Former President Joe Biden and his administration railed against so-called “ghost guns” that they alleged were a significant part of the gun violence problem in the United States. There is, of course, no evidence of this. The vast majority of gun violence is committed by the humble glock that was legally procured by criminals who had criminal intent. Federal rules, like those targeting “ghost guns”, only end up harassing law-abiding American citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.

The rule was being contended with in the courts, with the Biden-era federal rules on “ghost guns” eventually making their way to the U.S. Supreme Court’s steps for consideration. Constitutionalists, conservatives, libertarians, and average gun-owners were hoping the rule would be ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, especially with the new conservative bench that has a 6-3 majority. There’s no reason to harass law-abiding Americans who are lawfully seeking to modify their duly-owned firearms, and that’s what the Biden-era rules do.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has not done that. Not even close. The Biden-era rules have been upheld by the Supreme Court Justices. Not only that, but the 7-2 ruling will cement the precedent for decades to come and will make any reversal that much more difficult to argue for.

The 7-2 decision, handed down on March 26, 2025, reveals a court straying far from the principles that once defined this nation’s commitment to individual liberty. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, penned the majority opinion.

Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito stood firm in dissent, recognizing the dangerous precedent this ruling sets. At its core, the case hinged on whether these do-it-yourself devices qualify as “firearms” under federal law and whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority in policing their sale. The majority’s answer—a resounding yes—flies in the face of both statutory text and constitutional intent.

Ghost guns, as they’re pejoratively labeled, are functional weapons assembled by individuals, often from kits purchased online. Marketed as straightforward to put together, they represent a modern exercise of the same ingenuity and self-reliance the Founders sought to protect. Yet the former Biden Justice Department, eager to justify this power grab, pointed to a rise in seizures—over 19,000 in 2021 alone, up tenfold in five years—driven by advances like polymer-based components. Assembly might require basic tools and some elbow grease, such as drilling or sanding an unfinished frame or receiver, but that’s precisely the point: these are not firearms until an individual makes them so.

The 1968 Gun Control Act, amended in 2022 to target these “buy build shoot” kits, defines a “firearm” as “any weapon… which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” including “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” The seven justices in the majority twisted this language to claim the ATF can regulate “some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers.”

But as Justice Thomas rightly argued in his dissent, “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one. But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted.” His words cut to the heart of the matter: the majority’s creative interpretation—dubbing it an “artifact noun” approach—abandons the law’s plain meaning for a slippery slope with no end in sight.

The Biden administration, at the time of implementing the rules, insisted it wasn’t banning these kits outright, only subjecting them to the same rules as commercial firearms—serial numbers, background checks, and all. But this is a distinction without a difference. Forcing law-abiding citizens to jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise their constitutional rights is a ban in all but name. Gun rights advocates see it for what it is: “unconstitutional and abusive.” These kits, they argue, are “non-firearm objects” until assembled—a view the Founders, who championed the right to keep and bear arms without government meddling, would surely have shared.

The ATF’s rule goes further, demanding that unfinished parts like handgun frames or rifle receivers be treated as fully fledged firearms, complete with licenses and serial numbers. Manufacturers must now run background checks on buyers, just as they do for completed guns. This isn’t regulation—it’s strangulation of a fundamental freedom. The Supreme Court’s decision to bless this overreach comes on the heels of a federal appeals court striking down the rules, only for the Justice Department to run crying to the justices for rescue.

This ruling stands in stark contrast to the Second Amendment’s purpose. The Founders didn’t enshrine the right to bear arms so bureaucrats could micromanage every screw and spring. They meant for citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their liberty—free from the heavy hand of a distant government. Yet here we are, with a Supreme Court majority chipping away at that legacy. Even as the court has recently reaffirmed some gun rights—like striking down a bump stock ban in June 2024 or easing concealed carry restrictions in 2022—it now turns around and hands the ATF a blank check to meddle in the lives of hobbyists and patriots.

Justice Thomas warned of “unforeseeable consequences” and the lack of a “limiting principle” in the majority’s reasoning. He’s right to sound the alarm. If the ATF can stretch the law to cover unassembled parts today, what stops it from targeting 3D printers or raw metal tomorrow? These questions already swirl in lower courts, where separate challenges to ghost gun rules persist.

This isn’t about public safety—it’s about control. The Founding Fathers knew that an armed populace was the bedrock of a free society. By upholding this regulation, the Supreme Court has sided with those who’d rather see that bedrock crumble. Dissenting justices aside, the court has lost its way, and the rights of Americans hang in the balance.

Do you think Second Amendment rights are being chipped away slowly by the courts and government as a whole? Let us know what you think in the comments below.