The Supreme Court has upheld a Biden administration regulation that regulates the sale of so-called "ghost guns." The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives defines ghost guns as "a firearm, including a frame or receiver, completed, assembled, or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer, and without a serial number placed by a licensed manufacturer at the time the firearm was produced." The new ATF regulations, which came into effect on August 24, 2022, "require serial numbers, sales receipts and background checks for the weapons, which are typically purchased in kits online and assembled at home."

In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch with Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting, the court ruled:

That subsection contains two re quirements: a “weapon” must be present, and that weapon must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way.  Some weapon parts kits meet that description.  Consider, for instance, Poly mer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit, which contains all necessary compo nents to build a semiautomatic pistol and can be assembled in about 20 minutes using common tools.  That kit qualifies as a “weapon” be cause: (1) artifact nouns like “weapon” often describe unfinished ob jects when their intended function is clear, as with a disassembled ri fle; (2) the statute treats starter guns as weapons though they require conversion work; and (3) the statutory text contemplates that some things short of fully operable firearms qualify as “weapons.”  The kit also satisfies the statute’s second requirement, as it requires no more time, expertise, or specialized tools to complete than a starter gun, which the statute treats as readily convertible into a functioning fire arm.  While other kits may be so incomplete or cumbersome to assem ble that they cannot fairly be described as weapons capable of ready conversion, the facial challenge fails because kits like Polymer 80’s clearly qualify.  

Just a couple of observations: The Supreme Court is very obviously pulling back from where it seemed to be going with the Heller and Bruen decisions. It seems willing to allow "red flag rules," bans on large-capacity magazines, limits on weapons purchases, and even ammunition purchases while leaving the core "keep and bear arms" component safe.

RELATED:

Opinion: SCOTUS Once Again Ignores the Second Amendment by Opting for Inaction on 13 Cases – RedState
Supreme Court Declines to Toss 2nd Amendment Restrictions in Certain Domestic Violence Cases – RedState
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules the US Supreme Court Made Bad Gun Rights Decisions and They Aren't Going Along – RedState
Partial 2nd Amendment Win: 9th Circuit Upholds Injunction Regarding Concealed Carry Bans – RedState
New Jersey AR-15 Ban Ruled Unconstitutional - but Magazine Ban Upheld – RedState

This decision is largely irrelevant in terms of gun rights. As I'm not a libertarian or even a post-apocalyptic prepper, I don't see what is gained by creating a class of weapons that don't seem to have any purpose but evading existing firearms regulations. If you want to be a gunsmith, there is a legal route to achieve your dream. If the Trump administration believes the rule is ill-considered, it can revoke the regulation and give guidance to the Department of Justice not to prosecute ghost gun cases.

Read the Decision

Bondi vs Vanderstok by streiff at redstate on Scribd

RedState is you leading source for news and views on the administration, politics, culture, and conservatism. If you like our reporting and commentary, please become a member and support our efforts. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.