Supreme Court considers definition of firearms

The Justices on Tuesday heard arguments from the government and ghost gun manufacturers on whether the Gun Control Act of 1968 applies to so-called ghost guns. The act regulates the sale of firearms and the requirements for who can purchase them. Ghost guns are made privately—sometimes from kits or parts—without serial numbers, making them more difficult for law enforcement to trace. The assembly process does require some special equipment but not much technical skill, according to the National Police Foundation.

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued an administrative rule in 2022 redefining the word firearm to include certain kinds of ghost gun kits and parts. It also required sellers to conduct background checks on individuals hoping to purchase such products. The rule sought to curb the weapons’ use among criminals, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

A nonprofit gun rights group, a manufacturer, and two people who wanted to make ghost guns for themselves sued the Biden administration over the rule. A federal court initially found in the plaintiffs’ favor. An appeals court later affirmed and vacated different portions of the lower court’s ruling. The administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in April 2023 to hear the case this year.

What did both sides argue before the Supreme Court? U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the court that law enforcement agencies across the country witnessed an increase in criminals using ghost guns to commit violent acts. Once the administration’s rule began requiring sellers to conduct background checks on potential buyers, law enforcement saw the kits’ usage by criminals plummet, Prelogar said. Also, the administration did not step beyond the bounds of the Gun Control Act of 1968 in requiring background checks for ghost gun kits, Prelogar argued. She noted that the law explicitly applies itself to weapon parts that can be readily converted into a firearm.

But the counsel for the ghost gun manufacturers, Pete Patterson, argued that the kits could not be readily converted into firearms. Rather, he said, it took a significant amount of time and special equipment to turn the parts packets into weapons. Patterson pointed to a standard that he said federal agencies formulated for drawing the line between what did and didn’t qualify as a firearm. Under what’s called a special machining test, if a packet of parts took special equipment and a lengthy process to turn into a firearm, it wasn’t an actual firearm. Parts that pass the special machining test should not be regulated as firearms, Patterson argued.

Dig deeper: Read Leo Briceno’s report in the WORLD archives about the administration's 2022 rule requiring background checks for ghost gun purchasers.