The United States Supreme Court appeared inclined on Tuesday to uphold a 2022 federal regulation concerning “ghost guns,” which are untraceable firearms often assembled from kits or components that lack serial numbers. These kits can be purchased online, offering individuals the ability to construct functional weapons without background checks or record-keeping.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar defended the rule, arguing that ghost guns have been increasingly used in crimes. Prelogar highlighted the ease with which these guns can be assembled and the challenges they pose to law enforcement due to their untraceable nature. She emphasized that individuals prohibited from possessing firearms might seek out ghost guns specifically for their lack of traceability. More details about her arguments can be found on SCOTUSblog.
The rule in question was enacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) in an effort to adapt existing federal gun laws to the evolving market of ghost guns. The Gun Control Act of 1968 mandates that firearms should have serial numbers, and the ATF’s 2022 regulation extends this requirement to gun kits that can be easily converted into operational firearms.
Representing the challengers, attorney Peter Patterson contended that the ATF’s rule surpasses the authority granted by Congress under the Gun Control Act. He maintained that Congress did not explicitly include gun kits within the definition of “firearms” that can readily be converted to expel a projectile.
Despite these arguments, a majority of the justices appeared skeptical of the challengers’ position. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed doubts regarding Patterson’s portrayal of the buyers’ intentions as hobbyists merely looking to piece together a gun. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the validity of the “critical machining operations” standard proposed by the opponents, pointing out that it is not derived from the statute.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about the potential criminal liabilities for sellers who might unwittingly violate the new rule. Solicitor General Prelogar assured that accidental violations by manufacturers would not likely result in convictions if there was a good-faith belief in compliance.
The courtroom exchanges suggest that the Supreme Court may indeed allow the Biden administration’s rule to stand, reflecting concerns that failure to regulate could undermine federal efforts to regulate firearms effectively. The outcome could significantly influence the scope of regulatory authority and the balance between gun rights and public safety. For further insights into this case and its implications, visit the original article on SCOTUSblog.