The United States Supreme Court has upheld a regulation that targets “ghost guns,” untraceable firearms without serial numbers, which are typically assembled from online-purchased kits. By a 7-2 majority, the justices have endorsed the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) decision, grounded in the Gun Control Act of 1968, to regulate certain types of ghost guns. However, the court has left open the possibility that future challenges might show the rule doesn’t apply to specific ghost guns.
This decision follows the ATF’s implementation of the rule in 2022 as a response to an uptick in ghost gun-related incidents. The Gun Control Act defines a firearm to include any weapon or components that can be quickly converted into a firing weapon. The court’s ruling supports the ATF’s position that gun kits capable of conversion into operational guns or functional frames and receivers are included under this legal definition. For more details, see SCOTUSblog’s comprehensive coverage.
Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas critiqued the decision, asserting that the court had “rewritten statutory text.” Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito argued that the justices had ruled on an issue beyond the scope of what lower courts had addressed. Despite their dissent, the court ultimately authorized the Biden administration to continue enforcing the rule as challenges proceed through the appeals process.
In a 24-page opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch, an emphasis was placed on changes brought about by technological advances, notably 3D printing, which have shifted the landscape of gun manufacturing and sales. He articulated that kits such as the “Buy Build Shoot” kit from Polymer80, which allow easy assembly of firearms, could indeed be classified as weapons under the Gun Control Act.
Gorsuch’s opinion further noted that various weapons parts kits might require different degrees of expertise to assemble and that the ATF’s authority to regulate extends to partially finished frames and receivers. He highlighted the consistency in the ATF’s historical interpretation and enforcement of the Gun Control Act with respect to these products, suggesting that this interpretation supports the current regulation. The full opinion can be accessed here.
This Supreme Court decision underscores the complexities in balancing regulation, technological advancement, and Second Amendment rights—a matter of significant consequence for legal practitioners and policymakers involved in the ongoing discourse on firearm regulation.