WASHINGTON, DC— Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the opening arguments for Garland v. VanDerStok, demonstrating open skepticism towards the pro-ghost gun lawyers’ opening arguments, as cited in Slate’s article.
According to Slate, beginning in 2017 online gun companies began distributing and selling firearm kits to consumers without a background check requirement.
The ramifications of selling such kits resulted in numerous firearms without serial numbers, “rendering it untraceable by law-enforcement.” Many businesses reassured customers their purchased items would remain “unmarked and unserialized…without documentation” that would trace it to them,” according to Slate reporters.
The story stated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives claimed between 2017 and 2021 ghost guns used in a violent crime increased by a thousand percent, and in response, the Biden Administration employed an additional ATF rule, requiring gun kit sellers to comply with standards for gun dealers which included serialization and background checks.
In 2023, after the ATF rules implementation, “the number of guns selected at crime scenes plummeted,” according to Slate, noting the companies are now fighting, hoping to strike down the new ATF regulation.
The opening arguments included notable remarks from Supreme Court Justice Barrett, who referenced Judge Andrew Oldham, the Trump endorsed appointee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Barrett, said Slates, noted, “So Judge Oldham expressed concern that because AR-15 receivers can be readily converted into machine gun receivers, that this regulation on its face turns everyone who lawfully owns an AR-15 into a criminal.”
Supreme Court Justice Barrett continued to question arguments on behalf of the ghost industry, with Barrett raising concerns regarding the argument to “allow ATF to regulate only firearms that have completed with ‘critical machining operations,’” wrote Slate.
Justice Barrett claimed the language “doesn’t appear in the statute…it seems a little made-up.”
In one interaction between ghost gun attorneys and Justice Roberts, Roberts continued to pressure them on the argument that ghost gun companies sold frames and receivers as a way for individuals who “want(ed) to construct their own firearm” as opposed to intentionally avoiding firearm laws and regulations.
Roberts asked, “Just what is the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled in it?” Slate wrote.
The ghost gun lawyer then claimed, “Well, just like some individuals enjoy, like, working on their car every weekend, some individuals want to construct their own firearm.”
“Well, I mean, drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends,” Justice Roberts responded.
Roberts continued, stating small modifications to guns, such as drilling holes, may not qualify as gunsmithing, adding, “I’m suggesting that if someone who goes through the process of drilling the one or two holes and taking the plastic out, he really wouldn’t think that he has built that gun, would he?” Slate reported.
