RELEASE: Justices Grapple with Where to Draw the Line Between Firearms and Near-Complete Firearms in Ghost Guns Case
WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case in which the Supreme Court is considering whether weapon parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers should be regulated as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen issued the following reaction:
As several of the Justices’ questions this morning revealed, it is difficult to understand how or why a build-your-own-gun kit designed and marketed as an untraceable firearm should not be classified and regulated as a “firearm” by the federal government.
Indeed, the Justices’ questions showed just how farfetched the gun lobby’s arguments are in this case: in defiance of plain English and the expansive definition of “firearm” that Congress used in the Gun Control Act of 1968, gun manufacturers are asking the Supreme Court to relieve them of the most basic duties—like background checks, record-keeping, and serial numbers—imposed on gun sellers in the United States. The Gun Control Act simply doesn’t allow that.
Counsel Nina Henry added this reaction:
In 1968, after a wave of tragic, high-profile assassinations committed by shooters whose qualifications to purchase a gun were never examined, Congress passed legislation putting an end to what President Johnson called “mail-order murder.” But today, ghost gun manufacturers claim that an anonymous purchaser can go from opening the mail to operating a fully functional firearm in fifteen minutes. This is contrary to the text and history of the Gun Control Act.
As Justice Sotomayor mentioned and our brief discussed, even in 1968, “starter guns” were incomplete or modifiable weapons that Congress deliberately included in its definition of “firearms.” The Supreme Court should respect Congress’s decision to ban weapons that are designed to be readily converted into firearms.
##
Resources: Case page in Garland v. VanDerStok: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/garland-v-vanderstok/
Nina Henry, “The Supreme Court Should Listen to Congress in Ghost Guns Case,” Washington Monthly: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2024/10/08/the-supreme-court-should-listen-to-congress-in-ghost-guns-case/