Understanding The Bondi v. VanDerStok Decision

Breeding bureaucratic overreach and confusion over the Second Amendment

April 08, 2025 By Darwin Nercesian, News Field Editor

We all look at grey areas of the law differently. For example, some of us see them as convenient, providing just enough room to know where we can bend without breaking, while others have understandably lost faith in government agencies and the judicial system, preferring less grey area so that we are always on sure footing when it comes to legal challenges. I’m not here to criticize either way of thinking, but I will admit to being a member of the latter, wanting to know precisely what the law is, whether I agree with it or not, and remain on the side that does not threaten my family’s safety or freedom. It does not escape me that I am clearly speaking about the fear of my government, a vessel for tyranny that sailed a long time ago, a tragedy that, ironically, the Founding Fathers tried to preempt with the Second Amendment.

The unfortunate reality is, however, that those in government know the Founder’s intent also and have been hard at work for years attempting to pervert and dismantle it to protect their own interests through subjugation. Whether you’re a gun owner or work in the firearms industry, you know the feeling of being hunted day after day by this ominously dark cloud constantly shifting the landscape in its favor to cast a shadow of criminality upon Americans posing no threat to anyone while exercising their Constitutional rights through law-abiding activities.

Well, the United States Supreme Court just tipped its hat to the tyrannical thunderstorm by broadening that grey area and giving the ATF even more discretion to play gotcha games with the law against American citizens. While this is a bad thing, I’ll also explain how we’ve come full circle back to where we started. So, what tangible difference did all of this make in the end? Not a whole lot, is the answer. But it did foster a more unstable foundation for those who sell and purchase parts kits, waste a ton of taxpayer resources, and prove that the majority of the United States Supreme Court gives far more reverence to corrupt infringements upon the Second Amendment than they do to the plain text and spirit of the Constitution.

Whose case is this?

While I don’t back down from holding feet to the fire with the Trump administration, Pam Bondi, or anyone regarding the Second Amendment, I have to point out that the case, now known as Bondi v. VanDerStok, is a holdover matter from the Biden administration that was originally Garland v. VanDerStok. It was entirely litigated by that regime, with the government losing in the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before taking the case to the Supreme Court. Only the ruling itself has been issued during President Trump’s second term with Pam Bondi at the helm of the Department of Justice.

I don’t make this distinction to absolve the current administration or the DOJ of all responsibility, as they are now involved whether they like it or not. Between the recent hiring of Robert Leider as ATF Chief Counsel and Assistant Director, slamming the brakes on acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson’s argument against silencers being protected by the Second Amendment, the repurposing of ATF personnel to aid the FBI at the border, and reinstatement of the Second Amendment rights restoration provision for the first time since 1992, it may seem like we are headed down a better path than the previous four years, but time and substantive change will be the judge of that. In the meantime, Pam Bondi could step into the fray, thank the Supreme Court for its opinion, then shut the rule down anyway. It isn’t a codified law, and doing so would send a clear message to Americans about this administration's stance. This is where the current leadership will take responsibility and do the right thing, or they won’t. We’re watching…

What is a facial challenge?

I cannot stress enough how important it is to understand what is meant by the legal term “facial challenge.” This is when a law is argued unconstitutional on its face, inherently flawed, and invalid in any application. In this case, the Supreme Court majority asserts that plaintiffs argued the ATF’s frame or receiver rule, 27 CFR § 478.12, is inconsistent with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), particularly 18 U.S.C § 921(3):

“(3) The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.”

The majority opinion contends that some kits are so close to being a completed firearm or receiver that, in those instances, the statute allows the ATF to regulate them as such, according to the Court’s opinion written by Justice Gorsuch.

“(.a) Section 478.11’s provisions addressing weapon parts kits are not facially invalid under §921(a)(3)(A). That subsection contains two requirements: a “weapon” must be present, and that weapon must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way. Some weapon parts kits meet that description… While other kits may be so incomplete or cumbersome to assemble that they cannot fairly be described as weapons capable of ready conversion, the facial challenge fails because kits like Polymer 80’s clearly qualify.” Gorsuch writes.

But just as it seems, I have perhaps provided vindication for the Court’s decision. Think again, because this was an irresponsible handling of the issue, and hiding behind a very narrow scope will not absolve the Justices of their duty and responsibility to Americans and the Constitution. They just kicked that can down the road in what has to be one of the biggest chicken turd rulings I’ve ever witnessed.

