I don’t know anyone in the gun rights space that actually agreed with the VanDerStock ruling by the Supreme Court. It upheld the Biden-era restrictions on privately made firearms, known colloquially as “ghost guns.”
We all generally consider the decision absolute BS, though some of the 2A attorneys might argue otherwise while others won’t.
Still, the decision was what it was. However, there are also the things that it wasn’t, and that included a commentary on the Second Amendment in any meaningful way.
Yet I can’t help but note that the author of this piece, who is with the Duke Center for Firearms Law, seems to take a tone like they did, even while acknowledging they didn’t. Perhaps more importantly, though, he also makes it clear where he stands on the issue of guns, gun rights, and the Second Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bondi v. VanDerStok in October 2024. The case involved a challenge to the Biden Administration’s effort to subject gun assembly kits—colloquially known as ghost guns—to federal serialization and background-check requirements by issuing a rule that expanded the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act to include the kits and their component parts.
Two individual gun owners and a gun-rights advocacy group challenged the ghost gun rule in court as beyond the statutory authority of the agency that issued it, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They raised no constitutional claims, likely because courts have been generally unreceptive to the argument that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guards against restrictions on the right to acquire firearm parts for self-assembly.
In late March, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld the rule in a 7–2 decision by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Events that transpired between the October 2024 oral argument and the Court’s decision in March shed crucial light on the decision and the future of the ghost gun rule. VanDerStok represents a collision between gun rights and “law and order” politics—that is, a tough on crime approach emphasizing harsh punishment and active law enforcement—where public safety concerns prevail and visions of radical gun deregulation fade away.
Now, because of his role with a gun law center at a well-respected university, this is most definitely someone who would be described throughout the media as an expert.
However, he talks about “radical gun deregulation” in reference to a rule that’s only a handful of years old. He clearly seems to buy into the idea that gun rights support and “law and order” politics necessarily must collide in light of VanDerStok.
It’s entirely possible to be “law and order” while disagreeing with the laws in place. The idea that you can’t is entirely predicated on the idea that the only way one can be “law and order” is to, on some fundamental level, actually think gun control leads to order in some meaningful way. It doesn’t.
The Supreme Court, as the author notes, didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the regulation, but on whether the ATF had the authority to issue the regulation. While I disagree with the Court on this, it’s not difficult to imagine that they’d find that the authority exists in a regulatory sense without agreeing with it on Constitutional grounds.
It’s also not particularly relevant whether lower courts have been receptive to these arguments or not. They weren’t really receptive to the idea that the Second Amendment meant people had a right to a concealed carry permit before Bruen, at least in my places, and yet, here we are.
What’s troubling, though, is that these arguments are easily debunkable, and yet this is the kind of person the media turns to for expertise on Second Amendment matters. This is who they seek out when they bother to look beyond gun control groups, while never seeking a contrary opinion on the matter.
It’s sad, but it’s also important to know what we’re up against out there.
Editor’s Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring our right to keep and bear arms.
Help us hold these judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
