A Supreme Court debate on the government's power to prohibit "ghost guns" unfolded with unexpected twists on Tuesday. It appeared that a regulation established by the Biden administration two years ago to restrict the sale of often untraceable gun kits online would likely receive enough votes from the justices to withstand a challenge from the products' manufacturerss. The case prompted the justices to question how complete a firearm — or the frame or receiver of a gun — must be before they are subject to a federal law that mandates background checks for purchasers and the recording of serial numbers that can be used to trace the use of weapons in crimes, Politico reports. Justice Samuel Alito engaged Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in a discussion using everyday examples, questioning if components that can easily be converted into firearms should be treated as weapons. He used analogies involving grocery lists and cooking to illustrate his point, but Prelogar argued that the kits in question have no purpose other than to make firearms.
Chief Justice John Roberts expressed skepticism about the idea that the federal government could regulate weapons but not kits that could be assembled into them. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also voiced concerns that the regulation could lead to the criminal prosecution of hobbyists or others who genuinely believed that the gun parts they possessed did not fall under firearms regulation. Alito argued that the government's proposed distinctions were unclear, particularly in determining when a parts kit could be easily turned into a weapon. This case comes before the high court shortly after a decision that rejected a Trump administration regulation aimed at banning "bump stocks" — attachments that allow semi-automatic weapons to fire bullets in rapid succession. The 6-3 ruling in that case divided the court along ideological lines, with all six conservative justices voting that the rule exceeded congressional authority, and all three liberal justices indicating they would have upheld it. The case presented on Tuesday concerns the interpretation of existing law and whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives exceeded congressional authorization with its regulation on ghost guns.
Comments