Ghost Gun Gambit Backfires: Supreme Court Signals Crushing Blow to Untraceable Firearms Industry
In a surprising twist at the U.S. Supreme Court, the ghost gun industry faced a barrage of skepticism from justices during oral arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok. The case, which centers on a Biden administration rule cracking down on untraceable firearms, seems poised for a decisive victory against the shadowy world of DIY gun kits.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, typically conservative voices, led the charge against the ghost gun industry’s arguments. Their sharp questioning and thinly veiled contempt for the industry’s position shocked observers, signaling a potential 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the ATF’s regulations.
The ghost gun saga began around 2017 when online companies started selling kits that allowed buyers to assemble fully functioning firearms without background checks or serial numbers. These untraceable weapons quickly became a favorite of criminals, with their use in violent crimes skyrocketing by 1,000 percent between 2017 and 2021.
In response, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued a rule in 2022 requiring ghost gun sellers to comply with standard firearms regulations. This move effectively crippled the industry, which had thrived on selling to customers who couldn’t pass background checks.
During Tuesday’s arguments, the justices seemed unimpressed with the industry’s attempts to portray its customers as hobbyists. Chief Justice Roberts dryly remarked, “Drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends.”
Justice Barrett was equally skeptical, calling out the industry’s lawyer for making arguments that seemed “a little made-up.” Even Justice Kavanaugh, who previously sided with the ghost gun industry, appeared to be leaning towards the government’s position this time.
The government’s lawyer, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, skillfully parried attempts to muddy the legal waters. When Justice Alito tried to compare ghost gun kits to ingredients for an omelet, Prelogar pointed out that, unlike eggs and ham, ghost gun parts have no other purpose than becoming a firearm.
By the end of the session, it was clear that the ghost gun industry’s arguments had fallen flat. The justices’ silence when asked for final questions spoke volumes about their lack of interest in hearing more from the industry’s side.
While a victory for the ATF would be significant for gun safety advocates, the specter of the upcoming presidential election looms large. A Trump victory in November could see the ghost gun rule rescinded, potentially breathing new life into the industry.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for public safety and the future of firearms regulation in America. For now, the ghost gun industry’s gambit may have backfired spectacularly in the nation’s highest court.