The United States Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether certain gun kits can be subjected to federal regulation, a case that stems from the efforts of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to impose serial number requirements on gun parts intended for home assembly. This argument revolves around the interpretation of regulations that have their roots in the Gun Control Act of 1968.
Central to the debate is the ATF regulation 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which, since 2022, has included ‘parts which can be readily converted into operational firearms’ within its definition of firearms. This effectively subjects these kits to the same regulatory requirements as fully assembled guns, demanding serial numbers under the provisions of the Gun Control Act 1968. Additionally, partial frames of firearms fall under the scrutiny of 27 C.F.R. § 478.12.
The case, however, did not originate in the Supreme Court. Initially appealed from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the lower court’s decision nullified the authority of the ATF over such kits and partial frames, contending that the legislative groundwork laid in 1968 did not empower the ATF to regulate these components as they do completed firearms. Despite this, the Supreme Court intervened by blocking the lower court’s ruling in 2023, which keeps the ATF’s regulations enforceable pending the current appeal.
The core of this legal examination hinges on statutory interpretation. Pete Patterson, representing kit sellers against these regulations, adheres to a literal reading of the statute, maintaining that ‘a kit of parts is not a weapon.’ This view contrasts with the perception of some scholars, like Southern Methodist University’s Eric Ruben, who argue that the 1968 legislation was crafted to be ‘broad and flexible’ to adapt to various aspects of gun regulation.
As deliberations continue, the outcome will likely set significant precedents for how firearms and their components are regulated, and will further define the limits of federal authority under the longstanding Gun Control Act. For those interested in further details, a detailed account of the case is available on JURIST.