U.S. Supreme Court considers Biden administration regulations
WASHINGTON — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday debated whether the Biden administration overstepped its authority in setting rules for kits that can be assembled into untraceable guns, with the majority appearing to have some doubts about whether the rule was overstepping its authority.
exist Garland v Vanderstock, The nine justices are tasked with determining whether a 2022 rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that expands the definition of “firearm” to include “ghost guns” under federal firearms laws violates the law. .
Ghost guns are firearms without serial numbers that can be easily purchased online and quickly assembled from parts, often through kits. Law enforcement officials use serial numbers to track guns used in crimes.
U.S. Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Preloga told judges on behalf of the Biden administration that there is a “crime explosion” of untraceable guns across the United States.
She added that the federal government has required gun manufacturers and sellers to mark firearms with serial numbers for years.
“For more than half a century, the industry has had no difficulty complying with these conditions, and these basic requirements are critical to solving gun crime and keeping guns out of the hands of minors, felons and domestic abusers,” Prelogar said. .
She said these manufacturers use the kits to create untraceable homemade guns in as little as 15 minutes “in an attempt to circumvent these requirements.”
Preloga said untraceable guns are “attractive to people who cannot legally purchase a gun or who plan to use a gun in a crime.”
Prelogar said the 2022 rule was enacted because the ATF saw a spike in crimes committed using these firearms. The Biden administration says it has seen since 2016 The number of ghost guns increased tenfold.
The role of rules
The regulation does not ban ghost guns, but it does require manufacturers of these gun kits or parts to add serial numbers to their products and conduct background checks on potential buyers. The regulations also make it clear that these kits are deemed to be covered by the definition of “firearm” under the Firearms Control Act 1968.
The Biden administration has argued that the Supreme Court overturns a lower court ruling that favored gun rights groups and owners, arguing the agency exceeded its authority.
Pete Patterson represents Tuesday those gun rights groupssuch as the Gun Policy Alliance and Customers, argued that the ATF expanded the definition of a firearm to “include items that can be readily converted into a frame or receiver.”
The frame or receiver is the primary structure of a firearm and houses the other components that cause the firearm to fire.
“Congress decided to regulate only one part of a firearm, the frame or receiver, and Congress did not change the common understanding of what a frame or receiver is,” he said. “ATF has now exceeded its authority and operated outside the parameters set by Congress.”
The case has been submitted to the High Court on an urgent basis in 2023. Brown Jackson and two conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett, approved the rule. .
The case is similar to a Supreme Court ruling that overturned a Trump-era ATF ban on bump stocks, but it was based on a Second Amendment argument.
Omelet and Turkey Chili Kit
Judge Samuel Alito questioned Preloga whether the kits were classified as weapons.
“This is a blank sheet of paper, this is a pen,” he said. “Is this a shopping list?”
She said that’s not because “there’s a lot you can do with these products to create other things besides just a shopping list.”
Alito asked her if she had eggs, chopped ham, peppers and onions, “Is that a Western omelet?”
“No, because as we all know, these items have other uses and can become things other than omelets,” Preloga said. “The main difference here is that these weapon parts kits are designed to be used as combat tools and have no other conceivable use.”
Barrett asked, would her answer change if “you ordered it from HelloFresh and you got a kit and it was like turkey chili but all the ingredients were in the kit?”
Preloga said he would.
“We are not suggesting that discrete components that may have completely separate and unique functions be brought together and called weapons, given the lack of such evidence that this is their intended purpose and function,” she said.
“But if you buy some omelet-making kit from Trader Joe’s, which has all the ingredients to make an omelet, and probably whatever you need to make a fire to cook the omelet, and has all of that, if that’s objectively true, The product is being marketed and sold, and we recognize it for what it is,” Prelogar continued.
Roberts asked Patterson what the purpose was of selling a receiver without holes, meaning the gun was incomplete.
Patterson believes these kits are primarily aimed at gun enthusiasts, who have to drill their own holes to put the product together.
“Some people like to work on their own cars every weekend, and some people want to build their own guns,” Patterson said.
Roberts seemed skeptical.
“I mean drilling a hole or two, I don’t think it’s going to give you the same reward as working on your car over the weekend,” Roberts said.
According to Patterson, assembling a homemade gun can be somewhat difficult, especially if a person is inexperienced.
“Even if you have a complete framework, putting it together is not a trivial matter,” he said. “There are small parts that have to be placed in precise locations.”
no fans
In her rebuttal, Prelog dismissed the notion that amateurs were using these kits, arguing that “if there was a market for these kits, for amateurs, they could be sold to amateurs, you just have to comply Just the gun requirement.
“The evidence shows that these guns were purchased and used in criminal activity. The number of guns seized in criminal investigations increased by 1,000% between 2017 and 2021,” she said. “The reason you want a ghost gun is because it’s not serialized and cannot be traced.”
