable consequences.” For Thomas, the issue wasn’t just about firearms – it was about respecting legislative boundaries and preventing agencies from overstepping.

Gorsuch Leads the Majority

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, explaining that the Gun Control Act’s definition of “firearm” covers kits that can be readily converted into working weapons. Gorsuch focused on the functionality of kits like Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit, which includes everything needed to make a working Glock-style pistol in a short amount of time. Amy Howe’s coverage in SCOTUS Blog quoted Gorsuch emphasizing that “an ordinary speaker might well describe the ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit as a ‘weapon,’” even before final assembly.

Sotomayor and Kavanaugh Offer Contrasting Concerns

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dismissed concerns about vagueness in the regulation. She argued that gun manufacturers have long followed the Gun Control Act and that the ATF’s rule was simply a continuation. On the other hand, Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed worry about fairness and criminal liability. In his concurring opinion, cited by SCOTUS Blog, he said the government must be cautious when prosecuting people who may not even realize they’re violating the law. Still, both joined the majority in upholding the regulation.

Alito Joins Thomas—But for Different Reasons

Justice Samuel Alito also dissented, though his reasoning diverged from Thomas’s. He criticized the majority for applying the Salerno test – used to determine facial challenges – without proper briefing or justification. As detailed by Amy Howe, Alito believed the test was misapplied since it is more appropriate for constitutional challenges to laws, not regulatory actions. His concern was more about judicial procedure than the Second Amendment itself.

Thomas Targets ATF Overreach

In his scathing dissent, Justice Thomas accused the ATF of drastically overstepping its authority. He argued that unfinished parts do not fit the legal definition of a firearm or a receiver. In Braden Langley’s video for Langley Outdoors Academy, Thomas is quoted saying, “The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits.” Langley praised Thomas’s dissent as common-sense resistance against government overreach, calling it a “fire-spitting” document.

Langley: This Is About Bureaucracy, Not Guns

Braden Langley went even further, criticizing the very structure of executive agencies like the ATF. In his video breakdown, he argued that the real danger lies in letting unelected bureaucrats redefine laws passed by Congress. “The problem is not the ghost guns,” Langley said. “The problem is literally an executive bureaucratic agency just wrote a law by redefining a term.” He warned that this decision could be used in future cases to justify reclassifying semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 as machine guns.

“Artifact Noun” Argument Draws Fire

The majority’s use of the term “artifact noun” also drew sharp criticism from Thomas. As explained by Newsweek’s Jenna Sundel, Gorsuch used the term to argue that even disassembled weapons are still “weapons” because of their intended purpose. Thomas rejected this logic, saying it introduces “unforeseeable consequences and offers no limiting principle.” In his view, that kind of flexible interpretation only opens the door for further federal overreach and ambiguity in criminal law.

A Shift from Cargill to VanDerStok

Langley noted the contradiction between this case and a prior decision in Cargill v. Garland, where the court refused to let the ATF redefine bump stocks as machine guns. In his video, Langley highlighted how Thomas pointed out this inconsistency. “We won on Cargill,” he said, “but we lost on VanDerStok.” To Thomas, the inconsistency is dangerous: the Court declined to redefine “machine gun” in one case, but allowed the ATF to redefine “firearm” in another.

Ghost Gun Crime Spike Cited

While critics like Thomas raised constitutional concerns, supporters of the ruling leaned on rising crime stats to justify the rule. According to Newsweek, ghost gun-related crimes spiked from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 in 2021. The government argued that regulating these kits was necessary to prevent criminals from sidestepping background checks and building untraceable weapons. Gorsuch cited this spike in his majority opinion as part of the justification for upholding the rule.

No Clear Line Drawn

Even those in the majority admitted some gray areas. Justice Kavanaugh acknowledged that the line between a kit and a regulated firearm isn’t always clear. That uncertainty worries many, especially when the result can be criminal prosecution. Justice Sotomayor brushed off these concerns, saying that manufacturers can simply ask the ATF for guidance. But Langley and Thomas both see this lack of clarity as a serious problem, especially given how vague the word “readily” is when determining if something can be turned into a weapon.

A Matter of Limits and Language

This whole decision turns on one question: Who gets to define the law? That’s why Thomas’s dissent stands out. He’s not just upset about guns – he’s sounding the alarm about a system that lets federal agencies bend words like “frame” or “receiver” to fit their goals. That’s a big deal. Words like “readily convertible” may sound harmless, but when those words carry the force of law, the stakes get real. If an agency can say a block of metal is a gun because it might become one, where does that stop?

Why Thomas Might Be the Last Firewall

What makes Justice Thomas’s dissent so striking is that it reflects a long fight – not just for the Second Amendment but for the boundaries of power in a democracy. He sees the court’s blessing of the ATF’s rule as a dangerous precedent. As Langley put it, “Even when the good guys control it… you don’t give these executive bureaucracies this level of power.” Whether people agree with him or not, Thomas is raising a question that goes way beyond ghost guns. It’s about how much power we’re willing to hand over – and who we trust to wield it.