Supreme Court Reinstates Regulation on Ghost Guns, Curbing Their Proliferation
The Supreme Court has made a significant move to address the rise in ghost guns, firearms without serial numbers that have been showing up at crime scenes across the United States. In a 5-4 decision, the court has reinstated a regulation aimed at curbing the proliferation of these weapons.
The ruling puts on hold a previous federal judge’s decision in Texas that invalidated the Biden administration’s regulation of ghost gun kits. The regulation will now be in effect while the administration appeals the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and potentially to the Supreme Court itself.
The Justice Department provided compelling evidence to support the regulation, revealing that local law enforcement agencies seized over 19,000 ghost guns at crime scenes in 2021 alone. This alarming figure represents a more than tenfold increase in just five years.
The public-safety interests in reversing the flow of ghost guns to dangerous and otherwise prohibited persons easily outweighs the minor costs that respondents will incur, wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer.
The regulation, issued last year, altered the definition of a firearm under federal law to encompass unfinished parts, such as the frame of a handgun or the receiver of a long gun. This change enables these components to be more easily tracked and regulated, requiring them to be licensed and assigned serial numbers. The regulation also mandates background checks for their sale, just like with other commercially produced firearms. Importantly, this requirement extends to all types of ghost guns, whether they are made from individual parts, kits, or even 3D printed.
The controversial ruling by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, struck down the regulation in June, arguing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives had exceeded its authority. O’Connor stated that the federal law’s definition of a firearm did not cover all the parts of a gun, suggesting that it would require congressional action to bring about any changes.
Opponents of the regulation, including lawyers representing individuals, businesses, and advocacy groups, agree with O’Connor’s interpretation. They argue that the ATF had veered away from over 50 years of regulatory practice by expanding the definition of a firearm.
While this debate continues, it is clear that the Supreme Court’s decision to reinstate the regulation reflects the urgent need to address the growing threat of ghost guns. These untraceable weapons pose significant risks as they can easily fall into the wrong hands, endangering public safety. By enforcing stricter regulations and ensuring the inclusion of ghost guns in the existing framework, this decision takes an important step towards curbing their proliferation.
As the legal battle surrounding this issue intensifies, it remains to be seen how the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court will respond to the Biden administration’s appeal. Nevertheless, the reinstated regulation provides some hope for those concerned about the widespread availability of ghost guns and the potential harm they can inflict.
