The United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments surrounding a federal rule regulating so-called “ghost guns”—firearms assembled from kits that are untraceable and without serial numbers. The 2022 rule, implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), seeks to address the rise in ghost guns by applying regulations that are traditionally reserved for fully assembled firearms to the parts used to create these weapons. As the Court appears poised to uphold this rule, it’s vital to examine the broader implications of this case.

The Rise of Ghost Guns and Government Intervention

Ghost guns are kits sold online that contain parts for building firearms, circumventing background checks and traditional gun regulations. According to Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, these kits can be assembled into working firearms in as little as 20 minutes, with some companies even boasting about bypassing federal laws by offering unmarked weapons with no serial numbers. Stern highlights how businesses promote the notion that ghost guns are free from government oversight, encouraging a defiant attitude toward regulations.

From a legal standpoint, the ATF’s enforcement of the 2022 rule stems from the Gun Control Act, which requires serial numbers and background checks for commercial gun sales. The ATF argues that the surge in ghost gun usage, particularly among criminals, necessitates new regulations. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the Biden administration, emphasized that easy access to ghost gun kits undermines the very purpose of the Gun Control Act, which seeks to regulate firearm transactions and traceability.

A Constitutional Crisis or Necessary Regulation?

The key issue isn’t about the merits of regulating ghost guns, but about how such regulations are implemented. Charles C.W. Cooke, writing for National Review, notes that the Biden administration has attempted to expand the definition of what constitutes a “receiver” (the part of the firearm that houses essential components) in a manner that exceeds the original scope of the Gun Control Act. This raises a constitutional question: should federal agencies like the ATF have the authority to redefine long-established legal terms without Congress’s approval? Cooke warns that this is part of a broader issue of executive overreach, where unelected bureaucrats enact rules that should be the domain of the legislative branch.

Echoing this concern, Zack Smith and Jack Fitzhenry from the Daily Signal argue that the ATF is overstepping its bounds. They assert that policy changes like those involving ghost guns should be debated and passed by Congress, not imposed unilaterally by the executive branch. In their view, the Biden administration’s reinterpretation of the law bypasses the checks and balances inherent in the Constitution, undermining the separation of powers that protects individual freedoms.

Jazz Shaw’s Balanced Approach

Jazz Shaw of Hot Air takes a more nuanced approach to the ghost gun debate. He acknowledges both the dangers of ghost guns and the concerns about government overreach. Shaw states, “The kits in question are not themselves ‘firearms’ and are incapable of firing a live round. As such, they are not guns per se so their regulation, should any be required, should be the purview of Congress, not the executive branch.” Shaw makes a critical point: while ghost gun kits may pose a genuine threat, regulating them should fall under the proper legislative process, not the whim of unelected officials.

But Shaw doesn’t stop there. He also recognizes that ghost guns present a public safety concern, particularly given how easily they can be assembled. Ghost guns are “so ludicrously simple to obtain and use that even those with the most rudimentary mechanical skills can do it,” Shaw observes, expressing sympathy for the argument that some form of regulation may be necessary. The rapid rise in ghost gun seizures in recent years illustrates the growing challenge they pose for law enforcement. For Shaw, this case exposes a tension between two important values: individual liberty and public safety.

An Independent Christian Conservative Perspective: A Call for Balanced Governance

This case brings into focus several key issues that resonate deeply: the limits of government power, the need to protect individual rights, and the responsibility to ensure public safety. We should be skeptical of expansive government control, particularly when it encroaches on individual liberties enshrined in the Constitution. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is a fundamental principle, one that serves as a check against tyranny and affirms the responsibility of citizens to defend themselves and their families.

However, this right must also be exercised responsibly. Scripture teaches that while we are free, we should not use our freedom to indulge the flesh, but rather to serve others in love (Galatians 5:13). This concept of responsible freedom applies to gun ownership as well. Ensuring that firearms do not fall into the hands of criminals or those who intend harm aligns with a Christian ethic of protecting the innocent and upholding justice.

At the heart of this debate is the question of whether government intervention in the form of ghost gun regulation crosses the line into government overreach. Jazz Shaw’s balanced take—recognizing both the danger of untraceable weapons and the need for proper legislative action—reflects a thoughtful approach to this complex issue. In the end, the solution lies not in granting more power to unelected bureaucrats but in ensuring that our laws are crafted and enforced within the framework of the Constitution.

We should advocate for laws that uphold justice and protect individual freedoms, while also ensuring public safety. The ghost gun case provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reaffirm these principles by ensuring that any new regulations come through the proper channels—namely, Congress—and not by the unilateral actions of an agency overstepping its bounds.