Supreme Court upholds Biden-era ghost gun regulations

• The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Biden-era regulations on Wednesday designed to tighten access to kits used to construct so-called ghost guns. The move comes as the Trump administration reviews a potential rollback of gun control measures.
• The ruling comes after gun rights advocates sued the Biden administration over the rules.
• The Biden administration rolled out the rules in 2022 amid reports by authorities of ghost guns being used in serious crimes and a rise in popularity.

Full Story

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 26, ruled in favor of Biden-era federal regulations designed to limit access to kits used to easily construct guns that police have a harder time tracing.

The nation’s high court issued a 7-to-2 decision to uphold gun control measures on so-called ghost guns from the Biden administration.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion while Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas both filed dissents.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

How do the regulations affect ghost guns?

In 2022, the Biden administration introduced tighter rules on access to weapons kits. Authorities had reported that ghost guns were being used to commit serious offenses and were rising in popularity.

President Joe Biden’s rules required vendors and gun manufacturers to obtain a license to sell kits, place serial numbers on the pieces used to assemble the gun for law enforcement tracing and conduct background checks for potential buyers.

What did gun rights advocates say about the rules?

Gun rights advocates sued the Biden administration, arguing it did not have the authority to regulate the weapons kits because it didn’t meet the criteria for a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The plaintiffs also contend most buyers of kits were hobbyists, not criminals, and said most firearms used in crimes were traditional weapons.

What did the Biden administration say?

Last fall, the Biden administration’s lawyers argued that kits should be regulated as guns. They stated that anyone with basic tools and access to internet video tutorials can quickly and easily assemble a functional firearm, often in a matter of minutes.

What did the justices say?

The New York Times reported that during the oral argument phase of the case, most of the U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed to support keeping the regulations in place, with at least a pair of conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, questioning the case made by the plaintiffs that the federal government had surpassed its authority.

Roberts reportedly seemed wary of analogies comparing the kits use to that of car hobbyists, noting that putting together a ghost gun seemed much more simple than working on a car.

“Drilling a hole or two doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get as working on your car on the weekends,” Roberts said.

Alito, however, appeared to be skeptical of the defense’s argument that gun kits should qualify as firearms. Alito compared the process to making an omelette and questioned when the components of the kit actually become a ghost gun.

“If I show you– I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped up ham, some chopped-up pepper and onions, is that a Western Omelette?” Alito said.

Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Sign up for the newsletter today!

Learn more about our emails. Unsubscribe anytime.

Enter your email for newsletter updates Subscribe

By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.

What is the Trump administration doing about the rules?

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes as Straight Arrow News previously reported that President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February for a review of the Biden-era rules on ghost guns and a potential rollback of the policy.

The order issued on Feb. 7 instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and assess whether the regulations violate Second Amendment rights. She was to conduct the review within a 30-day period.