The US Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear an appeal concerning an important decision on the rules set by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) aimed at placing limitations on the creation of ghost guns. Ghost guns are essentially weapon parts kits that can be assembled into a fully functioning firearm without the requirement for an official registration.
The appeal is set against a preceding decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which concluded that the ATF’s final rule, introducing these limitations, constitutes unlawful agency action. As noted by the Court, the final rule “flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy.” Thus, in the Court’s judgement, the final rule can be perceived as “limitless” and outside the allowances of the Gun Control Act (GCA).
April 2022 saw the ATF issue the final rule, which redefined “frame” and “receiver” to include split or multi-part receivers. The rule stated that these terms will also apply to “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver.”
The Biden administration appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the conditions outlined in the final rule are representative of the GCA’s relevant provisions’ plain meaning. Their argument emphasized that the rule touches primarily upon weapon parts kits that may be “readily… be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted” into a functional weapon.
It’s important to note, this is not the only ongoing litigation about ghost guns in the United States. Only last week, a 2021 state-level ban on ghost guns was upheld by the Nevada Supreme Court, reversing a previous lower court decision.
This developing narrative of the ATF’s attempted rules on ghost guns continues to be a significant topic of legal debate in the US and will no doubt carry consequential ripple effects on the interpretation and execution of the GCA. For full details and continuing updates on this matter, one can refer to the original report.