Supreme Court Appears Poised to Make a Left Turn Against Gun Rights

The Supreme Court last Tuesday ruled it will likely uphold a Biden Administration restriction against certain firearm manufacturing kits, signaling a potential shift in its usually pro-gun thinking. The kits, which include unfinished firearm receivers, unofficially called 80% lowers, and other parts, like a barrel and trigger, necessary to assemble a working rifle or handgun, have long been federally legal and easily purchased online. The ATF in 2022 amended the definition of a firearm to broadly include the kits.

On October 8, the court heard oral arguments from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and plaintiff gun dealers in Garland v. VanDerStok, a now yearslong case that fundamentally challenges what, exactly, defines a firearm. That the court has signaled deference to the ATF is surprising, especially considering just months ago it ruled against agency decision-making powers in June, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. 

In that case, the court “limited the executive branch’s authority to expand laws through administrative regulations.” Greg Germain, a professor of law at New York’s Syracuse University, opined that the court’s decision to rule in the ATF’s favor signals it believes the new regulations created by the agency in response to the firearm kits simply follow Congress’ existent definition of a firearm, rather than materially expanding upon it.

Despite ruling in favor of the ATF, the court appears split along lines similar to its 5-4 ruling last year, when it refused to block the new regulations while the case continued. Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices in the majority opinion. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito appears receptive to the plaintiffs’ arguments that firearm component kits containing unfinished receivers do not necessarily constitute a firearm under the current definition found in federal law.

Alito seemingly held up a blank sheet of paper and a pen and questioned, “Is this a grocery list.” Alito asked Elizabeth Prelogar, who is representing the government, whether raw ingredients for a breakfast meal would constitute an omelet. Justice Barrett countered the point, questioning whether it was an accurate comparison to the ATF’s new rule and wondering whether such raw ingredients don’t constitute a meal kit that could be readily cooked with little effort.

Prelogar complemented Barrett’s, claiming it was an “apt analogy” and that the government is “not suggesting the scattered components that might have some entirely separate and distinct function could be aggregated and called a weapon.”

The Gun Control Act, ratified by Congress in 1972, states that firearm regulations apply to “any weapon which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” The language of the law specifically cites the core of any firearm, the “frame or receiver of any such weapon,” as the key component that makes a firearm – even if such a component and its other requisite pieces aren’t necessarily assembled or functional in their current state. 

The case reached the Supreme Court after both a U.S. District Court in Texas and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the regulation’s challengers. Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, who operate firearm companies, joined various gun rights groups and unfinished firearm receiver manufacturers in challenging the ATF’s authority.

In their brief, the plaintiffs argued the law doesn’t apply to firearm kits. The groups’ lawyers argued the ATF’s new rulemaking “significantly expands upon the language in the law” rather than merely interpreting existing law, echoing the sentiments raised in challenging agency authority in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

Although the Court’s final ruling is yet to be written, a decision favorable to the ATF won’t necessarily restrict the online sale of firearm parts, which has become a multi-billion dollar industry in the U.S. Firearm kits that don’t contain any unfinished firearm frame or receiver will still be federally legal, despite some state further restricting such kits. 

Gun kits that contain all other components except for the frame or receiver are frequently used to upgrade factory firearms. Individual firearm components and accessories, like stocks, barrels, triggers, and grips will also remain legal – those components are specifically excluded from the Gun Control Act’s regulations, which carves out exceptions for non-firearm components that cannot alone be converted into a working firearm.