On Wednesday, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court upheld federal restrictions aimed at “ghost guns.”
In April 2022, the Biden administration announced that its DOJ had issued a “final rule to rein in the proliferation of ‘ghost guns.’” “This final rule bans the business of manufacturing the most accessible ghost guns, such as unserialized ‘buy build shoot’ kits that individuals can buy online or at a store without a background check and can readily assemble into a working firearm in as little as 30 minutes with equipment they have at home,” the Biden White House noted, adding, “The final rule will also help turn some ghost guns already in circulation into serialized firearms.”
“In 2022, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule interpreting the Act (Gun Control Act of 12968) to cover weapon parts kits that are ‘designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile’ and ‘partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers,” the Supreme Court noted Wednesday. Gun manufacturers and others filed a facial challenge, contending that the Gun Control Act of 1968 could not be read to reach weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers.
But the Supreme Court held, “The ATF’s rule is not facially inconsistent with the GCA.”
“Recent years, however, have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold,” the majority opinion stated. “When Congress adopted the GCA in 1968, ‘the milling equipment, materials needed, and designs were far too expensive for individuals to make firearms practically and reliably on their own.’ With the introduction of new technologies like 3D printing and reinforced polymers, that is no longer true.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented along with Justice Samuel Alito, contended, “The Government asked this Court just last Term to ‘rewrite’ statutory text so that it could regulate semi-automatic weapons as machineguns. We declined to do so. 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. The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’ That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors both regarding the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute. I respectfully dissent.”
