The United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a crucial case regarding the regulation of ghost guns, the untraceable firearms that can be built from kits, with the central question before the justices being whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to regulate ghost gun kits as firearms.

The impending decision is anticipated by the summer of 2025 and could significantly impact the future of gun control in the country, but court watchers suggest that the justices appeared open to the idea of the Biden administration's rule, as Fox News reports.

Ghost guns are firearms that individuals can assemble themselves from kits that do not possess serial numbers, thus making them difficult to trace.

These kits are sold without background checks, and the parts involved are often made from modern materials like polymers, which make assembly easier. The Justice Department has reported a substantial increase in the number of ghost guns seized in recent years, with over 19,000 confiscated in 2021 alone -- a tenfold surge over five years.

The Biden administration argues that parts within these kits are nearly complete firearms and should fall under the regulations outlined in federal firearm laws.

Specifically, parts should meet the requirements laid out in the 1968 Gun Control Act, which was recently revised in 2022. The revisions were meant to encompass "buy build shoot" kits, defining firearms more broadly to include easily convertible parts.

Legal Challenges Pose New Questions

While the administration is not seeking to outright ban the sale of ghost gun kits, it advocates for these kits to adhere to commercial firearm regulations, including the need for serial numbers and mandatory background checks.

This stance by the Biden administration is a response to what officials describe as a growing "public safety crisis" triggered by an increase in crimes committed with ghost guns.

However, gun rights groups contend that ghost gun kits are merely "non-firearm objects" and argue that any changes to the existing law should be made by Congress rather than the ATF. They stand firm on the belief that regulating these kits as firearms oversteps the ATF's existing authority.

A ruling by a federal appeals court in late 2023 struck down the updated rules proposed by the administration, which paved the way for the case to escalate to the Supreme Court. This comes in the backdrop of several Second Amendment cases revisited by the Supreme Court, including debates on bump stocks and firearm restrictions related to domestic violence.

Justices Weigh in with Key Insights

During the hearing, justices posed critical questions aimed at both the administration's interpretation of existing law and the practical implications for sellers of ghost gun kits.

Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the intent behind selling incomplete gun receivers and pointed out how the final assembly is not particularly challenging. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about sellers who might unknowingly break laws and face criminal charges as a result.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar emphasized the severe implications of increasing ghost gun crimes, describing the situation as an "explosion" leading to a crisis in public safety.

Despite these concerns, some justices expressed hesitation about overstepping congressional intentions, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated her worries about the court potentially assuming a legislative role.

Justice Samuel Alito used a food analogy to query whether easily convertible parts should be considered complete products, questioning the definitions provided by the administration. Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett humorously questioned whether ready-to-assemble kits from companies like HelloFresh could compare.

Supreme Court Allows Regulation to Stand Temporarily

As the case progresses, the Supreme Court has decided to allow the current regulations on ghost gun kits to remain effective. This temporary measure ensures continued oversight while a final decision is awaited. The justices' queries indicate crucial components to the case: determining the ATF's capacity to regulate parts and understanding Congress’ intent regarding firearm definitions.

The case, formally known as Garland v. VanDerStok, is shaping up to be a landmark decision that could redefine the boundaries of firearm regulation in the U.S. By examining the scope and impact of ghost gun kits under federal law, the Supreme Court can set significant precedents for future gun control measures.

In conclusion, the case delves into the intricate nuances of firearm classification and federal regulatory authority. With significant implications for public safety and Second Amendment rights, the Supreme Court's forthcoming decision is anticipated by both advocates and opponents of stricter gun control. As the legal arguments unfold, the implications for gun policy and individual rights hang in the balance.