Biden Administration renews ‘Ghost Gun’ fight at Supreme Court.
The Battle Over “Ghost Guns” Returns to Supreme Court as Biden Administration Seeks Control
The ongoing legal battle over “ghost guns” has returned to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Biden administration aims to regain authority over these “untraceable firearms,” following a recent victory for Second Amendment advocates.
On Thursday, roughly two months after it last brought this case to the Supreme Court, the Biden administration once again asked the justices to reinstate Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regulations on “ghost guns.”
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that on Sept. 14 a lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, effectively undermined an Aug. 28 order by the nation’s highest court.
Related Stories
-
Lawyer Says Gun Bans, Transfer Laws Could Cost Lives Rather Than Save Them
10/5/2023
-
Federal Court Blocks ATF From Enforcing Pistol Brace Rule Against Certain Gun Rights Activists, Manufacturer
10/4/2023
“This is the rare application where this Court has already applied the relevant legal standard in the very same case and determined the government should obtain emergency relief,” wrote Mr. Prelogar in her petition.
“The Court’s answer should be the same as it was two months ago,” she added, having argued that without the Supreme Court’s relief, “untraceable ghost guns will remain widely available.”
The prior Aug. 28 high court order in question was an administrative stay issued by Justice Samuel Alito that allowed the enforcement of an ATF rule designed to regulate “ghost guns” by defining them as firearms.
“Ghost guns” is a pejorative term for partially completed frames and kits that can be purchased and assembled into functional firearms. The Biden administration wants to impose a rule that makers of these “ghost guns” must obtain licenses, mark their products with serial numbers, maintain transaction records, and conduct background checks.
This rule was first blocked nationwide by Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, on July 5. This ruling was then challenged in the Supreme Court, where Justice Alito intervened, issuing a temporary administrative stay.
‘Biden Admin Is Now in the Worst Place They Could Be’
Following the high court’s stay, two of the plaintiffs, a pair of firearm frame and receiver makers, returned to the Texas district court, asking it to enjoin the ATF from enforcing the rule specifically against them pending appeal.
Judge O’Connor granted this extraordinary relief on Sept. 14. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently partially upheld the district court’s ruling.
“[C]ourts should be able to review ATF’s 98-page rule, and the decades of precedent it attempts to change, without the Government putting people in jail or shutting down businesses,” the Firth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling stated.
This ruling effectively allowed the two plaintiff companies, Defense Distributed and 80 Percent Arms, to hold a monopoly as the only businesses allowed to sell firearm frames and kits to make “ghost guns” while appeals proceedings play out—a fact they touted in gloating statements following the ruling.
‘Biden Admin Is Now in the Worst Place They Could Be’
In an Oct. 2 statement, 80 Percent Arms said they remain unwaveringly dedicated to “champion[ing] the right of every law-abiding citizen to privately craft firearms.”
In appealing the district court’s decision, Ms. Prelogar told the justices in her filing that Judge O’Connor relied on the same facts that had been considered by the Supreme Court, “yet reached diametrically opposing conclusions.”
“The district court insisted that the government is unlikely to succeed in reversing the court’s vacatur, that barring the government from enforcing the Rule would impose no irreparable harm, and that the balance of the equities favors respondents,” she wrote in her filing.
“The Fifth Circuit then relied on substantially similar reasoning to deny the government’s motion to vacate the injunction, dismissing the argument that the injunction violates principles of vertical stare decisis,” Ms. Prelogar continued.
The solicitor general acknowledged that the district court’s injunction “is narrower” than the prior July 5 ruling. However, she argued that it should be vacated because it “imposes essentially the same harms on the government and public” because the two companies continue to sell their products online “without background checks.”
The ATF’s updated rules, which went into effect in August 2022, redefined terms like “firearm,” “frame,” and ”receiver” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to address the proliferation of “ghost guns” assembled from kits.
The government argues that having no requirements for background checks, serial numbers, and other factors makes them attractive to criminals. On April 11, 2022, President Joe Biden vowed to crack down on “ghost guns.”
‘Biden Admin Is Now in the Worst Place They Could Be’
“These guns are weapons of choice for many criminals,” he said in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 11, 2022. “We’re going to do everything we can to deprive them of that choice and, when we find them, put them in jail for a long, long time.”
What are the arguments for and against regulating “ghost guns” in relation to public safety and Second Amendment rights?
Ule will not harm the public interest, and that enforcing the rule pending appeal is equitable,” the petition stated.
Ms. Prelogar argued that the lower court’s decision undermined the Supreme Court’s authority and created confusion and inconsistency in the enforcement of federal regulations.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could have significant implications for the regulation of “ghost guns” and the Biden administration’s efforts to control their proliferation.
Proponents of stricter gun control measures argue that “ghost guns” pose a significant threat to public safety, as they can be obtained without a background check and lack traceability.
Opponents, on the other hand, assert that regulating “ghost guns” infringes on Second Amendment rights, as individuals have the right to privately assemble firearms for personal use.
The outcome of this legal battle will likely have far-reaching consequences for both gun control advocates and Second Amendment proponents. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will grant the Biden administration’s request and reinstate the ATF regulations on “ghost guns.”
However, regardless of the Court’s decision, the battle over “ghost guns” is likely to continue, as both sides remain committed to advocating for their respective positions.
As the Biden administration seeks to assert control over the regulation of “ghost guns,” they face significant legal challenges and opposition from Second Amendment advocates. The ongoing legal battle has now returned to the Supreme Court, where the administration aims to regain authority over these ”untraceable firearms.” The administration argues that without the Supreme Court’s intervention, “untraceable ghost guns will remain widely available,” posing a threat to public safety. However, opponents of stricter gun control measures argue that regulating “ghost guns” infringes on Second Amendment rights. The outcome of this case will have important consequences for both gun control measures and Second Amendment rights.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
