The question
Whether the ATF's 2022 rule interpreting the Gun Control Act to cover certain weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers is facially inconsistent with the Act.
Bondi v. Vanderstok
What the Court decided
The Court affirmed the ATF's 2022 rule against a facial challenge, holding it is not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act of 1968. Some weapon parts kits, such as Polymer80's "Buy Build Shoot" kit that assembles into a semiautomatic pistol in about 20 minutes, qualify as a "weapon" that may readily be converted to expel a projectile under Section 921(a)(3)(A). Some partially complete frames and receivers likewise fall within Section 921(a)(3)(B), because the artifact nouns "frame" and "receiver" can describe not-yet-complete objects and ATF has long regulated some unfinished ones. Because at least some regulated products clearly fall within the statute, the facial challenge fails.
How the justices split
7-2The Court's opinion
Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
The rule is not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act. Some weapon parts kits qualify as a "weapon" under Section 921(a)(3)(A) because artifact nouns can describe unfinished objects with a clear intended function, the statute treats starter guns as weapons, and the text contemplates that some items short of fully operable firearms qualify. Kits like Polymer80's require no more work than a starter gun to complete. Some partially complete frames and receivers fall within Section 921(a)(3)(B) because those terms can describe not-yet-complete objects and ATF has long regulated some unfinished ones. Because at least some regulated products clearly qualify, the facial challenge fails.
Concurring
Sotomayor, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Concurring
Kavanaugh, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Dissenting
Thomas, writing alone
Filed a dissenting opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
Dissenting
Alito, writing alone
Filed a dissenting opinion. The syllabus does not state its reasoning.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the ATF's rule is not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.
Source: syllabus, Held
Some weapon parts kits, such as Polymer80's "Buy Build Shoot" kit that can be assembled into a semiautomatic pistol in about 20 minutes, qualify as a "weapon" under Section 921(a)(3)(A).
Source: syllabus, Held
Some partially complete frames and receivers fall within Section 921(a)(3)(B), and ATF has for decades interpreted the statute to reach some unfinished frames and receivers.
Source: syllabus, Held
Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Thomas and Alito each filed dissenting opinions.
Source: syllabus, lineup