This Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court leaned toward maintaining regulation over so-called “ghost guns” or homemade firearms. These weapons, assembled from parts purchased without requiring background checks, have raised public safety concerns in a country with an alarming history of gun violence.
Ghost guns are firearms that can be made at home using parts or kits bought online. They are unregistered and lack serial numbers, making them difficult to trace. Authorities are particularly worried because ghost guns allow dangerous individuals, including those with criminal records or mental health issues, to bypass background checks required for traditional firearms.
In October 2024, the Supreme Court favored stricter regulation, upholding the need for controls on these devices, which circumvent traditional firearm laws. The central debate brought before the Court was about the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to regulate the sale of these kits. Gun rights advocates argued that ATF regulations were too broad and violated the Second Amendment, while supporters of the regulation, including various cities and states, argued that the measures were essential for closing legal loopholes.
Movements like Everytown for Gun Safety and Student Demand Action advocate for tighter regulations on ghost guns due to their involvement in violent crimes, especially in schools. Recent police reports show a rise in crimes committed with ghost guns, further fueling calls for stricter regulations.
The case’s core revolves around interpreting the Second Amendment. Gun rights defenders argue that regulating ghost guns is an overreach that infringes upon constitutional rights. Conversely, proponents of the regulation argue that the Second Amendment is not unlimited, and reasonable restrictions have historically been allowed to protect public safety.
Although the Court has not issued a final ruling, the judges’ questioning suggests they may support maintaining the ATF’s ability to regulate these kits. The Court’s decision will have long-term implications for the U.S. gun control debate. Should the Court uphold the current regulations, it may pave the way for more oversight over the sale and manufacture of homemade firearms. On the other hand, if the Court rules against these regulations, it could lead to increased production and distribution of ghost guns, complicating efforts to reduce gun violence.
In addition to public safety, the debate also touches on fundamental American values. While the government’s role in ensuring citizens’ safety is under scrutiny, some argue that restricting access to firearms may limit individuals’ ability to protect themselves from criminal threats.
At a time when gun violence is at alarming levels, the judiciary faces the monumental task of balancing individual rights with public safety. Solutions are not simple, but the stakes are high for the safety of millions of citizens. While the right to bear arms is protected, so too should be the lives of potential victims of gun violence.
The debate continues…
María Herrera Mellado es abogada que ejerce en EE.UU. reconocida por su análisis político y legal en los medios de comunicación y su participaciôn en la redacción de políticas públicas y leyes en materia de seguridad nacional e inmigración.
Su formación académica y experiencias profesionales la convierten en una voz respetada en el debate público y en el análisis de temas de actualidad sobre todo en los desafíos políticos y legales contemporáneos.
María Herrera Mellado is a U.S.-based attorney also licensed in Spain. She holds a PhD in Legal Sciences and is known as a media legal and policy analyst.
Dr. Herrera is recognized for her extensive experience in analyzing and consulting on public policy design, legislative proposals, and international relations management.
Her recognition stems from her contributions to the analysis and legal representation of various organizations, companies, and individuals whose human rights or privacy have been violated, or who have benefited from the inclusion of effective policies, primarily in the areas of transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption.
Her academic background and professional experience make her a respected voice in public debate and in the analysis of current issues, particularly in contemporary political and legal challenges.