The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to uphold a federal agency’s rule regulating so-called “ghost guns,” with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting from the majority opinion penned by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
The case stemmed from a 2022 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulatory revision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), which defines firearms, firearm frames, and receivers. The GCA grants the ATF authority to regulate any weapon designed or readily convertible to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.
The revision incorporated “ghost guns” also known as “weapon parts kits,” which individuals can assemble into functional firearms into the definition of “firearms.” The sale of these kits has increased significantly in recent years, and law enforcement agencies have reported a sharp rise in crimes involving “ghost guns,” from 1,600 cases in 2017 to over 19,000 in 2021. The revised rule requires these kits to follow the same regulations as traditional firearms, including licensing and background checks.
A lower court initially ruled against the ATF, vacating the regulation. However, the federal government appealed, and the Supreme Court allowed the rule to remain in effect during ongoing legal proceedings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit later affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that the rulemaking exceeded the ATF’s statutory authority.
In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Gorsuch argued that at least some kits fall within the GCA’s authority. He specifically cited a “Buy Build Shoot” kit, which includes all components needed to assemble a Glock-style semiautomatic pistol. Gorsuch noted that while the kit requires some assembly, its intended purpose as a weapon is clear. He compared it to a disassembled rifle, stating that although it may take time to prepare the weapon for use, its function remains unchanged. The majority concluded that the GCA’s language was broad enough to cover such kits.
Concurring opinions further elaborated on the ruling. One justice emphasized that firearm manufacturers have long complied with the GCA’s requirements, such as serial numbers and background checks, but some have attempted to circumvent these laws by selling easy-to-assemble firearm kits. Another justice pointed out that businesses might struggle to determine whether their products fall under the regulation, leading to potential legal challenges.
Thomas and Alito dissented, arguing that the ruling supported government overreach and expanded the definition of “firearms” beyond its original intent. Thomas criticized the Court’s analytical framework and included his own example to argue that an unfinished weapon-parts kit is distinct from a functional firearm. He asserted that converting such kits into working weapons requires specialized tools and time, meaning they should not be classified as firearms under the regulation.
Alito’s dissent focused on the limited scope of the ruling. He noted that the Court only upheld the rule in cases where kits contained all necessary components for assembly, while other kits and incomplete receivers may not fall under the regulation. He concluded by emphasizing that the decision did not establish broad authority over all gun parts and kits.
