The Supreme Court is set to review the legality of the Biden administration’s regulations on ghost guns — firearms assembled from kits that can be purchased online and put together at home.
The justices will consider an appeal from the Biden administration after lower court rulings challenged the enforcement of these regulations.
Currently, the rules are in effect as the legal battle unfolds, a status upheld by the Supreme Court in a narrow 5-4 decision last August.
This decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett siding with the court’s liberal justices.
The regulations, issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2022, aim to address the surge in the use of ghost guns, which are problematic for law enforcement to trace.
The administration has labeled these weapons a significant threat to public safety.
Under the new rule, the components of ghost guns are classified as “firearms” under the federal Gun Control Act, which brings them under the same regulatory umbrella as commercially manufactured firearms.
This classification means that manufacturers and sellers of ghost gun kits must obtain licenses, imprint serial numbers on the products, perform background checks on buyers, and keep sales records.
Read More: Georgia DA’s Case Against Trump Crumbling, Analysts Predict Demise
However, this regulation was challenged in court by individuals including Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael Andren, who own ghost gun components and wish to assemble firearms.
Other challengers include gun rights advocates and companies involved in the production and sale of ghost gun kits.
The legal contention peaked when U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor sided with the plaintiffs last year.
His ruling was partially upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the ATF had overstepped its authority as granted by Congress.
The Appeals Court argued that expanding firearm regulations or criminalizing previously lawful behavior without explicit congressional approval constitutes unlawful agency action.
The administration countered, with Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar highlighting the potential consequences of overturning the regulation.
She warned of the risks of an influx of untraceable ghost guns that could be assembled in minutes without background checks, records, or serial numbers.
Both sides acknowledged the national significance of the issue, urging the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The challengers’ attorneys argued that any necessary changes to the definition of “firearm” should be addressed by Congress, not through ATF regulation.
This case comes as the Supreme Court has shown strong support for gun rights in previous decisions, notably affirming the right to bear arms outside the home in a landmark 2022 ruling.
The current case focuses on the ATF’s authority to regulate firearms rather than directly on the Second Amendment.
Additionally, the Supreme Court is preparing to rule on a related regulatory matter involving the ban on “bump stocks,” which enhance the firing rate of semiautomatic rifles.
The outcome of these cases could significantly impact future firearm regulation and the balance between public safety and gun rights.
Read Next: Setback for Trump as Judge Refuses To Delay New York Criminal Trial
Tags:
