Supreme Court Upholds Regulations on Ghost Guns in Bondi v. VanDerStok
In a significant decision on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a federal regulation concerning ghost guns, marking a rare instance where a majority of the Court’s Republican justices supported gun control measures. The case, known as Bondi v. VanDerStok, addressed the legality of disassembled firearm kits that can be easily assembled into operational firearms.
Background on Ghost Guns
Ghost guns are firearm kits that, when purchased, do not have serial numbers or require background checks, creating regulatory gaps that gun control advocates seek to address. Federal law mandates that firearms sold in the U.S. must have identifiable serial numbers and that buyers usually undergo background checks to complete a purchase.
The Legal Arguments
The plaintiffs in the case argued that ghost guns should be exempt from these regulations because they are not fully assembled when acquired, therefore, not qualifying as firearms under federal law. However, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the Court, stating that this interpretation misrepresents the statutory language governing the issue.
Court’s Reasoning
The majority opinion clarified that the relevant statute encompasses “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.” This definition is key to understanding why the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that ghost guns are not firearms until assembled.
Clarifications from Justice Gorsuch
Justice Gorsuch likened the interpretation of ghost guns to a literary analogy, wherein an author might refer to an incomplete manuscript as their “novel” or a consumer might consider an unassembled IKEA furniture kit as their “table.” The comparison illustrates that the nomenclature surrounding these items can still categorize them as weapons, even in their disassembled state.
Scope of the Ruling
It is important to highlight that the ruling does not categorically state that all disassembled firearm components are subject to regulation. Gorsuch noted that the case involved a “facial” challenge, meaning the plaintiffs asserted the law is invalid under all circumstances. However, given that many ghost gun kits are well on their way to being functional firearms, this argument did not hold.
Potential for Future Challenges
While the Court’s decision was a victory for gun control advocates, Gorsuch indicated that future legal arguments could still arise. An “as-applied” challenge could potentially be mounted against specific firearm kits that are far from completion, allowing for the possibility that certain unfinished kits may not fall under the stringent regulations.
Conclusion
The ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok represents a modest yet notable step forward for gun control efforts in the United States. It affirms the applicability of existing regulations to ghost guns while setting the stage for potentially nuanced future litigation regarding firearm assembly and regulation.
