The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to support a regulation that would classify ghost gun kits as traditional firearms.
The Biden administration aims to mitigate the spread of untraceable firearms with this proposed regulation, NBC News reported.
The court appears likely to endorse the administration's rule that mandates serial numbers on ghost gun kits and requires manufacturers and sellers to be licensed and perform background checks. The regulation, overseen by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives since 2022, includes these kits under the federal Gun Control Act, historically applying only to fully assembled firearms.
During the deliberation, conservative justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett indicated a favorable leaning towards maintaining the regulation. Their questions suggested skepticism about the challengers' claims that the rule overreaches beyond what the Gun Control Act intended. Justice Barrett even questioned the logic of the challengers' interpretation, remarking it "seems a little made up."
However, the regulation's path hasn't been straightforward and unchallenged. Initially disputed in federal courts, a Texas-based judge disfavored the regulation in 2023, but the enforcement was sustained while appeals progressed. This ongoing judicial contention reached the apex of the court system this year, with the Supreme Court listening to arguments recently.
Ghost guns are partially assembled firearms that can be quickly put together and made operational. Notably, they don't have serial numbers, making them difficult to track. By addressing this issue, the Biden administration aims to close a significant loophole that criminals currently exploit to procure weapons anonymously.
Specifically, the regulation focuses on treating these kits similarly to complete firearms, thereby enhancing traceability and ultimately strengthening efforts to combat the illegal gun trade. Moreover, this approach reflects broader efforts to tighten gun control policies in response to evolving challenges in firearm accessibility.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar represented the administration's stance by labeling the issue as an “urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis.” She argued that the proliferation of ghost guns has become a preferred method for individuals looking to evade traditional law enforcement channels.
Here is a detailed explanation from Solicitor General Prelogar: "The regulation targets an emergent and severe public safety threat, represented by an increase in the circulation of untraceable firearms. We are addressing a loophole that has allowed dangerous individuals to skirt legal oversight by assembling firearms from kits."
The challengers, including gun kit manufacturers and gun enthusiasts, argued that the rule extends beyond the original scope of the Gun Control Act, asserting that Congress should make such determinations, not an executive branch regulatory agency. Additionally, they emphasize that people can still obtain untraceable firearms through other methods and argue that focusing on kits does not completely resolve the issue of ghost guns.
Furthermore, critics of the regulation maintain their position that it infringes upon the rights of individuals to manufacture firearms for personal use, an activity that has been less regulated historically. Their legal representation challenges that this overreach into personal liberties was not the intent of the Gun Control Act, originally aimed at commercial entities.
As it stands, the Supreme Court's decision will significantly influence the landscape of gun control and manufacturing in the United States. If upheld, the regulation could substantially change how the nation perceives and regulates ghost guns, potentially offering an effective tool against the illegal gun trade.
In summation, the regulation could redefine the legal boundaries of firearm assembly and ownership. It aligns with broader efforts to ensure public safety against the backdrop of evolving technological capabilities in firearm production and distribution. This judicial endorsement could thus mark a critical turning point in American gun control policy.
