Justice
CASE PREVIEW
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument next week in a challenge to a 2022 federal rule that seeks to regulate “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives says, almost anyone can quickly assemble with parts that they purchase, often in a kit online or through the mail. Serial numbers are used by law enforcement to track guns used in crime.
Defending the rule, the ATF argues that it is necessary to address an “urgent public safety and law enforcement crisis” created by the “exponential” increase in ghost guns. The They Even without the 2022 rule, they say, federal laws regulating guns still apply to “the vast majority of firearms produced in this country,” and, they claim, the ATF’s own data shows that ghost guns are “not a substantial source of firearms for criminals.”
Background
The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires gun manufacturers and dealers to obtain a federal license, keep records of gun sales and transfers, and conduct background checks. The The law defines a “firearm” as “any weapon … which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” including “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”
Unserialized, homemade guns have become increasingly popular. Law enforcement saw a 10-fold increase in the number of ghost guns reported to the ATF from 2016 to 2022, according to data from the Biden administration.
Ghost gun kits can be bought online without presenting identification or undergoing the background check required by federally licensed dealers. The Background In The The The Later The The That prompted the Biden administration to come to the Supreme Court earlier this year, asking the justices to decide whether ghost gun parts and kits are “firearms” regulated by the 1968 act.
Arguments
The ATF and the challengers disagree on virtually every element of the case before the Supreme Court, starting with the ATF’s premise – that almost anyone can quickly assemble a ghost gun using only “basic tools and rudimentary skills” “in as little as twenty minutes.”
Both the challengers and a “friend of the court” brief filed by a former ATF official contend that the process is significantly harder than the ATF suggests. The The The rule “closely tracks” the text of the 1968 law, the ATF reasons, making clear that a weapon parts kit that may “readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” is a “firearm.”
Similarly, the AFT observes, nothing in the 1968 law indicates that it applies only to frames and receivers that are complete and functional.
The ATF suggests that applying the 1968 law to ghost guns is really a matter of common sense. “If a State placed a tax on the sale of tables, chairs, couches, and bookshelves,” it explains, “IKEA could not avoid paying by insisting that it does not sell any of those items and instead sells ‘furniture parts kits’ that must be assembled by the purchaser.”
The challengers argue that the government’s comparison of weapons parts kits to IKEA bookshelves misses the mark. They The The The The The ATF insists that it is, telling the justices that for over a half-century it has “classified a product as a frame or receiver if it can readily be completed to function as a frame or receiver.”
But the challengers counter that if the ATF did have a practice of applying the definition outlined in the rule to partially complete frames and receivers, that practice would not be entitled to any deference because the agency never enshrined it in any regulations.
In any event, the challengers continue, regulations issued in the wake of the 1968 law to define frame or receiver “remained unchanged until 2022 and said nothing about precursors of frames or receivers or parts kits.”
If there is any remaining doubt about whether the rule goes beyond the ATF’s power, the challengers tell the justices, they should uphold the lower courts’ decisions invalidating the rule because it is “hopelessly vague.” For example, the challengers note, when it defines both “frame or receiver” and “weapons parts kits,” the 2022 rule relies on ATF’s definition of the term “readily,” which the agency bases on an eight-part list of considerations that “ATF appears to have made intentionally vague.”
The ATF rejects the contention that the 2022 rule contains the kind of “grievous ambiguity” required to rule in the challengers’ favor: “Dictionary definitions of the relevant terms, statutory context, ATF’s longstanding practice, precedent, and common sense all make clear that parts kits and partially complete frames and receivers that can readily be completed fall within the Act’s definition of ‘firearm.'”
Finally, the ATF urges the justices to look at the broader picture, stressing that allowing the lower courts’ decisions to stand would “recreate the same problem” that Congress was attempting to avoid when it enacted the 1968 law – keeping felons, juveniles, and others seeking guns for criminal purposes from evading regulation by acquiring guns by mail.
The challengers, however, reject the government’s suggestion that if the rule is struck down, people who should not have access to guns will be able to. The
