Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s conclusions were inaccurate and that leaving them in place would endanger public safety. He requested a hearing. Groups challenging the Biden administration’s regulations, including companies that make and sell such kits and gun rights groups, disagreed, arguing that the circuit court’s conclusions were correct and should be upheld.
But both the Biden administration and its opponents agreed on one thing: They wanted the Supreme Court to take up the case and decide the issue.
The case marks the latest gun-related argument the justices have agreed to consider. In recent months, the court has heard arguments over a federal law that prohibits people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns, as well as a federal ban on bump stock devices.
The justices have previously addressed the Biden administration’s governance over ghost guns. Last year, the Supreme Court allowed these regulations to continue despite numerous challenges.
A federal judge in Texas ruled that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 by regulating these kits. The Supreme Court reinstated the Biden administration’s rules last summer, amid other legal challenges. Similar actions continued across the country and were repeated several weeks later following lower court rulings.
The two sides in the case disagree over whether the kits count as firearms under the 1968 law. The Biden administration says they fall “within the plain meaning of this law’s definition of ‘firearm.'” Opponents argue that the 2022 rule “expands the regulatory definition of ‘firearm’ beyond the scope of gun control laws.”
A 5th Circuit panel said in November that the weapon parts kits were not “firearms” under the 1968 law, and the judges concluded that the ATF acted improperly.
“Because Congress has not authorized expanded firearms regulations or criminalized previously legal actions, the proposed rule is an unlawful agency act and violates the will of Congress,” the committee said. It’s directly contrary to that.”
In asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, Preloger noted that the Fifth Circuit panel “declared the key provisions of a significant regulation invalid, effectively rendering the core provisions invalid.” I have adopted this interpretation.”
Preloger wrote that the commission’s decision would allow for a “flood of untraceable ghost guns” across the country, posing a danger to the public and a challenge for law enforcement officials seeking to solve crimes.
In briefs supporting Preloger’s petition, the attorneys general of more than a dozen states and Washington, D.C., defended what they called “common sense regulations.” They said states are trying to combat gun violence, but noted that “there are natural limits to a state’s ability to combat a national problem that transcends state lines.” They said the federal rules would help “keep ghost guns out of the hands of violent criminals.”
Challengers to the federal regulations argue that the Biden administration’s directive is illegal and that the ATF is “overreaching by attempting to effectively amend federal regulations.” [Gun Control Act] itself. “
The federal rule “upends the delicate balance established by Congress between the commercial production and sale of firearms and the non-commercial manufacture of firearms by law-abiding citizens,” the challengers wrote.
In addition to businesses and gun rights groups, the challengers include Jennifer Vanderstock and Michael Andren, who own items affected by the rule and want to buy more, according to court documents. This includes two people.
The challengers also noted the apparent confusion in lower courts about how the Biden administration’s rules coexist with gun control laws, and called for the justices’ opinion to resolve the issue. He said it needs to be considered.
The case is Garland vs Vanderstoke.
