7-2 Majority Finds ATF Can Regulate Ghost Gun Part Manufacturers
As we have previously covered, multiple times, the United States Supreme Court was weighing a challenge to the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) to regulate so-called “ghost gun” products under its authority granted from the Gun Control Act of 1968 by requiring that said manufacturers comply with the Act when selling their products by including serial numbers and running background checks for sales. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court published its decision that, by a 7-2 majority, the ATF’s 2022 rule interpreting the Act as granting them the authority to regulate certain products that can be readily converted into “ghost guns” was not facially inconsistent and therefore the rule was upheld. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that the purpose of the Act when passed was because in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator RFK, congress realized that the existing laws “allowed criminals to acquire largely untraceable guns too easily.” With advances in technology and access to materials such as 3D printing and reinforced polymers have created a new reality that, “companies are able to make and sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms in their own homes” in short periods of time without requiring special tools, citing one product marketed as “Buy Build Shoot” saying it was aptly named given that a buyer would only need “perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot” of the “Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol.”
Questions Remain About Exactly What Products Are Subject to ATF Rule
Justice Gorsuch did acknowledge that the range of products for sale varied widely and that there were some products that would not meet the definition that allows regulation, leaving the door open for individual companies to challenge the ATF’s ability to regulate their products, but for those individual cases this decision did not “requires us to explore none of that,” only that the ability for the ATF to regulate some products was within their authority. In a concurring opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the line between ghost gun products that are subject to the ATF’s rule and those that are not, “is not entirely clear” and that individual sellers would only face criminal liability if they knew their conduct was illegal under a “willfulness” standard for violating the licensing, record keeping, or serialization requirements of the act, but a lesser “knowingly” standard for background check violations, though he said he relied on the government’s oral argument that it would likely decline to seek charges for background check violations of this kind. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was less concerned with this lack of clarity for individual companies, because they can, “eliminate uncertainty by seeking clarification from the [ATF]. ATF encourages manufacturers to submit potentially covered products to the agency for classification decisions.” Still, some companies and individuals that elect not to send their design products to the agency for classification decisions could still find themselves in legal jeopardy if the ATF believes they are running afoul of the Act’s requirements. Anyone facing charges for circumventing federal gun regulations should ensure they hire an experienced attorney that can represent their interests and defend against any charges.
