The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case involving federal regulation of firearm parts kits used to create untraceable “ghost guns.”
Garland v. VanDerStok challenges the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make a rule specifying that weapon parts kits are firearms for purposes of federal regulation.
Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the ATF has enforcement authority over the act’s provisions, including firearms licensing and regulation of the industry. The act defines a firearm as “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” This definition was adopted by the ATF and remained unchanged until April 2022, when the agency released a new final rule amending the regulatory definition of a firearm to include weapon parts kits and privately manufactured firearms.
Weapon parts kits have become a large concern in the regulation of firearms because ghost guns can’t be traced when used in the commission of a crime. Of the 45,240 firearms without serial numbers that were recovered from crime scenes and submitted for tracing from 2016 through 2021, the ATF successfully traced only 445, or fewer than 1%, the agency reports. The ATF’s rule does not outlaw weapon parts kits but instead requires the same licensing, recordkeeping and background checks already required for the sale of fully assembled firearms.
VanDerStok argues that the ATF’s rule is inconsistent with the Gun Control Act’s firearm definition and the decision to include parts kits and privately made firearms rests with Congress. The government disagrees, asserting that the GCA’s inclusion of weapons that “may be readily converted to expel a projectile” shows clear intent to regulate items such as parts kits that can be assembled into a functional firearm. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of VanDerStok, and the government appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
At oral argument, the discussion centered on three general concepts: congressional intent when ratifying the Gun Control Act; the history of the definition of “firearm” since the act passed; and what it means for an object to be readily converted to firing projectiles. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked many questions on whether the ATF exceeded its authority but seemed to imply that Congress gave the ATF the authority to determine what counts as a firearm. Justice Clarence Thomas peppered the lawyers with questions mostly concerning statutory interpretation.
The court will decide the case later in the session.
Nicole Ezeh is an associate legislative director in NCSL’s State-Federal Affairs Division.