The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration’s regulation against “ghost guns” on Wednesday.
According to Fox News, the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling on Wednesday upholds the federal gun restriction former President Joe Biden’s administration implemented against “ghost guns,” which are firearms that lack serial numbers. The outlet noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling came after gun manufacturers and other plaintiffs filed a facial challenge against the Biden administration’s firearm regulation.
Following the challenge to the Biden administration’s gun control regulation, the Supreme Court said, “In 2022, The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule interpreting the Act (Gun Control Act of 1968) to cover weapon parts kits that are ‘designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile’ and ‘partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers.'”
The Biden administration confirmed in April of 2022 that the Department of Justice had issued a “final rule to rein in the proliferation of ‘ghost guns.'”
At the time, the Biden administration explained that the gun control regulation would “turn some ghost guns already in circulation into serialized firearms.”
As part of the challenge to the Biden administration’s regulations on “ghost guns,” gun manufacturers and other plaintiffs argued that the Gun Control Act of 1968 should not place restrictions on unfinished gun frames and receivers or other weapon parts kits, according to Fox News. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the regulations adopted by the ATF under the Biden administration were “not facially inconsistent with the GCA.”
READ MORE: Supreme Court hands Trump major loss
The Supreme Court noted Wednesday that the way guns are “made and sold” has changed significantly in “recent years.”
“When Congress adopted the GCA in 1968, ‘the milling equipment, materials needed, and designs were far too expensive for individuals to make firearms practically and reliably on their own,'” the Supreme Court stated. “With the introduction of new technologies like 3D printing and reinforced polymers, that is no longer true.”
Fox News reported that Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas both dissented with the majority’s ruling on Wednesday.
In the dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote, “The Government asked this Court just last Term to ‘rewrite’ statutory text so that it could regulate semi-automatic weapons as machineguns. We declined to do so. The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not.”
“The statutory terms ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ do not cover the unfinished frames and receivers contained in weapon-parts kits, and weapon-parts kits themselves do not meet the statutory definition of ‘firearm.’ That should end the case,” Thomas added. “The majority instead blesses the Government’s overreach based on a series of errors both regarding the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute. I respectfully dissent.”
