The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with former President Joe Biden’s administration when it comes to so-called “Ghost Guns.”
The opinion was 7 to 2, with only Justices Alito and Thomas dissenting. Justices Kavanagh, Barrett, and Roberts joined the liberal Justices.
The opinion of the court, stated in part (read full opinion here),
“The plaintiffs close by asking us to invoke the rule of lenity or the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to resolve in their favor any ambiguities about §921(a)(3). Brief for Respondent VanDerStok 38; see also post, at 24 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). But neither lenity nor avoidance has any role to play where “text, context, and structure” decide the case.
Van Buren v. United States, 593 U. S. 374, 393–394 (2021). And even if ambiguities at the outer boundaries of subsections (A) and (B) emerge in future disputes involving the application of those provisions to particular products, no room for doubt exists about the answer to the question the parties have posed to us. The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Justice Thomas said in his dissent,
“The Government asked this Court just last Term to “‘rewrite’” statutory text so that it could regulate semiautomatic weapons as machineguns. Garland v. Cargill, 602 U. S. 406, 428 (2024). We declined to do so. The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not. The statutory terms “frame” and “receiver” do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of “firearm.” That should end the case. The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.
I respectfully dissent.”
Gun control groups praised the opinion as a victory for public safety. Moms Demand Action stated on X,
“HUGE WIN FOR GUN SAFETY! In a massive blow to gun extremism, today, the Supreme Court rejected the gun lobby’s challenge to a life-saving ATF rule regulating untraceable ghost guns—weapons of choice for criminals as they can be bought and built without a background check.”
Gun Owners of America blasted the opinion from the Supreme Court and said gun owners should not rely on the courts to protect rights, saying on X,
“Anyone who thinks they can trust the courts, including the Supreme Court, to protect our constitutional rights, has another thing coming.”
Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s opinion on Vanderstok? Let us know in the comments below.
3 replies on “U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Biden on Gun Control Over So-called Ghost Guns”
Serial numbers were not required on firearms until the GCA of 1968. When one thinks about the time of the framers, firearms of the day were handmade. Eli Whitney wasn’t alive yet to develop the standardization of parts and each firearm’s fixtures were hand fitted to each weapon. That is very close to the definition of “homemade.” Once again, the justices show their ignorance of firearms and their weakness regarding the protection of individual rights.
I greatly appreciate your faithful updates, Greg!
By the way, in the opinion of government historian Michael Gaddy, the bottom line intent of the monarchical/esquire/federalist founders was to design and implement a (3rd branch) judicial power that could legally control any and all rights of the states. Further, he points out that the very amendment specifically stating, “shall not be infringed” is THE most infringed of all. And as for the supreme court, it is evil and wrong that these esquire lawyers be allowed to sit in there unelected and for life! We see the consequences of that wrong right down to today, where only 20 or 30% of the judges operate with integrity. As for the Constitution in general, it’s stated that it succeeded in undoing everything that the people had achieved through the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. It will probably take something no less than a mega polar shift to allow the survivors to return to any such independence and freedoms.
Thanks again, and happy healing, Greg. Sorry, I wasn’t aware of what you’re going through physically.
Carol
If they would read the constitution and stop interpreting it. I guess they can read and understand? It tells everyone we the people have the right to own , carry, have, a firearm .All the other things that have been added by state and federal people that want to change the meaning of the second amendment.