On March 26, the Supreme Court decided Bondi v. VanDerStok, holding that ATF's 2022 regulatory expansion of the definitions of "firearm" and "frame or receiver" is not facially void. The Court read the proceeding as a facial challenge only and offered no opinion on whether the regulation would be valid as applied to specific items. As long as the definitions may be validly applied to at least something, Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority of seven justices, they are facially valid. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
The Gun Control Act (GCA) defines "firearm" in part as "(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon…." 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). The ATF rule added to (A) "weapon parts kits" that are "designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." And it added to (B) "a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver."
According to the Court, "this case does not ask us to resolve whether ATF's new regulations . . . may be lawfully applied to particular weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. Instead, the plaintiffs have pursued what the lower courts called a 'facial' pre-enforcement challenge to the agency's authority to regulate any weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers."
