The commencement of a new judicial term sees the Supreme Court grappling with whether the federal government holds the authority to regulate the distribution of kits for assembling untraceable homemade weapons. The Biden administration and its officials have posited that these ghost gun kits should narrow through loops similar to those created for standard firearms, owing to their surging appeal in recent times. However, this enhanced popularity has mainly grabbed the attention of law offenders who seek to elude stringent background verifications and the gamut of requisites posed by firearms purchase procedures.
Interestingly, the case awaiting judicial scrutiny on the second day of the term does not concern the Second Amendment, despite focusing on firearms. Instead, it deals with examining the extremities of power vested in administrative units. The issue in question is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) stepped over its defined jurisdiction by implementing a directive in 2022 to broaden the understanding of the term ‘firearm’ under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The new regulation calls for mandatory licensing for the manufacturing and marketing of these kits and insists on assigning serial numbers to these products for easier tracing. Moreover, potential buyers must pass through the eye of a background check. This argument is the most recent instance of the federal government being at odds with its rather limited tactics to combat gun-inflicted violence. This disconnect stems from the fact that legislative efforts intended to address this matter remain motionless in Congress.
Looking back at the previous tenure, the majority of the justices repealed a federally imposed prohibition on bump stocks. These attachments equip semiautomatic rifles with a rapid firing feature that mirrors the firing ability of machine guns. After lower courts thwarted the implementation of the 2022 regulation, the Biden administration knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court, urging them to step in.
Individual gun owners and gun rights communities have vehemently protested against the new rule via Garland v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852. They’re of the view that this ruling grossly overreaches the authority of the federal agency given by the legislation. Jennifer VanDerStok, one of the gun owners who previously served as a police officer and later shifted to teaching high school in Millsap – a quaint town near Fort Worth, Texas housing around 400 residents – confirms owning a ghost gun kit. Despite accepting to have resigned from her teaching position, she discloses her intent to build an individual firearm out of the kit for law-abiding purposes, specifically self-defense.
Michael G. Andren, a retiree from the aerospace administration now teaching firearm safety courses in Springtown, Texas, joins the debate. He is armed with gun permit acquisition experiences from Texas, Arizona, Florida, and Utah. Reportedly, he has already crafted a pair of guns and considers himself an ‘amateur gunsmith’, cherishing the craftsmanship involved in constructing a personal use firearm.
Joining the league of dissatisfied citizens are Ms. VanDerStok and Mr. Andren, accompanied by gun parts manufacturers. Together with Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, they protest against the regulation by filing a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in Texas. They argue that the restrictions enforced on ghost gun kits are not aligned with the 1968 law’s elaboration of a firearm. The definition includes any weaponry that can convert readily into a fireable projectile following the explosive action and its frame or receiver.
In response, the Biden administration loosely labels the matter as one of public security, drawing parallels with other measures that permit law enforcement to track and locate firearms. As per their understanding, the law has always necessitated commercial firearm manufacturers and sellers, along with those trading in firearm frames and receivers, to tag their products with serial numbers, maintain sales records, and conduct screening processes to keep firearms at arm’s length from minors, criminals with felony records, spousal abusers, and other potentially dangerous groups. Lawyers representing the administration emphasize this in a brief to the court.
Further, they address measures taken as essential components to deter and resolve gun-related offenses. The Biden administration holds that ghost guns, due to their lack of serial numbers and background check prerequisites, draw in offenders, resulting in a surge in untraceable ghost gun-related crimes across communities.
With increasing use of ghost guns turning into a national security concern, the administration argues that it has clarified its statement on the term ‘firearm’. By the plain text of the Gun Control Act, the Biden administration insists that do-it-yourself kits fall within the definition because of their readiness to convert to a functional projectile post-explosion.
However, critics argue that Biden’s administration is overstepping its powers by imposing such restrictions on gun kits. For them, it seems like a desperate attempt to portray themselves as champions of public safety, while undermining the rights of individuals to build their firearms. The assertion that these changes would significantly help law enforcement seems more like a façade to mask the administration’s inability to effectively address rising crime rates.
The stance held by the government appears to be a minority view in the face of robust opposition from gun rights supporters. They contend that it’s Congress’s duty to decide on such pivotal matters, not an administrative agency. It seems like an overreach by the Biden administration in a contentious area of law and order, causing skepticism amongst those who cherish their Second Amendment rights.
Moreover, the implications of the new regulations on hobbyists and those crafting guns for personal use are largely overlooked. Individuals who appreciate the process of building their firearms and follow all relevant laws and regulations are unjustly penalized. This hasty policy seems like another simplistic and ineffective solution proposed by Biden and Harris administration to tackle complex issues.
It’s evident from the Garland v. VanDerStok debate that the Biden administration’s attempts to exert wider control over gun ownership are met with strong resistance. This case is a shining example of their ineffective policies. Yet, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule, and whether the populace’s concerns will be heeded in their decision-making process.