Here’s where things start to smell pretty bad. The Supreme Court majority will have you believe that they were obligated to approach and answer VanDerStok as a facial challenge, whether or not the ATF frame or receiver rule exceeded the agency’s regulatory authority granted by the GCA, placing a heavy burden of proof upon plaintiffs to prove that this law could never be Constitutionally applied to any set of facts.

In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the Court’s approach as a facial challenge because the case was initiated to address an Administrative Procedures Act violation, meaning that the ATF was changing definitions within the law that the agency did not have legislative permission to engage in. Justice Alito also points out that the Court’s majority was wrong in “Asserting that the plaintiffs conceded to having brought a ‘facial’ challenge,” saying they “never conceded that point.”

We know that Justices Sotomayor, Kagen, and Jackson are in the leftist bag, and their decisions on any firearms-related cases are predetermined, however, it would take more than the three blind mice to pull off this level of judicial activism. Chief Justice Roberts has been seen as a “swing vote” on the Supreme Court and, in my opinion, is more or less likely to side with Democrats. He has drifted far from anything I would consider conservative and likely forgot most of what he ever knew about the Constitution because he seems to regard it as irrelevant.

As far as I’m concerned, Amy Coney Barrett makes it five Democrats on the bench as she has continually sided with the Court’s liberals. She voted against Trump’s petition to stay sentencing in his New York kangaroo court trial. She voted in favor of a restraining order that would prevent the President from pausing foreign assistance due to USAID corruption, which frees up $2 billion in taxpayer funds to be distributed overseas as if the money was burning a hole in America’s imaginary surplus.

She sided with the left on Rahimi, ignoring due process and asserting that federal law prohibiting subjects of domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is constitutional, even though these restraining orders are often issued in civil proceedings as a tool for leverage in marriage dissolutions without any evidence, and in some cases without any claims, of actual violence. She voted with Democrats against a voter ID initiative requiring Arizona residents to show proof of U.S. citizenship when voting. These are just some examples leading up to her decision on VanDerStok and giving context to CNN’s sentiment that she is “The last best hope for Supreme Court liberals.”

Barrett, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, has claimed to be an “originalist,” believing the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted based on the meaning of the text at the time it was adopted, however, this could not be further from the truth for all three, who view judicial precedent much more favorably than they do the plain text of the Constitution, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment. This was evident during confirmation hearings and is readily visible in the VanDerStok ruling, as reverence is issued in abundance regarding the GCA, without any hesitation as to whether the precedent itself is unconstitutional. This should not come as a surprise, however, as all three of these self-proclaimed “originalists” have, at one time or another, supported anti-Second Amendment legislature like the 1968 Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), and the 1986 Hughes Amendment.

While Alito joined Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting in the 7-2 minority with a strong legal foundation, Thomas remains the only true originalist on the Court, adhering to the spirit and text of the Constitution as if it were his sworn duty. There’s a reason for that. It is not only his sworn duty, but that of all the Justices. In his dissent, Thomas argues that the majority incorrectly interprets the GCA regarding the terms "frame" and "receiver," pointing out that they do not encompass unfinished frames, receivers, or parts kits. Justice Thomas also highlights the gross overreach of agency authority, pointing out that Congress could have authorized the ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one, but did not, thus limiting regulatory power to the defined items in the GCA. Additionally, Justice Thomas took issue with the Court effectively rewriting statutory text, arguing against the majority’s substitution of novel linguistic labels, such as “artifact-noun,” for traditional statutory interpretation.

What is an “artifact-noun?” I’m glad you asked. It is a linguistic concept describing nouns that refer to objects created by humans. The Supreme Court's majority argued that the term, “weapon” is an artifact noun, meaning that it can describe an object even if it's not yet fully finished or assembled, in this case referring to an incomplete frame or receiver.

Why this stinks…

With liberal activist Justices Sotomayor, Kagen, and Jackson being a moot point, we turn to the so-called conservatives, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Alito has referred to himself as a "practical originalist,” while Thomas is more of an absolute originalist. These two Justices have held firm to the Court’s conservative voice for some time. Unfortunately, as I’ve already pointed out, Roberts and Barrett feel compromised to the point I am not sure I even consider them swing votes. This leaves Gorsuch and Kavanaugh who I once thought of as conservatives and who have both called themselves originalists, but now feel more like swing votes. This is especially true with the Second Amendment where it seems they are quick to kick that proverbial can I talk about down the road before truly disrupting the debate with a solidified Constitutional foundation.

