Supreme Court Upholds Biden Admin’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Regulations
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a 7-2 decision to uphold the Biden administration’s regulation on “ghost guns,” allowing the enforcement of stricter controls on non-serialized firearms that can be assembled at home.
The ruling focused on whether these devices fall under the federal definitions of “firearm” and “frame and receiver” and whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority in regulating them. “Ghost guns” are homemade firearms that typically require assembly, such as drilling holes and milling unfinished frames or receivers before installing parts to make them operable.
In 2022, the Biden administration revised the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate “buy build shoot” kits, which provide the components necessary to construct a firearm. Rather than banning the sale of these kits, the administration’s regulation requires them to comply with the same rules as commercial firearm dealers, such as serializing parts and conducting background checks on buyers.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Gun Control Act “permits ATF to regulate…some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers.” The law defines a “firearm” as “any weapon… which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” and “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing, “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one. But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted. Employing its novel ‘artifact noun’ methodology, the majority charts a different course that invites unforeseeable consequences and offers no limiting principle.”
The regulation had previously been struck down by a federal appeals court after a challenge from sellers and buyers, prompting the Justice Department’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Second Amendment advocates have strongly criticized the rule, calling it “unconstitutional and abusive” and arguing that it effectively regulates “non-firearm objects,” Fox News reported. Additionally, legal challenges continue over other homemade firearm methods, such as 3D-printed gun parts.
