On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration regarding the regulation of so-called “Ghost Guns”. During the court session, the judges seemed inclined to support the Biden administration’s regulation of Ghost Guns.
Ghost Guns are sold in the form of do-it-yourself (DIY) kits, allowing users to assemble a functioning weapon in less than 30 minutes. These weapons lack serial numbers, making them nearly untraceable. The association of these untraceable weapons with criminal activities has seen an exponential increase in recent years.
According to data from the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of Ghost Guns seized by law enforcement was less than 4,000 in 2018, but nearly 20,000 in 2021. During this period, close to 700 Ghost Guns were linked to murder or attempted murder incidents.
Following a significant increase in Ghost Guns seized by police departments across the U.S., regulations by the Biden administration emerged, requiring companies to treat these kits like any other firearm by adding serial numbers, conducting background checks, and verifying buyers are over 21 years old.
Court documents reveal that in several major cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, the number of Ghost Guns has stabilized or decreased.
However, gun manufacturers and gun rights organizations have challenged these rules, arguing that selling firearm parts to gun enthusiasts has long been legal, and most criminals use traditional firearms.
They argue that Ghost Guns should not be classified as “firearms” under federal law.
They accuse the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) of overstepping their authority, stating that “only Congress is the entity to decide how to regulate specific products that may pose risks.”
Prosecutor Peter Patterson told the judges, “The ATF has now exceeded its authority, operating beyond the scope set by Congress.”
The majority of the court members, including three liberal justices, seem to lean towards agreeing with the Biden administration’s assertion that they did not overstep their bounds.
Justice Elena Kagan asked, “Has the agency (referring to ATF) effectively taken over what is Congress’s job, as described by the defendants (referring to the ATF) in this regulation?”
Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar responded, “No, I do not think there is any valid reason to describe this regulation as an attempt to change the meaning of the regulation to address a new issue.”
However, not all justices believe that the ATF did not exceed its authority.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question, saying, “You say this regulatory framework has existed for half a century, but there has not been this kind of regulatory framework in place for half a century.”
The debate on Tuesday primarily focused on whether Ghost Guns meet the definition of “firearms,” as these weapons are typically sold in the form of parts kits.
Justice Samuel Alito held up a pen and a blank yellow notepad, asking Prelogar, “So, is this a shopping list?”
He continued, “If I place a few eggs, some pieces of sliced ham, pepper, and onions on the counter, is this a Western omelette?”
Prelogar answered “no” to both questions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett then asked, “Would your answer change if you ordered from HelloFresh and received a meal kit?”
Prelogar responded that the answer would change.
She stated, “If you buy a kit from Trader Joe’s containing all the ingredients to make an omelette, including anything needed for cooking, we would acknowledge what it is and say I bought an omelette at the store.”
Another conservative Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, considered the most ideologically neutral in the court, voted against the Biden administration’s actions at a crucial stage.
On Tuesday, Kavanaugh publicly explained his reasons for the first time. He told Prelogar that the government’s broad interpretation “carries weight,” expressing concerns that this could lead to criminal penalties for those unaware of the strict gun regulations.
Kavanaugh asked, “For example, if a seller genuinely does not know they are violating the law but faces criminal charges, what then? Can you provide any assurance?”
Prelogar responded that most cases would require proof that the seller intentionally violated the law.
The Supreme Court had previously intervened twice to restore the Biden administration’s restrictions on Ghost Guns. The first instance saw a 5-4 vote in favor, with Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joining three liberal justices to form the majority. The second time did not result in clear disagreement, as the vote was on whether lower courts were overturning the Supreme Court’s decision.
This is the second time the Supreme Court has heard a case on whether the executive branch overstepped in gun control. In a previous term, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ideological split, struck down an ATF regulation from the Trump era that banned turning semi-automatic weapons into firearms capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute.
(References: The Hill, The Associated Press)