The ATF’s Overreach: Why the Stakes Are Higher Than Ever for Home Gun Builders

The recent arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok highlighted some of the most pressing issues around ATF overreach and the ongoing assault on home gun building rights. The stakes are high: if the ATF's new rule is upheld, their power to reclassify and restrict firearms could fundamentally shift, giving them unprecedented control over the very definition of what counts as a firearm.

Recent media coverage is already claiming an early victory for the Biden administration, suggesting that the Court will side with the ATF. Truthout noted, "A clear majority of the justices appears poised to uphold a Biden administration rule that has effectively put this industry—which sells untraceable guns that are disproportionately used in crimes—out of business." NBC News similarly reported that "the Supreme Court may allow Biden's regulation on ghost guns to continue," indicating that even some traditionally conservative Justices seemed open to the regulation. Slate went so far as to celebrate, stating, "Real law is back at the Supreme Court, and even if it’s for one case only, the development remains worthy of celebration." The Press Democrat highlighted that the Court appeared to lean towards upholding the regulation, arguing that this decision "would help curb the availability of untraceable firearms used in criminal activities." However, these claims ignore the serious concerns raised by the Justices about government overreach and vague regulations. The outcome is far from certain, and the fight for our right to self-reliance and firearm innovation continues. Justices have raised critical questions about the ATF’s sweeping definitions, with concerns voiced over how far these regulations might go.

And yet, despite the claims from the media, there’s still reason for optimism. Several of the Justices seemed genuinely concerned with the potential overreach of the ATF and its implications for individual rights. Justice Gorsuch expressed concern over the vagueness of the term 'readily convertible,' noting, "We cannot allow regulatory agencies to define terms in such a way that it creates ambiguity and fear in the minds of lawful citizens." He elaborated by saying that such regulatory ambiguity not only infringes on individual rights but also places undue burdens on citizens who are trying to comply with laws that keep shifting. Justice Kavanaugh also weighed in, questioning, "What protections do citizens have against a constantly shifting regulatory landscape where definitions are expanded without clear legislative intent? How can we expect citizens to follow the law when the law itself is subject to arbitrary reinterpretation by unelected officials?" The arguments made it clear that the ATF’s definition is far-reaching and susceptible to abuse, a concern that the Justices did not overlook. The skepticism and questions from the bench, particularly regarding what constitutes a “readily convertible” weapon, suggest that there might be a path forward that reins in the ATF's overreach.

During the Supreme Court hearing, one of the pivotal moments came when the ATF argued that an AR-15 is "readily convertible" into a machine gun. Justice Thomas questioned whether this interpretation was realistic, pointing out that "a weapon requiring hours of work or specialized tools to convert is hardly 'readily' anything." He further emphasized that the ATF's vague definitions could result in law-abiding gun owners being wrongfully targeted for possessing components that require significant alterations before they could function as a firearm. Justice Alito added to this by stating, "If we continue to broaden what is 'readily convertible,' where does it end? Are we going to label every collection of metal parts as a potential firearm? This kind of unchecked regulatory scope is dangerous and undermines the clear limits set by Congress." This line of questioning opened the door for an important opportunity—an opportunity missed by the Respondents’ counsel—to show just how unworkable the “readily convertible” standard really is. If upheld, this standard wouldn’t only put AR-15s at risk but would open the door to reclassifying many other firearms based on vague, subjective definitions.

The ATF wants to expand the definition of a firearm to include products that are, in their words, “just one step away” from being operational. The ATF argues that this is necessary to address the growing issue of ghost guns, which are firearms that lack serial numbers and can be easily assembled from kits, making them untraceable and attractive for criminal activity. The ATF also highlighted the rise in ghost guns being recovered at crime scenes, including firearms with obliterated serial numbers that are often grouped under the same 'ghost gun' label, despite being distinct from unfinished kits. This vague terminology allows the ATF to include a broad range of firearms in their regulatory push, thereby justifying wider-reaching restrictions. However, the term 'ghost gun' itself is vague and often used to lump together a wide range of firearms, including those with obliterated serial numbers, which are fundamentally different from unfinished kits. This conflation leads to misleading narratives and allows the ATF to justify broader regulatory measures that may unfairly impact lawful gun owners. They emphasized that the Gun Control Act should evolve to meet modern challenges in firearm regulation, and their interpretation aligns with the need to close loopholes that allow individuals to circumvent background checks and other safety measures. The ATF's counsel also pointed out that their approach is consistent with historical regulatory practices, arguing that the definition of 'readily convertible' ensures that dangerous firearms do not evade regulation simply because they require minimal assembly to be fully functional.

Given the ATF’s track record of sudden shifts and its notorious reputation for moving the goalposts, that promise rings hollow—and quite frankly, laughable. Today it's ARs, but tomorrow, could it be your 1911 or that bolt-action hunting rifle in the crosshairs? This is about the federal government using vagueness to erode the rights of everyday people. They are laying the groundwork to label almost anything as a firearm, depending on which political direction the wind is blowing.

This case is far more than just a fight about “ghost guns”, it’s about protecting the freedom to innovate and build at home, free from arbitrary government intervention. Should the ATF win here, the implications for DIY firearm builders and gun owners as a whole would be profound, setting a dangerous precedent that paves the way for expansive regulation based solely on ambiguous and subjective standards.

This Fight is about the rights of every law-abiding citizen to keep building, innovating, and exercising their Second Amendment rights without unwarranted government interference, protecting the tradition of home craftsmanship and ensuring that personal freedoms are not slowly eroded by unchecked bureaucratic power.