\n<\/p>\n
In a controversial ruling that was a major setback to gun rights organizations and the Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the Biden-era rule regulating so-called \u201cghost guns.\u201d<\/p>\n
Also often called the \u201cframe or receiver\u201d rule, the Biden Department of Justice published the final rule in 2022. The case,\u00a0Garland v. VanDerStok<\/a>, challenged the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including \u201cfirearm,\u201d \u201creceiver\u201d and \u201cframe,\u201d making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past.<\/p>\n In April 2024, the Supreme Court voted 4-3 to consider the challenge, and oral arguments began last October<\/a>.<\/p>\n At issue was whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had unanimously ruled in a 2023 case that the DOJ had overstepped its bounds in making the final rule, upholding an earlier district court decision on the matter.<\/p>\n In that ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that ATF overstepped its bounds in making the Final Rule.<\/p>\n \u201cATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to \u2018do something\u2019 with respect to gun control,\u201d Judge Engelhardt wrote in the opinion. \u201cBut it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.\u201d<\/p>\n On Wednesday, however, Supreme Court justices voted 7-2 to uphold the Final Rule, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.<\/p>\n \u201cSome home hobbyists enjoy assembling them,\u201d Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 24-page opinion for the majority<\/a>. \u201cBut criminals also find them attractive. The \u2018Buy Build Shoot\u2019 kit can be \u2018readily converted\u2019 into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise or specialized tools to complete.\u201d<\/p>\n In the end, Gorsuch said there was no question that the Final Rule should be upheld.<\/p>\n \u201cThe GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed,\u201d his opinion concluded. \u201cBecause the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\u201d<\/p>\n In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that firearms parts shouldn\u2019t be subject to a regulation that could open the door to rules on other popular weapons.<\/p>\n \u201cThe statutory terms \u2018frame\u2019 and \u2018receiver\u2019 do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of \u2018firearm,\u2019\u201d Thomas wrote in his dissent. \u201cThat should end the case. The majority instead blesses the government\u2019s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.\u201d<\/p>\n For its part, the gun-rights organization Firearms Policy Center (FPC) said in a released statement<\/a> that it was \u201cdisappointed\u201d with the ruling.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Court\u2019s majority opinion twists the plain language and meaning of the statutes to uphold the ATF\u2019s rule,\u201d FPC wrote. \u201cThe Supreme Court cynically built up a falsework to shore up the ATF\u2019s improper rule in spite of the text and history of the statutes. We will also continue communicating with the White House, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice to encourage a full repeal of the ATF\u2019s rule and take other FPC-supported actions.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n