In a significant development for gun control advocates, the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared receptive to the Biden administration’s limits on so-called ‘ghost guns’ during oral arguments on Monday. The case, known as Garland v. Defense Distributed, centers around the administration’s decision to regulate homemade firearms that lack serial numbers and are untraceable.
Ghost guns have become a growing concern for law enforcement agencies as they are often used in crimes and are difficult to track. These guns are typically assembled from kits or 3D-printed, making them virtually untraceable and allowing individuals to bypass background checks required for purchasing traditional firearms.
The Biden administration’s regulations seek to require individuals who build their own guns to undergo background checks and serialize their firearms. The administration argues that these measures are necessary to prevent the proliferation of untraceable firearms and protect public safety.
During oral arguments, the justices seemed to agree with the administration’s position, with Chief Justice John Roberts noting that ghost guns present a unique challenge for law enforcement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concerns about the potential for these guns to fall into the hands of criminals and the difficulty in tracking them. Justice Elena Kagan also questioned the argument put forth by Defense Distributed, a company that sells gun-making kits, that the regulations infringe on individuals’ Second Amendment rights.
The case has the potential to set a precedent for how homemade firearms are regulated in the future. Gun control advocates hope that a ruling in favor of the Biden administration’s regulations will help address the loophole that allows individuals to bypass background checks and acquire untraceable firearms.
On the other hand, opponents of the regulations argue that they infringe on individuals’ Second Amendment rights and could criminalize law-abiding gun owners who build their own firearms for personal use. They also argue that the regulations are an overreach of federal authority and should be left to the states to regulate.
Regardless of the outcome of the case, the Supreme Court’s receptiveness to the Biden administration’s limits on ghost guns signals a potential shift in the court’s approach to gun control. As the debate over gun rights and regulations continues to be a contentious issue in American politics, this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of gun control laws in the United States.