The Supreme Court will convene on Tuesday to consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate untraceable firearms known as ghost guns. This comes as major American cities report a reduction in the use of these weapons within their borders following the implementation of the Biden administration’s measures. The court fight revolves around a 2022 regulation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that aimed to subject ghost guns to the same requirements as commercial firearms sales. The issue before the justices is not about Second Amendment rights but rather whether the Biden administration overstepped its authority in issuing the rule.
The case may appear similar to a previous case before the Supreme Court involving a ban on bump stocks during the Trump administration. In that instance, the conservative majority on the court invalidated the regulation that banned bump stocks, finding that the ATF had exceeded its authority by classifying them as “machine guns.”
Legal experts suggest that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the bump stock case may not necessarily indicate how the court will rule on the ghost gun regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both members of the court’s conservative wing, are expected to play key roles in the decision-making process.
David Pucino, deputy chief counsel and legal director at Giffords Law Center, which supports upholding the rule, believes that the government has a strong case in this instance. He argues that the products sold by the challengers should be covered under a plain reading of the Gun Control Act, as they are readily convertible into firearms.
The 2022 regulation at the center of the case clarified the definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include weapon parts kits that can be easily assembled into operational firearms and incomplete frames of handguns and receivers of rifles. This law regulates the commercial firearms market and sets out requirements for gunmakers, sellers, and purchasers.
The rule was implemented to address the rise in crimes involving ghost guns, which can be manufactured from 3D printers or kits and parts available online. Between 2017 and 2021, there was a significant increase in the number of ghost guns submitted to the ATF by law enforcement agencies for tracing. These untraceable firearms do not have serial numbers or transfer records, making it challenging for law enforcement to track them to their owners.
To combat the proliferation of ghost guns, the Biden administration issued the rule regulating their sale and manufacture. The rule requires manufacturers and sellers of ghost guns to be licensed, mark their products with serial numbers, conduct background checks on buyers, and maintain transfer records, similar to commercial firearms sellers.
A group of 20 major cities, including Baltimore, Boston, and Chicago, have reported a decrease in the prevalence of ghost guns in their municipalities since the rule was implemented. For example, New York saw a drop in ghost gun recoveries last year for the first time in four years, while Baltimore experienced a decrease in 2023 for the first time since 2019. If the rule remains intact, these cities believe that the problem of ghost guns will continue to diminish over time.
The legal battle over the ghost gun regulation began when a group of gun owners, advocacy groups, and makers of weapon parts kits challenged the rule, arguing that ATF’s definition of a firearm exceeded the one set by Congress. A federal district judge invalidated the rule, a decision upheld by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
The Supreme Court agreed to review the 5th Circuit’s decision and provided emergency relief to allow the Biden administration to enforce the rule while the case is pending. The court’s earlier actions suggest that the justices may be divided on the issue, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett playing crucial roles in the final decision.
The Biden administration has likened assembled ghost guns to Ikea furniture, arguing that companies selling kits that can be easily assembled into firearms are essentially selling firearms. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that overturning the rule would allow individuals prohibited from owning firearms to circumvent background checks and serialization requirements.
The challengers, on the other hand, argue that ATF’s rule is inconsistent with the definition of a firearm and that Congress should decide whether privately made guns should be regulated. They claim that ATF’s rule was intended to destroy the industry rather than regulate it.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions on regulatory power, including overturning a 40-year-old precedent that required courts to defer to agency interpretations of unclear laws, may impact the outcome of this case. If the court rules in favor of the challengers, it could have significant implications for future firearms regulations and the gun industry as a whole.
The decision on the ghost gun regulation is expected by the end of June 2025, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett likely playing pivotal roles in shaping the outcome. As the court considers the case, the future of gun regulation and the fight against criminal gun violence hang in the balance.
