Opinion: I strongly believe that ghost guns should qualify as firearms and that overruling the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule will pose serious public safety risks. In my eyes, if an individual will own an item after assembling a set, then that set should be treated as that item; not doing so is illogical, especially if it impacts public safety. For example, if the Supreme Court rules that a gun making kit is not a firearm and should not have to follow the safety protections of a firearm, then a cigarette/tobacco rolling kit should not follow the safety protections of a drug. More specifically, the logic behind ruling that a ghost gun is not a firearm and should not be sold as one would also conclude that children should be allowed to purchase a tobacco rolling kit; however, people would likely combat this argument by saying children should not be allowed to buy a tobacco kit, because it would negatively impact health and public safety. Similarly, declaring that ghost guns do not count as firearms would negatively impact public safety to an extent that would not be worth the associated “freedom.” Any owner of a ghost gun assembly kit will soon own a gun, and if a ghost gun is not deemed a firearm, their gun will be unregistered, difficult to trace, and able to be manipulated into a complex or undecipherable design, making it much harder for the government to control gun violence. Ruling that ghost guns do not count as firearms will promote gun ownership, gun-making creativity, gun violence, and looser gun regulations, which will ultimately threaten public safety.
Supreme Court will hear challenge to Biden administration rule on ghost guns elaborates on a federal rule imposed by the Biden administration in 2022 that required ghost gun kits include serial numbers and mandated background checks. The Supreme Court has upheld and broadly clarified the Biden administration’s rule through numerous cases; however, enacting and interpreting the ghost gun rule alongside the Gun Control Act of 1968 has proved controversial. Most relevant to this case, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the Biden administration overstepped and that “its [ghost gun] rule constituted ‘unlawful agency action.’” Furthermore, since Congress has not authorized the expansion of firearm regulation or permitted criminalization of conduct, opponents of the ghost gun rule argue that the Biden administration “’overreached by effectively attempting to amend the Gun Control Act [and firearm definition] itself.’” Alternatively, supporters of the rule claim that the kits fall “’within the plain meaning of the [Gun Control] act’s definition of a firearm,’” some even referring to the rule as “’a common-sense regulation,’” and therefore not an executive overreach of power. This article explains that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule and will address gun control, executive overreach of power, and public safety through clarifying the definition of a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The devastating impacts of gun violence, school shootings, mass shootings, and illegal firearm purchases are just a few scenarios that display how public safety is affected by gun ownership, and why Americans could benefit from talking about gun control. This story offers a neutral analysis of the most recent gun debate and highlights the controversy behind gun control among the public and U.S. government. As a result, readers learn about gun control and are prompted to develop their own stance, participate in democracy, and advocate for their beliefs. In addition, since the rule in question was imposed by the Biden administration, readers learn about the gun control preferences of a 2024 presidential candidate which encourages educated voters and civic engagement.
Formal debate about what constitutes as a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968 will result in numerous sidebars and implications. Undoubtedly, Americans would express different opinions when debating how much of a pro or con it is to write a story and spread awareness about accessible and potentially lightly regulated gun making kits. However, the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear the case has benefits, as it will generally spread awareness about gun control and public safety and encourage Americans to engage in gun control debate. Furthermore, Supreme Court attention towards gun control may encourage Congress to address the topic and thereby address public safety and violence. As mentioned earlier, since the gun control rule up for question was implemented by President Biden, this subject presents the gun control preferences of a 2024 presidential candidate and supports more engaged and educated voters. Through public and government attention towards the subject of gun control, discussion is encouraged among citizens, which promotes education, advocacy, and a collective democracy. Unfortunately, the subject of gun control may be sensitive for some readers, and either ruling direction is bound to disturb and rile various individuals, interest groups, and government organizations. In effect, ruling on the definition of a firearm could result in more distrust towards the federal government and fearful or aggregated citizens. However, the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear this case is beneficial, as it ultimately will educate citizens about gun control, associated political stances, and public safety, while promoting civic engagement and a safer democracy.
Valuing Justice 
Leave a comment