Justice Clarence Thomas voiced strong opposition to the Supreme Court's decision on controversial ghost gun regulations.
According to The Daily Caller, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 to uphold the Biden administration's regulation of weapon parts kits and unfinished frames as traditional firearms under the Gun Control Act (GCA).
The ruling, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, determined that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has the authority to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers. This decision overturns a lower court's previous judgment and sends the case back for further proceedings aligned with the Supreme Court's interpretation.
Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion established a clear precedent for the ATF's regulatory power over ghost gun components. The ruling effectively validates the Biden administration's efforts to crack down on untraceable firearms by treating partially complete weapon parts as regulated firearms.
In the majority opinion, Gorsuch emphasized that the GCA's scope encompasses certain weapon parts, kits, and unfinished components. This interpretation strengthens federal oversight of firearms assembly kits that could potentially be converted into functional weapons.
The decision represents a significant victory for the Biden administration's gun control initiatives. It provides legal backing for stricter regulation of DIY firearm components that have become increasingly prevalent in recent years.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, firmly rejected the majority's interpretation. Thomas argued that the ruling misinterprets the GCA's original intent and exceeds congressional authorization.
Thomas stated in his dissent:
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. The majority instead blesses the Government's overreach based on a series of errors regarding both the standard of review and the interpretation of the statute.
The dissenting justices expressed concern about the ruling's potential implications. They warned that the majority's interpretation could lead to unforeseen consequences and lacks clear limitations on regulatory authority.
Justice Alito's separate dissent focused on methodological concerns rather than the broader interpretation. He questioned whether the majority applied the appropriate legal test in reaching their conclusion.
Alito emphasized the importance of preserving legislative authority while noting:
A law passed by Congress or a State Legislature should not be held to be entirely unenforceable just because it would be unconstitutional to apply it in just a few situations. That would represent unjustified judicial interference with the authority of the body entrusted under the Federal Constitution or the constitution of a State with the authority to make law.
The ruling establishes new parameters for federal regulation of firearm components and assembly kits. It sets a precedent that could influence future cases involving weapons regulation and administrative authority.
The Supreme Court's 7-2 decision upholding the Biden administration's regulation of ghost guns marks a pivotal moment in firearms control policy. The ruling affirms the ATF's authority to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames as traditional firearms under the Gun Control Act.
The case highlights fundamental disagreements about regulatory authority and statutory interpretation within the Supreme Court. While the majority supported expanded ATF oversight, Justices Thomas and Alito's dissents raised concerns about government overreach and proper legislative interpretation.
