Bondi v. Vanderstock 604 U.S. ___ (2025)

—

by

Chris Johnson
in ,

This is an outcome that I disagree with.

This was a 7-2 option in favor of the state (the bad guys).

Thomas wrote a great dissent, I agree with him about the correct outcome.

Alito did a better job of explaining why the court got it wrong.

On the record here, I would not hold that respondents agreed that the Salerno test should apply. The Court relies on the use of the term “facial” in their complaints, but that characterization of their challenges did not constitute agreement with the proposition that a facial challenge to a regulation must satisfy the Salerno test. And in fact respondents never conceded that point. They did not address the issue at all in their briefs, and at no point during the lengthy oral argument in this case were they asked about that question. Holding that they conceded the point is unwarranted and extremely unfair. And in any event, we should adjudicate a facial challenge under the right test regardless of the parties’ arguments. See Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U. S. 707, 779–780 (2024) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment).
— Bondi v. Vanderstock, Alito dissenting

Emphasis added.

Facial challenges that require the Salerno test are the most difficult to win. The challengers must prove there is no case in which the regulation is legal (or constitutional).

This is what happened in Rahimi. The court found that §922(g)(8) withstood a facial challenge because a person who had been found to be a violent danger to others could be temporarily disarmed.

The Court found that there was a tradition of disarming violent persons in the late 1700s. That the disarmament could only be temporary, and it had to be properly adjudicated.

Because of the very limited scope they found, the law survives the facial challenge.

By extension, a lifetime loss of Second Amendment protected rights runs against the opinion in Rahimi.

Here, the state slipped in a statement about Salerno. The respondents (good guys) didn’t feel it needed a response, so they didn’t respond.

The majority of the Court then took this as the respondents agreeing that Salerno should control.

Now that Salerno attaches, all the state need do is find ONE example where the regulation is acceptable.

In this case, they used an example, provided by the state, of a frame that required two plastic tabs clipped and filed, and a few holes drilled. Something any of you should be capable of doing in 10 to 15 minutes.

The other was a complete kit which contained everything to assemble a firearm. The time to assemble was listed as around 21 minutes.

As Alito points out, this means that those two are firearms, as defined by the GCA of 1968. It doesn’t say anything about the rest of the frames and receivers out there.

Regardless, background checks are unconstitutional, in my opinion.

This is 12 hours late. I am working a hard deadline for a client that has to be able to handle tariffs correctly by April 2nd. Sorry about that.

        

Comments

One response to “Bondi v. Vanderstock 604 U.S. ___ (2025)”

  1. CBMTTek Avatar
    CBMTTek

    (Get the torches and pitchforks ready… I am about to be labeled a heretic.)

    I do not necessarily disagree with the decision based on the logic used in the Majority opinion. An IKEA table is still a table even if the parts have not been assembled. Is a “buy, build, shoot” kit a firearm? I am having a hard time saying it is not.

    I agree with you totally about the facial challenge. This should not have made it to the SCOTUS, as two lower courts ruled for the plaintiffs, and the facial challenge should not have been so easily dismisses.

    Now, is this some kind of abhorrent offense to the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I do not think so at this point. 80% receivers are not outlawed, gun kits are not outlawed, you can still build your own firearms. But, if you are purchasing an 80% receiver, it will now come with a NICS background check, and have a serial number.

    This will be devastating to companies like Polymer80, 80% Arms, etc.. as they either need to get a FFL, or get rid of the very product that comprises the bulk of their business.

    Now, the danger here is when the anti-gun folks run with this decision and claim all Glocks are machine guns because the plans for making a Glock Switch are out there, and they can be 3d printed. While the majority opinion poo-poo’ed that concept, there is zero chance it will not be the next anti-gun push. Same with ARs, because the autocards to make them full auto exist, and can be installed in minutes.

    1