The Biden administration's ban on "ghost guns," or mail-order kits that enable individuals to assemble untraceable weapons at home and are showing up at crime scenes more frequently, was hinted at by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The high court will have to decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overreached itself by requiring ghost gun manufacturers to include serial numbers on the kits and run background checks on purchasers in one of the most anticipated cases of the year. The regulation would go into effect in 2022.
All of the court's liberals and a few of its conservative members seemed dubious about the idea that the kits are intended for a tradition of gunsmithing hobbyists. Chief Justice John Roberts, in particular, shrugged off the argument that constructing the kind of gun kits at issue was similar to someone working on a classic car.
Roberts addressed the attorney for the kit manufacturers, saying, "I would think that drilling a hole or two doesn't give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends." "From what I understand, doing this shouldn't be too difficult for anyone."
Building the kits is significantly more complicated than what the administration has stated, according to Peter Patterson, who is speaking on behalf of the manufacturers and organizations that contested the regulation. Supporters of the regulation claim that even in the absence of pedals, the majority of Americans would still recognize a bicycle as such in a briefing. They contend that an Ikea build-at-home couch is still a couch in its unassembled state.
The majority of the debate, which lasted more than an hour, focused on where to draw the line between a set of components and an assembled product.
Justice Samuel Alito joked, evoking laughter in the courtroom, "Some of us who... don't have a lot of mechanical ability, have spent hours and hours and hours trying to assemble things that we've purchased."
As someone who has trouble with Ikea furniture, I'm with you on that one, Justice Alito," US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, speaking for the Biden administration, jokingly said.
The complaint brought guns back on the high court's agenda at a time when its 6-3 conservative majority has shifted to the right on that and many other issues, even though it is not a Second Amendment matter. The conservative justices unanimously overturned the restriction on bump stocks in June. Bump stocks are devices that, among other things, enable semi-automatic guns to fire hundreds of rounds per minute.
However, there were indications that some conservative court members perceived this case differently than the bump stock case. The judges had already given their opinions on the disagreement away by voting twice in favor of the Biden administration on the emergency docket before the parties ever reached the courtroom on Tuesday. By a decision of 5 to 4, the court upheld the regulation while the case was pending.
At the time, both Roberts and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the government, though this doesn't always mean that's how the case turned out.
Alito spearheaded the interrogation of the government, expressing doubt about the notion that an assortment of disassembled components can be regarded as a firearm.
"A blank pad and pen are here, are you ready? Is this a list of groceries? Holding up a pad in the courtroom, Alito questioned. "Is this a western omelet if I put some eggs, chopped ham, chopped pepper, and chopped onions out on a counter and show it to you?"
Explain that pens and pads are useful for more than just making grocery lists, and that the ingredients can be used to prepare different meals. She claimed that this instance is different since the ghost guns are advertised as being integrated into guns and having no other use.
Barrett immediately intervened to refute Alito's conjecture.
If you ordered it from HelloFresh and received a kit that tasted like turkey chili but included all the components, would your response change? She made reference to the food kit delivery service while elaborating on a situation that resembles the sale of weapons kits.
Prelogar thought that was a more fitting comparison.
She stated, "We would recognize that for what it is if you bought some omelet-making kit from Trader Joe's that had all of the ingredients to make the omelet."
A different worry expressed by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh was that some ghost gun vendors might not be aware that they are breaking the law as a result of the administration's rule.
Kavanaugh questioned, "This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before." "What about the seller, for instance, who is charged with a crime even though they are genuinely unaware that they are breaking the law?"
Prosecutors would need to demonstrate, according to Prelogar, that the seller was deliberately breaking the law. Kavanaugh called Prelogar's response "instructive."
Ghost guns are kits that consumers can buy online and assemble into a working firearm at their residence. The guns don't have serial numbers, don't need background checks, and don't have transfer records that may be traced. They draw people who would otherwise be unable to legally purchase firearms, according to critics.
In a briefing, the administration of President Joe Biden stated that police agencies have seen a surge in "ghost gun crimes" in recent years. Approximately 1,600 ghost weapons found at crime scenes were turned in for tracing by police in 2017. After four years, there were almost 19,000 of them.
In question is a 1968 legislation requiring background checks, sales records, and serial numbers on firearms for dealers and manufacturers. The kits may be swiftly assembled into operational rifles, according to the ATF, which determined that the kits are covered by the legislation. The rule mandates background checks and serial numbers but does not forbid owning or selling the kits.
Five kit manufacturers and advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit, claiming the requirement was unconstitutional. The kits aren’t weapons, they said, but rather parts.
The Texas US district court invalidated the rule, and the conservative US Circuit Court of Appeals largely sustained that ruling.
Crucially, the Supreme Court considered the matter twice on its emergency docket, allowing the regulation to be temporarily suspended while the legal dispute was being resolved. In the initial emergency request last year, five justices agreed with the Biden administration.
Following that ruling, two manufacturers' regulations were blocked by a lower court. The Supreme Court upheld the restrictions' continued validity by rejecting the ruling once more.
By summer of next year, a ruling in the Garland v. VanDerStok case is anticipated.
