On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Biden administration’s ban on “ghost cannons.”
The Supreme Court’s 7-to-1 decision on Wednesday supports the federal weapons ban that former President Joe Biden’s leadership put in place for “ghost cannons,” which are weapons without serial numbers. The Supreme Court’s decision came after plaintiffs and gun manufacturers filed a physical complaint against the Biden administration’s firearms regulations, according to the store.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ( Gun Control Act of 1968 )   ) apply to weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile” and “partial, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames or receivers.”
The Department of Justice issued a “final concept to grip in the development of “ghost guns,” as the Biden presidency confirmed in April of 2022.
The Biden administration claimed at the time that the gun control law do” transform some spirit weapons that were already in use into published weapons.”
Gun producers and other claimants argued that the Gun Control Act of 1968 does not impose limitations on finished gun frames, receivers, or different weapons parts kits, as the Biden administration claimed. But, the Supreme Court determined that the rules that the ATF adopted during the Biden administration “did not facially conflict with the GCA.”
Further: Trump suffers a significant blow from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted on Wednesday that the “made and sold” of firearms has drastically changed in “recent times.”
The Supreme Court argued that the cutting tools, materials, and styles were far too costly for people to create firearms essentially and consistently on their own when Congress passed the GCA in 1968. That is no longer accurate, thanks to the development of new innovations like 3D printers and reinforced plastics.
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito both disagreed with the public’s opinion on Wednesday, according to Fox News.
The government requested the Court’s dissenting opinion to “rewrite” legislative text so that it could manage semi-automatic weapons as machineguns, Thomas wrote in the dissented opinion. We made a decision against doing so. In order to manage weapon-parts kits, the government today requests that we rewrite the legal text. The Court obliges this day. ” I don’t want to.”
The empty frames and transmitters contained in weapon-parts kits do not fall under the legal definition of a firearm, and the legal terms “frame” and “receiver” do not cover these terms. That would put an end to the event, Thomas continued. The majority otherwise applauds the Government’s excessive deference, citing a number of errors, both in terms of the standard of assessment and the statute’s interpretation. I politely disagree.
