Supreme Court Upholds Biden Regulation Subjecting ‘Ghost Guns’ to Same Rules as Traditional Firearms

The Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s regulations on “ghost guns” Wednesday, finding that guns assembled using at-home kits are subject to the same rules as traditional firearms, including requirements that they carry a serial number and that purchasers undergo a federal background check before buying them.

The justices ruled 7-2 in Garland v. VanDerStok to preserve rules imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in 2022 to combat what the government called an explosion of “ghost gun” usage in criminal activity. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

“Recent years have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold, with companies now able to sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms at home. These kits vary widely in how complete they come and in how much work is required to finish them. Sales have grown exponentially, with law enforcement agencies reporting a dramatic increase in untraceable “ghost guns” used in crimes—from 1,600 in 2017 to more than 19,000 in 2021,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, referring to statistics compiled by federal law enforcement.

“Perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot,” Gorsuch added. “But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: ‘Buy Build Shoot.'”

By siding with the Biden administration, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling from the conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals striking down the ATF regulations. Before ruling on the case, the Supreme Court allowed the ATF regulations to remain in place, suggesting the justices were prepared to side with the government. A coalition of gun advocates, manufacturers, and hobbyists challenged the ATF rules, arguing the regulations were unlawful and the gun kits are parts rather than weapons.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas accused the court of permitting government overreach and argued that Congress could have authorized regulating firearm kits in the original statute if it wanted to.

“The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute. I respectfully dissent,” Thomas said.

The Biden administration justified the new requirements for mail-order gun kits under the Gun Control Act of 1968, greatly expanding its definition of a firearm to include the mail-order kits and place them under the same regulations as regular firearms. The case did not directly implicate the Second Amendment granting Americans the right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Garland v. VanDerStok differs from its decisions in other cases that have sided with firearm advocates. Last year, the high court overturned the Trump administration’s bump stock ban enacted in 2018, rejecting its argument that the accessory turns a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon by increasing its rate of fire.

It remains to be seen whether President Donald Trump will side with the firearms advocates and rescind the ATF’s regulations. He signed an executive order in February instructing the Attorney General to review all gun regulations imposed during the Biden administration to determine whether any of them infringe on Second Amendment rights.