The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to uphold government regulation of self-assemble firearm kits that produce untraceable weapons known as “ghost guns.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — responding to a skyrocketing number of ghost guns recovered at crime scenes — released new rules in 2022 treating the kits and partially complete gun frames and receivers as traditional firearms, requiring dealers to serialize the weapons, perform background checks on buyers and enforce minimum age limits. The industry sued to block it.
During oral argument in the case, Garland v. VanDerStok, a majority of the justices seemed skeptical of the idea that kits “readily converted” into a fully functional weapon, sometimes in less than an hour, should be exempt from federal gun law.
“What is the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled in it?” asked Chief Justice John Roberts of the gun kit makers’ attorney Peter Patterson.
“Some individuals enjoy, like working on their car every weekend, some individuals want to construct their own firearms,” Patterson said. “So the purpose of selling it… is to assist and provide individuals with material with which they can do that.”
Roberts replied skeptically, saying, “Well, I mean, drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends.”
The government contends the manufacturers created partially complete designs deliberately to circumvent the law.
The home-assembled firearm known as a “ghost gun” used in the fatal shooting of Angellyh Yambo is displayed in this April 8, 2022 handout photo.
Bronx District Attorney via Reuters
The Gun Control Act of 1968 defines a “firearm” as any weapon which is designed — “or may readily be converted” — to expel a projectile. It also explicitly includes “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” It did not define the terms frame or receiver.
A parts kit, noted Justice Elena Kagan, is “analogous to an IKEA table kit” — it would still be considered a piece of furniture even if it was still unassembled in the box, she suggested. Many of her colleagues appeared to agree.
Several of the conservative justices, however, voiced concern about where to draw the legal line over a non-functional gun frame or receiver, specifically when one would count as a “firearm” under the law and when it would not.
“Every piece of paper and pen is not a grocery list,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh worried that some unassuming firearm parts manufacturers could “unintentionally be swept up by these restrictions.”
Justice Samuel Alito suggested the government’s definition of regulated frames and receivers may be too broad.
“I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped up ham, some chopped up peppers and onions. Is that a western omelet?” Alito asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, defending the ATF regulation on behalf of the Biden administration.
“No,” Prelogar replied. “Some items have well-known other uses to become something other than an omelet. The key difference here is that these weapons parts kits are designed and intended to be used as instruments of combat and they have no other conceivable use.”
Guy Boyd and his mother Denise Wieck of Ann Arbor, Mich., want ghost guns — the self-assembled weapons which are not traceable — regulated the same as fully functional firearms. Boyd was accidentally shot by a teenage friend with a ghost gun.
ABC News
Ghost guns are also being recovered from crime scenes at an alarming rate, according to Justice Department data. In 2017, the ATF collected 1,600 guns without a serial number; four years later in 2021, the number was 19,000 — a 1000% increase.
They have also enjoyed surging popularity among teens, who are unable to legally purchase a fully functional weapon from a licensed dealer before the age of 18.
“Ghost guns. It’s in the name: it’s a gun. It’s a firearm. It’s a projectile,” said Guy Boyd, a Michigan man who was accidentally shot in the face by his high school best friend with a homemade firearm. Both were 17 at the time of the incident. “It’s something that can take somebody’s life, or almost take somebody’s life. It’s common sense, in my opinion, that they should be treated like a regular gun.”
Boyd, 20, lost his right eye in the ordeal and now suffers from chronic seizures, memory issues, depression and anxiety.
“That teenager [who shot Boyd] should not have been able to purchase a weapon like that, but he was able to order a gun building kit and build it at home,” said Eric Tirschwell, executive director and chief litigation counsel at Everytown for Gun Safety. “The industry is really undermining parents’ ability to keep their kids safe and arming teenagers in a way that the laws are really set up to prevent.”
Pro-gun groups opposing the rule say the dangers are being overblown and that the law simply does not apply to products that are not fully functional guns.
“There is a world of things under the law that are not ‘guns.’ There’s a world of things in the law that are guns. We can all agree with that. This is about drawing the line between those two worlds,” said Cody Wilson, co-founder and CEO of Defense Distributed, one of the largest manufacturers of gun parts kits and a plaintiff in the high court case.
Cody Wilson, co-founder and CEO of Defense Distributed, is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the Biden Administration’s regulation of self-assemble gun kits.
ABC News
“This rule is about taking physical articles in a state of near completion and regulating them and say, ‘Well, close enough,’” he said. “We don’t agree with them being regulated in the first place.”
During Tuesday’s argument, Prelogar said recent data reveals a decline in the number of ghost guns in circulation — one sign that the regulation is working as intended. She warned the court not to reverse course and open the floodgates.
“If this court now says that one undrilled hole is enough to exempt these products from regulation, then that is going to be a sea change in how the Gun Control Act is implemented,” she said. “At that point it can’t serve out its function because all manufacturers everywhere could simply exempt their products from regulation through that simple expedient. And that means that going forward, all guns could become ghost guns.”
For families like Boyd’s the stakes are all too high.
“A minor or people with mental issues — there’s no reason to be able to buy a gun online that’s untraceable,” said Denise Wieck, Boyd’s mother. “For the kits to not be considered a gun is just amazing. Guns are just too easy to get out there, and a lot of them are ghost guns because people have bought them that shouldn’t have been able to buy them.”
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June 2025.
Ghost guns, also known as homemade firearms, have been a growing concern in the United States due to their lack of regulation and ability to bypass background checks. These firearms are typically assembled from kits that can be purchased online without any serial numbers or other identifying markings. As a result, they are virtually untraceable, making them attractive to individuals who wish to circumvent gun laws.
In recent years, there has been a push for stricter regulations on ghost guns, including limits on the sale of ghost gun kits. Several states have already implemented laws requiring background checks and serial numbers on homemade firearms. However, the issue of ghost guns has yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
The likelihood of the Supreme Court upholding limits on ghost gun kits is uncertain. On one hand, the Court has historically been hesitant to infringe on Second Amendment rights. The right to bear arms is a deeply ingrained part of American culture, and any attempt to restrict access to firearms is likely to face legal challenges.
On the other hand, there is a compelling public safety argument for regulating ghost guns. These firearms are often used in crimes because they are untraceable, making it difficult for law enforcement to track down perpetrators. Limiting the sale of ghost gun kits could help prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands and reduce gun violence.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision will depend on how they interpret the Second Amendment in relation to the regulation of ghost guns. If they view limits on ghost gun kits as a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms in the interest of public safety, they may uphold such regulations. However, if they see it as an infringement on Second Amendment rights, they may strike down any attempts to restrict access to ghost guns.
In the meantime, advocates for stricter gun control measures continue to push for regulations on ghost guns at the state and federal levels. It remains to be seen how the issue will play out in the courts, but one thing is clear: the debate over ghost guns is far from over.
