We are excited to introduce you to Jennifer VanDerStok, a courageous advocate for constitutional rights and our named plaintiff in VanDerStok v. Garland. Jennifer’s dedication to freedom and justice is inspiring. In this Q&A, Jennifer shares her journey, her motivations for standing up for her rights, and what it means to be at the forefront of this legal battle. Join us as we delve deeper into her story, her perspective, and her hopes for the future.
Q: Being a named plaintiff in a case like this is not easy and takes a lot of courage, so what motivated you to be part of this case?
A: To be honest, my role has been easy. Everyone on the legal teams at both Firearms Policy Coalition, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and all those who have filed supporting arguments, have done the heavy lifting. In terms of my motivation, that’s simple: a look at history has shown that violations of both civil liberties and human rights happens to people who have first been disarmed. It’s vital that Americans retain their right to keep and bear firearms, and we’re seeing that in nations where disarmament has already happened. Broad civil liberties violations are already occurring in, for example, England, where people are being jailed for posting “misinformation” (also known as unpopular facts) on their social media accounts.
Q: If there is one thing you want people to know about your case, what would it be?
A: Some media outlets have labeled this as a lawsuit brought by the “firearms industry” and that’s not true. Yes, manufacturers whose businesses would be hurt by the frame and receiver ban have joined the suit, but it’s primarily a case brought by – and for – ordinary Americans who want to be able to make their own firearms without government interference.
Q: If there is one thing you want people to know about you, what would it be?
A: I believe I’m very much representative of the average American patriot. We really just want to be left alone and are happy to be law-abiding, so long as those laws don’t violate the Constitution. We’re also way more savvy about the movement to undermine our Republic, and all of the media programming, mega-corporate sponsorship, and deep state involvement which supports that attempt to subvert our nation, than those attempting to do so realize; we’re just really quiet right now.
Q: What has your journey throughout this case been like?
A: It’s been a “hurry up and wait” situation, with hills and valleys along the way. The high points have been, of course, when we get good news from a court decision, and the valleys have been when we have a setback. I’m just really hopeful that we’ll have a good outcome from the Supreme Court. I’ve tried to stay upbeat about it by focusing on the long term. I do think there’s a certain element of fear. It’s not out of the question that a vengeful federal agency could descend upon my house. But they’d be very disappointed; we’re really just so ordinary.
Q: What does it mean to you to have your case going in front of the Supreme Court of the United States – the highest court in the land?
A: It’s really ironic, because over 20 years ago when I was a police officer, we were told in training that “You don’t want to have a Supreme Court case named after you.” They meant, of course, that you would have violated someone’s civil liberties and been taken to court. So here I am all these years later, with my name on a Supreme Court case! It’s fine, though, because I’m the complainant. That said, it’s a serious moment and an honor to bring a case before the Supreme Court that helps defend our Constitutional rights.
Q: What aspect of going to SCOTUS are you most excited about?
A: If I’m able to sit in and observe some or all of the arguments, it would be a huge honor. If not, it’s still very exciting to have the opportunity to deal the ultimate blow to government overreach. Having the case get a favorable ruling would be a bit of a poke-in-the-eye to a Justice Department that’s run amok.
Q: What are your hopes for the outcome of this case?
A: I really hope that if we’re successful, more Americans will exercise their Second Amendment rights and also the right to manufacture their own firearms.
Few things give a corrupt government more pause than to know that many, many, citizens have firearms. That said, if we are not successful, I am confident that Americans will find other work-arounds to keep arming themselves. We will never give up.
Q: Is there anything you would like to say to Mountain States Legal Foundation supporters who have been following your case and are inspired by your efforts?
A: Thank you! Thank you for being involved, staying informed, and understanding how vital it is that we keep our Second Amendment rights. Also, stay positive and keep finding innovative ways to fight government intrusion. And above all, refuse to be silent.
Q: What do you think this case means to the preservation of liberty and our rights as Americans?
A: It’s vital because the Second Amendment is what makes the others enforceable. We’ve seen attacks on free speech, economic freedom, and privacy from a globalist deep state that finds those freedoms anathema. The only thing stopping the success of their assault is that we are able to defend ourselves.
Q: What advice would you give to someone who finds themselves in a position where they need to defend their rights?
A: It helps if you can go forth confidently because you know your rights, and also have legal back-up. Because we’re firearms owners who carry concealed nearly everywhere, my husband and I opt to have a pre-paid legal plan, which provides us with legal representation in the event we need to use our firearms in a defensive situation. I recommend researching the available plans to see what works for your situation. That said, don’t be afraid to do what you need to do in order to defend yourself. There is an old saying that “It’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.”
Final Case Update – 2025
The Supreme Court upheld the ATF’s Final Rule. In a 7-2 decision, the Court stated that the ATF had not necessarily exceeded its authority by regulating the building of firearms by private citizens, by including home kits in the definition of “firearm.” Instead, courts may evaluate cases of specific firearms kits, on an individual basis, to determine whether they count as “firearms.” Mountain States is disappointed that the Supreme Court did not recognize that the ATF’s 2022 expansion of its own authority was unlawful.
