The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week regarding a challenge to a 2022 federal rule that aims to regulate so-called “ghost guns.” These are firearms that lack serial numbers and can be assembled quickly from parts that are often purchased online. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) asserts that this regulation is necessary to mitigate a public safety and law enforcement crisis brought about by a surge in ghost guns, while emphasizing that the rule doesn’t seek to ban these firearms but merely seeks to regulate them akin to other commercial gun sales, utilizing serial numbers to track guns used in crimes.
Opponents, including gun owners and manufacturers, argue that the federal government has never previously required a license to build a gun for private use and contend that ghost guns aren’t a substantial source of firearms used by criminals. These challengers believe applying federal regulations to these kits oversteps the bounds set by the Gun Control Act of 1968, which mandates licensing and record-keeping for gun manufacturers and dealers, as well as the inclusion of serial numbers on firearms.
Federal agencies reported a sharp tenfold increase in ghost guns between 2016 and 2022. These kits are easily available online and often bypass the background checks required for commercial gun sales. This bypass can potentially allow felons, domestic abusers, and minors to obtain firearms. The ATF contends that clarifying the regulation to include weapon parts kits and partially complete frames or receivers falls within the authority granted by the 1968 law.
This case will consider whether the ATF can mandate that ghost gun parts and kits align with the definition of “firearms” under the Gun Control Act. Both parties involved in the case disagree on fundamental aspects, such as the ease of assembling ghost guns and whether the current law permits the ATF to regulate these gun parts. The ATF argues that the rule is consistent with its historic practices, whereas the challengers assert it deviates significantly from long-standing interpretations and lacks clarity, thus rendering the rule too vague to be enforceable.
A more detailed overview of the arguments and context surrounding this high-stakes legal discourse can be accessed at SCOTUSblog.