Welcome back to another episode of Gun Industry Insider—today is March 28, 2025. I’m your host, Ray Toofan. Today’s episode is packed with info for shop owners, reps, and gunsmiths. We have some breaking news on a ruling just issued by the Supreme Court in the ATF’s 2022 ghost gun rule, then we’ll talk about the US v. Peterson case and its potential impact on suppressors, explore Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s video dissent in Duncan v. Bonta regarding California’s magazine ban, and discuss the FDIC’s decision to drop “reputational risk” from bank rules—a move that could ease banking headaches for the gun industry. This episode is pretty legislation heavy, which we try to avoid, but all of this is pretty important for the industry. So let’s get started.

First off, let’s start by analyzing a Supreme Court decision with notable consequences for the firearms industry: Bondi v. VanDerStok. This case addresses ghost guns, specifically kits and unfinished frames or receivers used to construct firearms at home. On March 26, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that did not fully resolve the matter but instead directed a lower court to conduct further review. 

The Supreme Court evaluated a 2022 ATF regulation that classifies certain kits and unfinished receivers as firearms under the GCA. The regulation applies to items that can be readily converted into functional firearms, such as kits containing all necessary components for a semiautomatic pistol that require minimal assembly, or frames needing only slight modifications to become operational. The Court concluded that this regulation is not entirely invalid but requires clarification on its scope. As a result, the case was remanded to the Fifth Circuit for additional proceedings to determine which items fall under the rule.

For those of you manufacturing or selling kits and unfinished receivers, the legal requirements remain unchanged at this time. We contacted one of the plaintiffs about the recent ruling and our source told us nothing has changed with the selling of these supposed “ghost guns”. As of right now, build kit sales are still considered no-go territory, which are those kits that include the receiver or frame along with the tooling to finish out to 100%. However, 80% lowers by themselves still do not require serialization and do not require an FFL. The plaintiffs will continue to litigate the case and are confident that they’ll eventually get a ruling in their favor that will settle the matter.

Our source also mentioned that one of the reasons that this wasn’t settled yesterday by the Supreme Court had to do with the topics argued during the hearing. Supposedly the lawyer for the plaintiffs was given a set of arguments to present, but they weren’t sufficient for SCOTUS to make a final decision, causing the case to be remanded. Also, when asking about Bondi’s appointment to the DOJ and if this will resolve the matter faster, our source told us she wasn’t the most 2A friendly person Trump could have chosen and she’s had some gun control decisions in her past that makes this less than likely. Unfortunately it seems like this is going to continue to drag out for at least another year, or longer, before a decision is made.

So going forward, the Fifth Circuit will now examine the ATF’s regulation in greater depth. It may limit the rule’s application, potentially excluding items that are more challenging to convert into operational firearms, or it could affirm the regulation as currently written. This review will likely extend into late 2025 or early 2026, and additional appeals may follow. Until a final resolution is reached, the 2022 ATF rule remains in effect. We’ll let you know if new developments take place with this case.

Now let’s shift focus to another significant case: US v. Peterson, which examines the classification of suppressors under the Second Amendment. This case has seen notable developments, including a recent shift in the Department of Justice’s position. For those in the industry—gun shop owners, manufacturers, and gunsmiths—the outcome could bring significant changes or maintain current practices. Here’s what’s happening.

In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling stating that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. The court’s view was that a firearm operates without a suppressor, so it doesn’t qualify as an "arm" under the Constitution. This upheld the National Firearms Act (NFA) requirements—registration, tax stamps, and processing delays—which remain a challenge for the industry and for customers.

For gun shops, this continued the familiar pattern: customers frustrated by the paperwork and wait times. Manufacturers faced ongoing compliance expenses, and gunsmiths saw limited demand for suppressor-related work. The decision wasn’t unexpected, but it reinforced existing obstacles.

Then, on March 20, the Department of Justice changed its stance. Initially, under Acting US Attorney Michael Simpson, the DOJ opposed a full court review of the case, supporting the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. However, they now back a rehearing by the entire Fifth Circuit bench. This shift matters because a full court review could overturn the earlier decision. If suppressors gain Second Amendment protection, the NFA’s restrictions might ease, affecting how they’re bought, sold, and made. That said, no outcome is certain yet.

Here’s what this could mean for the industry:

For gun shops, a ruling favoring suppressors could increase sales. Customers deterred by the NFA process might buy more readily, potentially raising suppressor sales by 20-30%, based on some projections. However, it’s wise to avoid overstocking until the ruling is clear—stock could sit if the decision goes the other way.

Manufacturers might see lower compliance costs if NFA rules soften, freeing up funds for production or innovation. This could also allow smaller companies to compete, though new regulations might follow any changes. Flexibility will be essential.

Gunsmiths could see more work—installations, barrel threading, custom projects—if suppressors become more common. Preparing for these tasks now could position you well if demand grows.

Still, there’s uncertainty. The full Fifth Circuit might affirm the original ruling, or appeals could extend the case, possibly to the Supreme Court. The DOJ’s support for a review is encouraging, but not definitive. New rules could also emerge, so the industry should stay alert.

Some are speculating on why the DOJ shifted its position. It could be the result of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Second Amendment views, supported by President Trump’s 2025 executive order on gun rights. Others suggest it’s a strategic choice to avoid a Supreme Court challenge. Regardless, it’s a development that could benefit the industry.

Additional factors are in play. Texas and Louisiana attorneys general have filed briefs supporting Peterson, adding weight to the case. Meanwhile, advancements like 3D-printed titanium suppressors, which reduce noise further, might shape arguments about their regulation and safety.

The full court arguments are scheduled for June 2025, with a decision expected by late summer. A favorable ruling could bring changes by early 2026, but an unfavorable one might require legislative efforts instead.

For now, those of you in the industry should watch closely. Shop owners could stock a few extra suppressors cautiously, manufacturers should monitor the case for production adjustments, and gunsmiths might prepare for potential demand. The situation remains fluid, and the next few months will clarify what’s ahead for suppressors. We'll watch the case and update you if there are any new developments.

Next, something a bit more unusual in the gun world: Judge Lawrence VanDyke’s video dissent in Duncan v. Bonta. You might have heard about this in the news. This case centers on California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, upheld by the Ninth Circuit on March 23, 2025. VanDyke, a Trump appointee, disagreed sharply, releasing a video to explain why he thinks the ban violates the Second Amendment. He used visuals—such as the Sig P320—to call out his colleagues’ lack of firearms knowledge. 

Duncan v. Bonta challenges California Penal Code § 32310, which restricts magazine capacity. The majority ruled it constitutional, which is unsurprising due to the court's liberal stance. However, VanDyke argued it’s not constitutional, pointing to real-world firearm use. His video is rare for a federal judge—it was like a courtroom meets gun training video. It’s a push to educate judges on gun mechanics and culture, which could influence future rulings.

The video definitely stirred debate. Gun rights groups love its clarity; some legal folks question if it’s too advocacy-driven. Either way, it’s a signal that Second Amendment cases are heating up. Full arguments are slated for June 2025, with a ruling possibly by late summer. Appeals could stretch this out, but the stakes are high—national implications aren’t off the table.

VanDyke’s video won’t rewrite laws today, but it’s a bold move in the gun rights conversation. The industry needs to stay sharp—track this case, adapt to shifts, and educate your base. Legal battles like this don’t just shape courts; they shape your business. If you haven't watched the judge's video, look it up on Youtube, it's titled "Dissent video in 23-55805 Duncan v Bonta". You should enjoy the judge's takedown of the lack of knowledge by his liberal colleagues.

Now on to a topic that you may have been directly affected by at some point in the past, partly due to Obama and his Operation Choke Point. If you've ever found it difficult to access financing, open a bank account, have your accounts suddenly closed without explanation, or been given the run around about your card processing, that may change going forward. The FDIC has dumped “reputational risk” from their bank rules on March 25. It's been nothing but a pain for gun shops since it was instituted. Banks used it to ditch firearms businesses, scared of looking bad. Staring with Operation Choke Point in 2013, the feds pushed banks to drop “risky” clients—gun stores, manufacturers, you name it. Even after it supposedly stopped in 2017, banks kept dodging the firearms industry. No accounts, no loans, no card processing, nothing. FDIC says now it’s going to change all that, specifically access to your money and getting credit.

Banks hid behind “reputational risk” to say no. It didn’t matter if you paid on time or ran tight books—they’d still cut you off. Your gun shop needs a checking account?  A loan for some gunsmithing equipment? Cash for inventory? A credit card terminal? The bank's response: "Sorry, we can't help you".  

Now that the FDIC is pulling this out means that banks might start looking at numbers, not headlines. Maybe you'll get to open a new checking account , or your loan doesn’t get laughed off. Then again, it might not.

FDIC can’t force banks to do business with you. Private rules, woke shareholders—plenty will still freeze you out. State laws might screw with things too. Although it's not legislation, it's still better than nothing. If you find that a bank is dragging its feet, it's time to shop around. Local or regional banks and credit unions generally will have less baggage, and be more open to working with you, especially now that the FDIC is backing off. If you've got good financials, this might be the time to look into new financing, a new corporate card, or a checking account with better benefits.

The FDIC kicking this out matters,  saying that gun businesses aren’t poison. It should cut costs and open doors. It won’t solve everything, and for some banks, it'll be business as usual. We'll watch this and if we see positive developments from financial institutions, we'll be sure to update you. 

We’ve covered quite a bit today—from the SCOTUS ruling in the ghost gun case, the US v. Peterson case and its potential to shake up suppressor regulations, to Judge VanDyke’s bold video dissent challenging California’s magazine ban, and the FDIC’s move to scrap “reputational risk,” which could open doors for better banking access. These developments aren’t just headlines—they could directly impact your shop, your sales, or your bottom line. Got thoughts or ideas for future episodes? Email us at insider@gunindustryinsider.com or hit us up on X at @GunInsider. Stay tuned for our next episode, where we’ll be diving into fresh developments that could affect your business. Thanks for listening. Until next time!