Debunking the Myths: Why VanDerStock v. Garland Is About Protecting the Second Amendment, Not Fueling Gun Violence

We refuse to stay silent while the media and the uninformed continue pushing false narratives and scare tactics aimed at undermining our Second Amendment rights. The media and the Biden administration suggest that homemade firearms, often referred to as "ghost guns," are fueling a nationwide spike in gun violence, claiming that the Supreme Court's focus should be on whether these firearms should remain unregulated.

A recent article by Madiba K. Dennie titled "Ghost Guns Are Making the Gun Violence Crisis Worse. Will the Supreme Court Care?" recycles the same anti-gun rhetoric we've seen time and time again from the media. It pushes sweeping claims while ignoring the real legal and constitutional issues in VanDerStock v. Garland. This article regurgitates the usual flawed arguments, so let's break down these oversimplifications and set the record straight for those who truly understand and defend the Second Amendment.

The media and Biden administration often paint a picture where homemade firearms, referred to as "ghost guns," are supposedly fueling a nationwide spike in gun violence, suggesting that the primary question for the Supreme Court is whether these firearms should continue existing unregulated. However, this framing is completely misleading.

The real question in VanDerStock v. Garland is not whether gun violence is a problem but whether federal agencies, like the ATF, have the authority to redefine what constitutes a firearm under the law. The Gun Control Act of 1968 already provides a clear definition of what a firearm is, and unfinished frames and receivers do not meet that definition. The ATF’s 2022 rule attempts to bypass Congress and rewrite this definition without legislative authority.

This isn't about enabling violence; it’s about reining in government overreach. The Fifth Circuit's ruling that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority is a matter of following the law not about compromising public safety.

The media is often throwing around emotionally charged examples, like the tragic 2019 school shooting where an untraceable firearm was used. While tragic, it's disingenuous to suggest that homemade firearms are the primary driver of gun violence. In reality, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with manufactured, serialized firearms. According to FBI data, serialized handguns are overwhelmingly used in crimes, not so-called ghost guns. Yet, they focuse on a small subset of crimes, using emotional stories to justify sweeping regulatory changes.

This kind of manipulation does a disservice to the real debate at hand. The issue isn’t whether ghost guns are dangerous, but whether the government has the legal authority to impose sweeping regulations on privately-made firearms kits without going through Congress.

The assertion that DIY gun kits are like "Lego sets" that anyone can assemble in minutes is an oversimplification meant to scare the public. Building a firearm from an 80% lower requires tools, knowledge, and effort—not a casual afternoon activity. To compare that to assembling a toy set is intellectually dishonest and deliberately misleading.

Additionally, the media frequently promotes the idea that the ATF’s rule "makes sense" by claiming it applies the same logic to these kits as it does to fully assembled firearms. But that’s the entire problem. The rule doesn't make sense from a legal standpoint, because a partially finished frame or receiver is not a firearm by any legal definition. This is why the federal government just filed a letter with the Supreme Court correcting an inaccurate statement in their own brief, a sign that even they know the weaknesses in their argument.

At its core, this case is about upholding the Second Amendment and the limits of federal power. The right to build your own firearm has been part of American tradition since the country’s founding. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, and that includes the ability to make firearms for personal use. By allowing the ATF to redefine what constitutes a firearm, we allow unelected bureaucrats to erode our constitutional rights one regulation at a time.

These arguments completely ignore this larger constitutional concern. It makes no mention of the overreach at hand and instead focuses on fear-mongering about “untraceable” weapons, as if serial numbers and background checks have ever been the real barriers to criminal activity. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law, and imposing more regulations on law-abiding citizens does nothing to stop those with ill intent.

On October 8th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in VanDerStock v. Garland, and the outcome will have far-reaching implications for gun rights and agency overreach. If the Court rules in favor of the ATF, it sets a dangerous precedent where federal agencies can unilaterally expand their own powers without legislative approval.

This is why we, along with other plaintiffs, have fought hard against the ATF’s rule. It’s not just about stopping one misguided regulation, it’s about standing up for the rule of law and protecting the Second Amendment. As the government’s recent letter to the Court suggests, even they realize that the case isn’t as clear cut as they'd like the public to believe.

The emotional appeals and misleading arguments fail to address the core issue in this case: government overreach. 

At the end of the day, the ATF does not have the authority to rewrite the law, and the Supreme Court must uphold the Constitution in its ruling. 

We expect that on October 8th, the justices will see through the faulty arguments and uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision.