The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling by upholding federal regulations concerning “ghost guns,” self-assembled weapons kits that offer individuals the ability to create firearms at home without serial numbers. The decision comes as an unexpected boon to gun control advocates, considering the conservative makeup of the court.
In a 7-2 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The court confirmed that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) covers weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, effectively categorizing these kits as “weapons.”
The ruling argued that unfinished items can still fit the definition of a “weapon” as set out by the GCA. It states that artifact nouns like ‘weapon’ often encompass unfinished objects if their intended function is discernible, akin to a disassembled firearm. The unanimous majority found parallels between these kits and starter guns, which are similarly under federal regulation due to their readiness for conversion into functional firearms.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had in 2022 issued a ruling under the GCA, mandating federal licensing, recordkeeping, background checks, and serial numbers for these kits. The Supreme Court’s decision allows for the enforcement of the ATF’s rule, much to the relief of various gun control organizations. Kris Brown, President of Brady, stated, “Today represents a massive win in the fight for public safety and common sense,” adding that these devices had previously been easier to assemble than certain other regulated activities like renting a car.
Despite the majority ruling, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, voicing concerns that the ATF rule might overreach its statutory authority, arguing that the GCA should not regulate non-functional components. They contended that the extension of legal definitions could overstep legislative intent.
For more on this decision, see the original report in JURIST.