President Trump Issues Executive Order Addressing Second Amendment Rights

By Cameron Schlagel, Charlene Warner, and V.R. Bohman

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order directing the Attorney General to review and propose actions to address the right to keep and bear arms, which he called “an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.” The order comes amid pending Supreme Court cases that could have significant implications for the firearms industry and gun owners.

The order mandates the Attorney General to examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies that may infringe on Second Amendment rights, and to present a proposed plan of action to the President within 30 days. The order also instructs the Attorney General to review the positions taken by the United States in any ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Although the long-term effects of the Executive Order remain to be seen, President Trump’s approach to Second Amendment issues could have important short-term implications for pending litigation. Most relevant is VanDerStok v. Garland, a case currently pending before the Supreme Court that involves a challenge to the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to regulate the production and sale of certain firearm parts under the federal Gun Control Act (GCA).

In VanDerStok, individuals and entities producing or using unfinished firearm parts — known as “80% receivers” or “80% frames” — sued ATF, challenging its authority to regulate these parts as “firearms” under the GCA. The GCA defines a firearm 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; [or] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” The term “frame or receiver” was defined by regulation shortly after the GCA’s enactment as “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

In 2022, ATF expanded the definition of “frame or receiver” to include precursor parts that “may readily be . . . converted to function as a frame or receiver.” It also expanded “firearm” to include “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.” To this end, “readily” is defined by reference to a nonexclusive eight-factor list that includes considerations, such as the availability of parts and tools, the difficulty of the machining process, and the time needed to accomplish the conversion. The rule further changed the definition of “frame or receiver” to require housing only the breechblock (for receivers) or one component of the firing mechanism (for frames). This change was made so that the definition encompasses firearm designs that house the “hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism” in a part that is made of more than one piece.

Due to these changes, the Plaintiffs argue that the rule exceeded ATF’s authority and conflicted with the GCA by (a) improperly extending the definition of “firearm” to include items that are not weapons and do not have a frame or receiver and (b) vaguely defining what constitutes a “readily convertible” precursor or parts kit. ATF responds that the rule is a reasonable interpretation of the GCA, which gives the agency broad discretion to regulate firearms and parts posing a public safety risk. Moreover, according to ATF, the rule aligns with the statutory purpose of preventing firearms from falling into the wrong hands and provides clear standards for determining what constitutes a firearm, a frame or receiver, and a weapon parts kit.

The District Court agreed with the Plaintiffs and vacated the rule. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that ATF’s redefinition of “frame or receiver” and “firearm” was an impermissible extension of the statutory text, and that ATF had no authority to regulate parts other than a frame or receiver. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the fall of 2024.

The outcome of this case could significantly impact ATF’s authority and the GCA’s scope. If the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit, it could limit ATF’s ability to regulate unfinished firearm parts and kits, preserving individuals’ rights to make their own firearms without federal oversight. If reversed, it could expand ATF’s authority to regulate a wide range of parts and kits, imposing new restrictions on individuals making their own firearms.

The case could also be affected by President Trump’s executive order, which instructs the Attorney General to review ATF’s actions and propose measures to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. If the Attorney General decides to rescind or alter ATF’s rule, the case could potentially become moot unless the Supreme Court decides to keep the case and address the broader questions of agency authority and statutory interpretation that the case raises. The Supreme Court might do so if it thinks the case is a good vehicle to build upon its decision in Garland v. Cargill, which held that ATF exceeded its authority by banning bump stocks as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act. However, the Supreme Court may be reluctant to voluntarily wade into the politically charged questions posed by VanDerStok.

In the meantime, firearm industry members should continue to monitor both the executive branch’s activities and ongoing litigation to ensure that they both remain in compliance with the current law and adjust to any changes implemented by the new administration.

*Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and not the firm or their colleagues.