On March 26, the Supreme Court sanctioned a rule advanced by the Biden regime, seeking to control the spread of ‘ghost guns,’ unserialized and untraceable firearms. This opened a route for federal forces to monitor and regulate the sale of components and kits used to assemble these firearms. The verdict in Bondi v. VanDerStok, a 7-2 decision, lends support to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in enforcing a 2022 regulation that is romantically perceived as a cure for a ‘growing public safety crisis.’ Justice Neil Gorsuch, having the backing of the court’s liberal wing and three conservative justices: John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, presented a 24-page majority opinion.
Gorsuch’s argument, one may argue, conveniently neglects the bounds of federal regulation, stating it allows the ATF to not just control fully operational firearms but also those weapons that are drafted to function similarly or could be easily converted. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the dissenting voices, contend that the ATF had overstepped its authority—an angle that seemed to have fallen on deaf ears and summarily dismissed given the controversial context.
Increasing accessibility of gun kits in recent years resulted in the surge of ghost guns recovery rates; the ATF report pointed at numbers rising from approximately 1,600 in 2017 to a staggering 27,000 in 2023. Meanwhile, police departments across the US, Gorsuch noted, have ‘had to grapple with a spike in crimes’ involving ghost guns— a narrative that conveniently plays into the administration’s hands. Due to the lack of serial numbers, these weapons, it’s argued, pose a notable challenge for law enforcement tracing, a point brought forward as if without the Biden rule, law enforcement would be rendered non-functional.
The ATF rule, in operation since August 2022, broadens the ‘firearm’ definition to cover weapon kits and partially completed frames and receivers, essentially the base components of a firearm, which can be swiftly converted into operational firearms. As a result of this redefinition, these kits are now under similar regulations as ordinary firearms, inclusive of mandatory serial numbers and background checks for buyers. This reform has left the proponents of gun rights and makers of ghost gun kits visibly disgruntled.
The court, drawing attention to Polymer80’s ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit, presents it as a symbol of the issue at hand. This kit, reportedly carrying all necessary parts to assemble a semiautomatic firearm akin to a Glock, has been singled out. As Gorsuch put it for his complicit majority, ‘Surely, the kit expects assembly as offered, but there are aspects that convince us the ‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit satisfactorily fits the ‘weapon’ label.’
Even though the Supreme Court’s decision on ghost guns has seemingly addressed uncertainties surrounding the ATF rule’s validity, the Trump administration retains the ability to reverse it. Gone unrecognized in early 2023, President Donald Trump had commissioned the Justice Department to meticulously examine the Biden administration’s gun laws, explicitly targeting the ghost gun rule, seeking potential ‘consistent violations’ of citizen’s gun rights.
Some incidents implicating ghost guns in recent memory include the killing of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson in midtown Manhattan. Another Philadelphia mass shooting involving an AR-15-style ghost gun resulted in a tragic loss of five lives. Back in 2019, a 16-year-old high school student in Santa Clarita, California, leveraged a ghost gun to perpetrate a horrendous crime, killing two fellow students and injuring three. Spurring on the questionable narrative, these incidents are being used to advocate for stricter gun controls.
When the case was reviewed by the Supreme Court, 20 significant cities persistently urged the justices to back the rule change, claiming it had brought ghost gun-related crime under control. Baltimore, for instance, saw a 26% drop in ghost gun recovery in 2023 compared to the previous year, marking the first decline since 2019. The exploitation of selective evidence, however, overlooks other realities and contributing factors.
The Supreme Court, apart from supporting the Biden rule, vaguely signaled the possibility of future objections. Reflecting the uncertainty and potential cracks in the facade, Gorsuch’s opinion implicitly disclosed that the rule might not apply across the board for every weapons kit available in the market. Regardless, the sweeping regulation and its supposedly targeted focus pass right under the microscope.