Supreme Court Ghost Guns

President Biden's phantom gun legislation is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, where they will address statutory and constitutional legal issues associated with the bill. The ruling will have a critical implication, as it may redraw the lines dividing Second Amendment rights and government regulatory authority. The main legal concern presented to the court is whether the Biden administration overstepped its authority by imposing regulations on "ghost gun" kits that customers use to assemble guns without serial numbers [1]. In order to address the rising problem of untraceable firearms, which are becoming seriously prominent in the criminal sphere, the Biden administration claims that new restrictions are vitally necessary to fill in the gaps in the current state of gun control in America.

The administration's defense will likely use Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC (1984), a landmark decision that created the notion of court deference to agency interpretations of vague statutes [2]. Until Congress states otherwise, agencies can interpret legislation within their competence areas under the Chevron theory. The administration of President Biden would contend that because of the growing risks that these weapons pose to public safety, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is entitled to regulate them. The argument's premise is that technological advancements necessitate flexible interpretations of current laws to deal with emerging issues. The administration hopes to close a gap that makes a large number of firearms untraceable and unregulated by strengthening this regulatory flexibility.

Opponents of the regulation contend that the regulations violate constitutional safeguards established in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in addition to surpassing the ATF's legal jurisdiction [3]. Heller established the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear guns for self-defense within their house, highlighting the protection provided by the Second Amendment. The administration is illegally increasing federal gun control powers without explicit congressional permission, according to the regulations' opponents, who also claim that the laws impede people's ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. They further assert that without explicit instructions from Congress, the executive branch cannot arbitrarily misinterpret established federal laws to impose these limitations.

When analyzing this case, the United States v. Lopez (1995) decision and other notable decisions that have influenced the legal environment surrounding gun rights and federal authority should also be considered. Because it went beyond Congress's jurisdiction granted by the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court invalidated federal legislation prohibiting guns near schools in the Lopez case [4]. The Court's role in preventing federal overreach and defending individual liberty was highlighted in this case, underscoring the need for Congress to carefully define the boundaries of regulatory power. Echoing these themes, the justices are debating whether President Biden's regulation appropriately comes within the purview of the Gun Control Act, or if it goes too far by extending regulatory supervision to areas not explicitly addressed by the Act in the ghost gun case.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the challengers, the requirement for more specific legislative guidance before agencies can enact broad regulatory changes may be indicated, which could result in a tightening of the Chevron deference. Additionally, it would highlight the Court's need to carefully examine agency interpretations that impact fundamental rights, like gun ownership. On the other hand, an administration-friendly decision would uphold the federal agencies' authority to respond to novel situations by acceptably interpreting current laws, especially when public safety is involved.

Finally, the Court's ruling may establish a significant precedent for gun regulation and the larger dynamic involving the courts, Congress, and government agencies. It may decide how agencies can respond to changing technical and societal risks while adhering to regulations enacted many years ago. The decision could reshape the relationship between legislators and regulatory agencies and influence future Second Amendment jurisprudence and therefore, the decision's ramifications will be carefully monitored.

Sources:

1. Andrew Chung, U.S. Supreme Court Considers Legality of Biden's Ghost Guns Restrictions, Reuters (Oct. 8, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-considers-legality-bidens-ghost-guns-restrictions-2024-10-08/.
2. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
3. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
4. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)