Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett surprises conservatives with nuanced stance on ghost gun regulations.
At a Glance
- Justice Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts may vote to uphold Biden’s ghost gun regulation
- The regulation treats ghost gun kits like regular firearms, requiring serial numbers and background checks
- Barrett’s stance represents a departure from traditional conservative views on gun control
- The case focuses on the ATF’s authority to regulate these kits under federal law
Barrett’s Unexpected Position on Ghost Gun Regulation
In a surprising turn of events, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, known for her conservative leanings, has signaled a nuanced stance on ghost gun regulations. During recent hearings in the case of Garland v. VanDerStok, Barrett’s comments suggested she might side with the Biden administration’s efforts to tighten controls on these untraceable firearms.
Ghost guns, which are often assembled at home from kits and lack serial numbers, have become a growing concern for law enforcement due to their use in criminal activities. The Biden administration’s regulation aims to treat these kits like regular firearms, requiring serial numbers, licensed dealers, and background checks.
Supreme Court hears case on Biden administration's ghost gun law | Click on the image to read the full story https://t.co/IhPk1TFugC
— WLWT (@WLWT) October 8, 2024
Barrett’s Questioning Raises Eyebrows
During oral arguments, Justice Barrett’s line of questioning caught many off guard. She appeared skeptical of the challengers’ arguments, at one point suggesting that their reasoning sounded “a little made up.” This approach indicates a potential willingness to consider the government’s position on regulating ghost guns.
Barrett’s stance aligns with a growing judicial consensus on the need to address the proliferation of ghost guns. The Supreme Court had previously approved the regulation temporarily in a 5-4 split, hinting at a possible inclination to uphold it in the final ruling.
The Core of the Legal Debate
The central question before the Court is whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to regulate ghost gun kits under federal law. This focus on administrative power, rather than Second Amendment rights, has led to interesting discussions among the justices.
“Congress, in the Gun Control Act, did not seek to pursue its purposes of controlling access to firearms to the nth degree,” said attorney Peter Patterson, representing manufacturers, gun rights groups and people who own firearms parts.
The government, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, argued that the rise in ghost gun-related crimes justifies the ATF’s regulatory action. Law enforcement data shows a significant increase in ghost gun seizures, from 1,600 in 2017 to over 19,000 in 2021.
Implications for Gun Control and Barrett’s Judicial Philosophy
Justice Barrett’s approach to this case offers insights into her evolving judicial philosophy. While she has previously shown a special consideration for gun owners’ rights, her questioning in this case suggests a willingness to balance public safety concerns with Second Amendment protections.
As the Court deliberates on this crucial issue, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for gun control efforts and the executive branch’s authority in regulating firearms. Barrett’s potential support for the ghost gun regulation may signal a shift in the Court’s approach to gun-related cases, adding a new dimension to the ongoing national debate on firearms regulation.
Sources:
- Supreme Court seems open to upholding regulations on ghost guns, hard to trace weapons used in crime
