Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Ghost Guns

The Supreme Court began oral arguments in Vanderstock v. Garland, a pivotal case regarding the regulation of 'ghost guns,' which are kits that can be easily assembled into functional firearms. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that allowing the sale of these kits without regulation would lead to a significant change in firearm laws, potentially enabling unrestricted access to untraceable guns. The Court's conservative justices, while historically skeptical of gun regulations, showed tentative support for the Biden administration's efforts to impose regulations that would require serialization and background checks for ghost gun kits. Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns about the definition of gun parts, using analogies such as a grocery list, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointed out the importance of intent behind the kits' design. The case follows a recent decision in Garland v. Cargill, where the Court restricted the ATF's authority over bump stocks, adding complexity to the current legal landscape surrounding gun control. The outcome could set a precedent that affects the regulation of firearms in the future, as the number of ghost guns recovered at crime scenes has surged dramatically in recent years.