VanDerStok questioned the ATF’s lawmaking authority, making this narrow approach inappropriate and practically guaranteeing the agency would prevail. To be clear, they took the weasel’s way out, helping the majority narrow the scope enough to hand the ATF a victory that the district court and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could not find Constitutionally palatable. I would argue that this choice is too deliberately off-track to not be purposefully agenda-driven, especially in light of lower court rulings, and lends reason to keep a very watchful eye in the future on anyone claiming to be an originalist or a conservative for that matter.

How else did they get it wrong?

I’ll start by saying the Supreme Court did not delineate where any line might be drawn as to which kits would fall under regulation, which would not, or why. This leaves discretion on the matter to the ATF, who are no strangers when it comes to overreach violations of the APA. Great call! Now, we’re left wondering what constitutes a violation and on what agent’s whim one might be levied, a purposeful indistinction prohibited by the Constitution’s "void for vagueness" doctrine rooted in due process, which states that a law is invalid if it is not sufficiently clear. Laws are typically found void for vagueness if they do not specify what is required or what conduct is punishable. Of course, the ATF will argue that the frame or receiver issue is a “rule,” not a law. But what is a rule punishable by the full extent of the law, including fines and imprisonment? You guessed it. It’s a law. But is the ATF a legislative body? No, it isn’t, but that’s exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly what the Supreme Court just let them get away with while hiding behind such a narrow scope.

What the Supreme Court did, in effect, is unleash the ATF in the grey area, where the agency can not be trusted historically, and open up another likely round of taxpayer-funded lawsuits regarding the application of the “rule.” This isn’t much different from where we first started, with the ATF having the ability to make up laws as they go and then define what they mean to suit every challenge.

Where does this leave us?

The ruling tells us much more about the Supreme Court than it does the ATF. The High Court’s ruling exposes most of the Justices as smarmy legal elites who are either too afraid or too corrupt to uphold their duty to Americans and the United States Constitution. We now know that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett favor precedents like the NFA and the GCA over the document they swore their oath to. It also seems that the Justices are now handing interpretation of this matter over to the ATF less than a year after the Supreme Court overturned "Chevron deference," a 40-year-old precedent requiring courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous laws. Take this legal contradiction combined with the artificially narrow scope applied to VanDerStok and, like an autostereogram, the agenda appears.

Should we be surprised? Not really. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have previously indicated that they would support bans on machine guns, and both have found allegiance behind judicial over Constitutional precedent.

"In disapproving D.C.'s ban on handguns, in approving a ban on machine guns, and in approving longstanding regulations such as concealed-carry and felon-in-possession laws, Heller established that the scope of the Second Amendment right—and thus the constitutionality of gun bans and regulations—is determined by reference to text, history, and tradition,” according to Justice Kavanaugh

So, do we have a Constitution or don’t we?

But Heller didn’t establish the scope. The Second Amendment did, and it did so with such simplicity and character that any American who denies its meaning or pretends the single sentence requires any deeper interpretation behind its plain text is either disingenuous, obtuse or morally corrupt.

Anti-Second Amendment activists will argue that the Constitution is a living document, designed to be adaptable and evolve, allowing changes in interpretation and application to meet the needs of a changing society, even without formal amendments. Be aware of the wool pulled over your eyes, as those who decide what way it must adapt or evolve are typically the ones in power, and they rarely make such judgments based on what’s best for you, but rather what’s best for them.

The Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is truly designed to serve as the foundation for the freedom and liberty that America claims to represent. In fact, the Bill of Rights exists not necessarily to grant those first ten Amendments, but to recognize that they are inalienable or natural rights, fundamental entitlements inherent to all individuals, the concept of which stems from the belief that people possess certain fundamental liberties by virtue of being human, not granted by the government. Inalienable means they cannot be taken away or surrendered, and are considered inherent to human existence.

How then could such a foundational concept be fluid? Would you build anything meant to last upon a foundation so fragile as to flow like the tide?

If the spirit is dead, so is the letter…

One mustn’t ever discount the spirit of the law in the manner that we see being done today. Regulations, restrictions, and bans, whether issued by local, state, or federal governments who pretend to find hidden and misunderstood meaning in the Second Amendment that only they have the omniscience to interpret are nothing more than perversions of that spirit. We know through history that the Second Amendment is not a hunting right or one meant merely to guarantee home or personal protection. It is an inalienable liberty recognized by the Founding Fathers, designed to prevent a tyrannical government from using a standing army to oppress the people. As such, would historical analysis suggest that people be restricted to an overwhelming disparity in arms compared to that of said standing army? But the Constitution is so 1776, right?

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As a News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.