This Deep Dive is based on the excellent podcast “Supreme Court, Ghost Guns, and ATF Regulatory Power” (embedded in the 2nd player below), which was published in association with the Firearms Research Center.
If you’re a gun owner who’s ever heard the term “ghost gun” and wondered what all the fuss is about—this latest Supreme Court case should be on your radar.
In a recent podcast discussion with Professor George Mocsary from the University of Wyoming College of Law, listeners got a crash course on how the federal government, through the ATF, just tightened its grip on unfinished firearms—and how the Supreme Court let them do it.
Look How They Are Defining “Ghost Guns”?
“Ghost guns” are nothing new. They’re simply firearms that are built from kits or unfinished parts—like an 80% lower receiver—that previously didn’t require a background check or serial number. Americans have been making guns at home since before the founding of this country. But in 2022, the ATF decided to change the rules mid-game, treating some of these parts and kits as if they were guns themselves.
That rule is what got challenged in VanDerStok v. Garland—and it’s what the Supreme Court just upheld.
What Did the Supreme Court Just Do?
The Court didn’t issue a full decision on the case yet—it just ruled to let the ATF’s new regulation stay in effect while the case plays out. That sounds technical, but the consequences are already real. Now, the ATF has wide authority to treat gun parts and kits like completed firearms. And how do they decide what counts as a “gun”? Apparently, even marketing materials could tip the scales.
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a strong dissent, calling out how the agency twisted Congress’s words to suit its own agenda. He argued that the law refers to actual firearms and finished receivers—not blocks of aluminum or parts kits. He’s right—and his dissent matters because it shows that not every justice is okay with letting federal agencies make up rules that turn law-abiding Americans into felons overnight.
Why Should You Care?
Because this is bigger than just ghost guns.
If a federal agency like the ATF can redefine what counts as a firearm based on vague criteria—and change that definition depending on who’s in the White House—it sets a dangerous precedent. As Professor Mocsary put it, “What matters even more than having the perfect law is having a consistent law.” If the rules change every four years, how can anyone stay in compliance?
Small businesses that make or sell these parts are already feeling the pressure. Many operated legally for years under the ATF’s former guidelines. Now they’re being told those same products might be illegal—and that their marketing or packaging might be what pushes them over the line.
The Bigger Picture: Regulatory Power Run Wild
This is not just about one rule or one agency. As the professor explained, this is what happens when unelected bureaucrats are given power to create criminal penalties without Congress ever passing a law. It’s a symptom of a larger problem: agencies being weaponized to punish disfavored groups—like gun owners and the firearm industry.
Whether it’s the ATF, the SEC, or any other alphabet agency, the pattern is the same. Once these institutions get political, Americans are no longer governed by laws—they’re ruled by ever-changing interpretations of those laws.
FRC Director George A. Mocsary Discusses Bondi v. VanDerStok
Final Thoughts
If you believe in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, and in the idea that the law should be clear and consistent—not vague and political—then this case should concern you. The fight over ghost guns is just one front in the larger war over regulatory power.
Justice Thomas saw through the ATF’s overreach. Let’s hope the rest of the Court catches up before it’s too late.
Want to hear the full conversation? Listen to the embedded podcast with Professor Mocsaryfor for a deeper dive into the legal twists and turns behind this major case.
Visit firearmsresearchcenter.org to support legal scholarship defending your rights.
Note: This companion article reflects the perspectives discussed in the podcast and is intended for educational purposes only.
Assault Weapons: Federal & State Regulations in Light of Bruen ~ DEEP DIVE
Your Right to Hunt: A Core Part of the 2nd Amendment ~ DEEP DIVE
