In a startling rebuttal to gun rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the controversial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as fully functional firearms.

Despite the Court’s composition seemingly favoring rulings respecting the Second Amendment, the 7-2 margin left no doubt as to the positions of the majority of justices.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, but the outcome is a clear victory for gun control advocates. 

The contentious case, Garland v. VanDerStok, centered on ATF Final Rule 2021-05F. The previously understood definition of a “firearm” was tossed aside and instead included mere parts of weapons.

The result is that manufacturers and sellers of unfinished frames and receivers must have federal licenses, their products must display serial numbers, and they are mandated to conduct background checks on their clients.

Plaintiffs brought a facial challenge to the contentious ATF rule, meaning justices must find that it violates a specific statute in every case.

This leaves open the possibility that gun rights advocates could enter an applied challenge to the rule. Also, the rule could be repealed by the Executive Branch. 

Gun rights advocates energetically fought the ATF rule pertaining to so-called “ghost guns,” but the Court rejected their arguments. The plaintiffs were successful in blocking enforcement of the regulation in lower courts, but now the gun hobbyist industry may be all but shut down.

Justices determined the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 afforded the ATF considerable power to decide what a regulated gun part is. 

While the lower court determined the embattled agency exceeded its power in issuing the frames and receivers rule, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that the ATF action withstood constitutional scrutiny.

The justices left open the possibility that the ATF may apply the rule in an invalid way, which would be open to legal challenge. 

However, the high court’s majority disagreed with the plaintiffs’ assertion that the agency exceeded its power to regulate these weapons parts.

The Supreme Court noted the Polymer80 “Buy Build Shoot” kits, which are no longer produced. These included an unfinished pistol frame and parts used to assemble a functioning weapon rapidly, something Gorsuch claimed could be classified as a firearm under GCA guidance. 

He asserted that incomplete products may be determined to be precisely what they are intended to become.

“An author might invite your opinion on her latest novel even if she sends you an unfinished manuscript,” Gorsuch wrote for the majority. “A friend might speak of the table he just bought at IKEA, even though hours of assembly remain ahead of him. In both cases, the artifact noun fits because the intended function of the unfinished product is obvious to speaker and listener alike.”

Gorsuch applied this reasoning to the ATF’s frames and receivers rule.

“The term weapon can work this way too,” the justice wrote. “Imagine a rifle disassembled for storage, transport, or cleaning. It may take time to render the rifle useful for combat, but its intended function is clear. And, as a matter of everyday speech, that rifle is a weapon, whether disassembled or combat ready. In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit as a ‘weapon.’ Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kits come with all necessary components, and its intended function as [an] instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: ‘Buy Build Shoot.’”

Second Amendment advocates are rightly concerned about the ramifications of this latest high court ruling. A perfectly legal weapon may be converted into something entirely different by the owner. Does this mean that firearms should be classified as something other than what they were constructed to be?

This logic could be applied to popular semi-automatic weapons, and the danger is clear.

The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name—it’s a stand against misinformation, double standards, and the relentless attacks on our rights. It’s for those who are done being quiet and ready to push back against a narrative that seeks to misrepresent and marginalize us.

They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. But here’s the thing: we’re not trying to “solve” anything. We’re here to embrace our rights, to stand firm, and to protect what’s ours.

This isn’t just another t-shirt; it’s a symbol of defiance and a call to action for everyone who refuses to be silenced. The Anti Anti-2A Social Club T-shirts, hats, and drinkware represent a movement that knows our rights are non-negotiable and proudly defends them.

So click the link below and wear it with pride. Because being part of the Anti Anti-2A Social Club isn’t just a choice—it’s a badge of honor.