The highest court in the land is evaluating a case that centers on the regulation of so-called "ghost guns," firearms assembled from parts sold in kits, which have become a focal point of legal scrutiny due to their untraceable nature.

The case, captioned Garland v. VanDerStok, will determine if the federal government has the authority to impose regulations akin to those governing conventional firearms, and during oral arguments, the justices appeared to signal their willingness to accept the administration's rule, as Fox News reports.

The dispute assesses the definition of a firearm and the extent of regulatory power held by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

Law Enforcement Sees Rise In Ghost Guns

Ghost guns have surged in prominence, with the U.S. Justice Department citing more than 19,000 seized by law enforcement in 2021.

This notable increase over five years can be attributed in part to technological advancements, such as polymer-based components that make assembling these kits straightforward. Simple household tools, like drills, are often sufficient to complete the assembly of these firearms.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, emphasized the public safety risks associated with ghost guns.

During the hearing, Prelogar described the issue as a "public safety crisis," pointing out the growing number of crimes linked to these weapons. The 1968 Gun Control Act was updated in 2022 to classify "buy build shoot" kits under the firearm category, necessitating serial numbers and background checks.

As the Biden administration attempts to implement these regulations, a federal appeals court ruling struck them down earlier in 2023.

The administration has subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold these restrictions. This appeal has become a significant test of the federal government's ability to regulate firearms in modern contexts.

Debate Centers on Regulatory Authority

Several Supreme Court justices expressed concern over the implications of regulating ghost guns. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the purpose behind selling partially completed gun receivers that just need minor modifications. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised points about sellers who might unknowingly violate these regulations.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her concerns regarding the court potentially taking over powers that Congress intended for regulatory agencies. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Amy Coney Barrett used analogies, such as grocery lists and meal kits, to explore the complexities of defining what constitutes a ghost gun kit.

Attorney Peter Patterson, arguing against the regulations, insisted that only Congress has the authority to alter the laws surrounding ghost guns. This point raises significant questions about constitutional boundaries and the roles of different government branches in regulating arms.

Constitutional Challenges Highlight Case

Gun rights groups are challenging the attempted regulations on constitutional grounds, arguing that ghost gun kits are non-firearm objects. The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching implications on firearm regulation, especially concerning unassembled components. The case outcome may set a precedent for how other components and novel firearms technologies are regulated.

The hearing also saw Prelogar asserting that the new regulations have led to a noticeable decrease in online sales of ghost guns. The defense used this observation as evidence of the new regulations' effectiveness in mitigating public safety risks.

The justices appeared to be searching for a balance that respects congressional intent while addressing modern safety concerns. Potential outcomes could influence not just the future of ghost gun regulation, but the extent of regulatory powers overall.

Critical Decision Due by Summer 2025

The Supreme Court's decision in Garland v. VanDerStok is expected by the summer of 2025. This ruling will likely have significant consequences in defining both the federal government's regulatory capabilities and the level of control over firearms sold as kits.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court is taking on a complex case involving ghost guns, a modern challenge for firearm regulation due to ambiguous definitions and rapid technological advancements.

The growth of untraceable firearms has prompted the Biden administration to advocate for regulations similar to those for conventional firearms.

Arguments presented in court reflect broader issues about legislative intent, regulatory authority, and public safety. Observers await a judgment that could reshape the landscape of gun control policy significantly.