Supreme Court Confirms Restrictions on ‘Ghost Guns’ Remain in Place

Clear Facts

• The Supreme Court upheld federal restrictions on “ghost guns” in a 7-2 decision.
• The Biden administration’s 2022 rule targets unserialized gun kits that can be assembled without background checks.
• Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, arguing the ruling overreaches statutory definitions.

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court has affirmed federal measures aimed at curbing the spread of “ghost guns.” These firearms, often assembled from kits without serial numbers or background checks, have been a growing concern for lawmakers and law enforcement agencies alike.

The Biden administration took a decisive step in April 2022, when it announced a “final rule to rein in the proliferation of ‘ghost guns.’” This rule specifically targets the business of manufacturing easily accessible ghost guns, such as unserialized kits that can be rapidly assembled into functional firearms. The administration emphasized that the rule would also work to convert existing ghost guns into serialized firearms.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) played a crucial role in this initiative. In 2022, it adopted a rule interpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968 to encompass weapon parts kits that can be readily converted into firearms. The Supreme Court noted this in its decision, stating, “The ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.”

However, the ruling was not without its critics. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Justice Thomas arguing, “The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not.” He further stated that the terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ should not apply to unfinished frames and receivers in weapon-parts kits, asserting, “That should end the case.”

The majority opinion highlighted the evolving landscape of firearm manufacturing, noting that technological advancements like 3D printing have made it easier for individuals to produce guns. “Recent years, however, have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold,” the opinion stated, contrasting the present with the era when the Gun Control Act was first adopted in 1968.

This decision underscores the ongoing debate over gun control and the balance between regulation and individual rights. As technology continues to advance, the legal and regulatory frameworks surrounding firearms will likely face further challenges and adaptations.

Let us know what you think, please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Source