The Supreme Court Upholds Biden’s “Ghost Guns” Rules

I. Introduction

In a decision that has drawn national attention and stirred debate among both gun rights advocates and gun control proponents, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld federal rules issued by the Biden administration regulating “ghost guns.” These weapons kits—sold online and by mail—allow individuals to assemble firearms at home without the usual safeguards, such as serial numbers and background checks. In a rare instance of bipartisan agreement on an issue as divisive as gun control, a 7‑2 majority—written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and including both liberal and conservative justices—supported the rules, asserting that these measures serve an important public safety function.

The Court’s opinion acknowledges that while assembling a ghost gun may require only minimal technical effort (“Perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot,” Gorsuch wrote), the kits are clearly designed “Buy Build Shoot”—to enable the rapid construction of functional firearms that escape traditional tracking methods mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968.

This decision comes as companies that manufacture these kits and some gun buyers have challenged the rules, arguing that the kits are intended for gunsmithing hobbyists and are not subject to the same regulations as fully assembled firearms. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) contends that without serial numbers and proper background checks, these ghost guns contribute to a rise in untraceable firearms at crime scenes. In 2017 alone, law enforcement reported around 1,600 ghost guns at crime scenes—a figure that has ballooned to over 19,000 in recent years.

In his opinion, Justice Gorsuch noted that technological advances such as 3D printing and reinforced polymers have transformed firearm manufacturing. “Recent years, however, have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold,” he wrote, emphasizing that the ease with which functional parts can now be produced at home demands new regulatory approaches.

However, the decision was not unanimous. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the federal law in question should be read narrowly, excluding unfinished frames and receivers contained in gun parts kits. “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one. But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted,” Thomas wrote.

This article examines the legal, technological, and cultural issues surrounding ghost guns, the history of federal gun regulations, and the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for the future of gun control in America. We also discuss related oral arguments—where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that assembling these kits is not unlike working on an old car—and compare this decision to recent cases, such as the Court’s reversal of a ban on bump stocks. As we delve into these matters, we explore the complex interplay between constitutional rights, technological innovation, and public safety in a rapidly evolving society.