Supreme Court upholds Biden administration regulation on 'ghost gun' assembly kits
WASHINGTON - A win for gun control advocates came down from the nation's highest court Wednesday. The Supreme Court has cleared the way for the federal government to continue regulating kits that are used to assemble weapons — so-called ghost guns.
The kits allow people to put their own firearms together at home — like the one used to kill UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December.
The backstory
At the heart of the argument was the question of restricting the sale of individual elements of a firearm.
Consider a blank notepad and a pen: Does this count as a grocery list?
Some say no because there's nothing written down. But some say yes because you use both to make a grocery list.
Now, what if it's gun parts: Does that count as a firearm?
Some say no because it's not an assembled weapon but some say yes because you can turn it into a weapon.
What It Means
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that, yes, gun part kits count as firearms under the Federal Gun Control Act.
That means the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms can require weapon part kit manufacturers and sellers to follow the same rules as federally licensed gun dealers — background checks, serial numbers, a license to sell, and recordkeeping.
The other side
The Biden Administration put these rules in place in 2022 after the proliferation of so-called ghost guns. Challengers argued ATF only had the authority to regulate guns — not kits with disassembled parts.
"It is a limited decision because it's a facial challenge," said Mark Pennak, president of Maryland Shall Issue. "If it's a facial challenge, that means there are no conceivable application which would be legal or, in some cases, constitutional."
MSI is a gun rights advocacy organization in Maryland.
Meantime, in Maryland, Baltimore reached a settlement just last year with one of the largest makers of gun part kits, Polymer80, and the company agreed to stop selling their products in Maryland.
Local perspective
Defenders of the ruling argued that serial numbers are critical for law enforcement to track down guns used in criminal activity. D.C. police continue to grapple with ghost guns.
"You know, locally in D.C., police only recovered 25 ghost guns in 2018. Four years Later, in 2022, there were 524 ghost guns. That's a huge increase," said Nick Wilson, with the think tank Center for American Progress.
"So that's why it was so important last year that the D.C. Attorney, General Brian Schwab, led a group of 24 attorneys general across the country to ask the Supreme Court to uphold these ghost gun regulations, so law enforcement can have one more tool to do their job," Wilson said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, authored the decision, joined by most of the court. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
37 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Unanimously Greenlights Lawsuit Over FBI's Botched Raid
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that an Atlanta family whose home was mistakenly raided by the FBI in 2017 can move forward with their lawsuit, granting them a new day in court. The decision stems from a pre-dawn incident in which an FBI SWAT team broke down the family's front door, deployed a flashbang grenade, and pointed weapons at Trina Martin, her then-boyfriend Toi Cliatt, and her 7-year-old son—only to realize moments later they had entered the wrong house. Although the agents quickly apologized and relocated to the correct address—blaming a GPS error for the mistake—Martin and Cliatt were left with emotional trauma and a damaged home. Their lawsuit against the federal government, alleging assault, false arrest, and other claims, was initially dismissed by lower courts. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that the agents were protected under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which prioritizes federal law over state law. But Martin's legal team, backed by advocacy groups across the political spectrum, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that such protections should not shield federal agents from accountability in clear cases of harm. The Court's decision reverses the lower rulings and revives a debate on law enforcement oversight and federal immunity. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Associated Press
an hour ago
- Associated Press
Supreme Court rules for girl with epilepsy in opinion that could affect education access lawsuits
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sided with a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy on Thursday in a unanimous ruling that could make it easier for families like hers to go to court over access to education. The girl's family says that her Minnesota school district didn't do enough to make sure she has the accommodations she needs to learn, including failing to provide adequate instruction in the evening when her seizures are less frequent. But lower courts ruled against the family's discrimination claims in court, despite finding the school had fallen short. That's because courts in that part of the country require plaintiffs in lawsuits against schools to show officials used 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than most disability discrimination claims. The family appealed to the Supreme Court. The district, Osseo Area Schools, said that lowering the legal standard could expose the country's understaffed public schools to more lawsuits if their efforts fall short, even if officials are working in good faith. The district also argued that all claims over accommodations for people with disabilities should be held to the same higher standard — a potentially major switch that would have been a 'five-alarm fire' for the disability rights community, the girl's lawyers said. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Supreme Court revives lawsuit over mistaken FBI raid
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived an Atlanta family's lawsuit over a botched FBI raid on their home in 2017 but put off deciding its ultimate fate. In a unanimous decision, the justices instead sent the case back to a lower court to take another crack at deciding whether the lawsuit can move forward. Federal agents smashed through Trina Martin's front door in 2017 while executing a search warrant at the wrong address, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member. Martin and her boyfriend at the time were startled out of bed with a flash-bang grenade and guns raised, as her 7-year-old son screamed from another room. She sued the government in 2019, accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government's sovereign immunity and lets people injured by certain actions of federal officers bring some claims for damages against it under state law. But a federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The justices now say the lower courts erred. 'Where does all that leave the case before us?' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked in the court's opinion. 'We can say this much: The plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims survive their encounter with subsection (h) thanks to the law enforcement proviso, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized. But it remains for that court on remand to consider whether subsection (a)'s discretionary-function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional-tort claims,' he wrote. Patrick Jaicomo, Martin's lawyer, argued before the justices that 'innocent victims' of the government's mistakes must have an available legal remedy. The FTCA was amended in 1974 after a pair of wrong-house raids made headlines, which he suggested makes clear that Martin's lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. Exceptions to the law make it more complicated. Frederick Liu, who argued for the government, said that an exception to the FTCA preventing plaintiffs from suing the government for damages that arise out of an officer's discretionary acts applies to the case. He also suggested that entering the wrong home was a 'reasonable mistake' and an example of the 'policy trade-offs' officers make when placed in risky situations. In the court's opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged that lower courts have taken different views on the discretionary-function exception and that 'important questions' must be weighed regarding under which circumstances they apply. 'But those questions lie well beyond the two we granted certiorari to address,' Gorsuch wrote. 'And before addressing them, we would benefit from the Eleventh Circuit's careful reexamination of this case in the first instance. 'It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,' he said. DEVELOPING
