WASHINGTON − Bryan Muehlberger’s daughter tragically lost her life in 2019 due to a homemade gun used by a classmate. Stricken with grief, Muehlberger decided to investigate just how easy it is for a teen to acquire such a gun.

It took him only a few minutes to buy one online in his deceased daughter’s name, as the seller didn’t need to verify the buyer’s age or identity, nor did they conduct a background check.

Modern technology has made these easy-to-assemble gun kits appealing not only to hobbyists but also to underage individuals and criminals who can’t buy a regulated firearm legally.

These self-assembled weapons are referred to as “ghost guns” because they lack the serial numbers and transfer documentation necessary for tracking. Muehlberger became part of a lawsuit in 2020 aimed at persuading the federal government to change this.

While the lawsuit was progressing through the judicial system, President Joe Biden intervened.

Muehlberger attended a 2022 ceremony at the Rose Garden where Biden unveiled a new regulation intended to “restrict the spread of ghost guns” by mandating that manufacturers conduct background checks and engrave serial numbers on the firearms.

Biden remarked, as he was unable to get Congress to enact changes, “I utilized what we refer to as ‘regulatory authority.’”

The Supreme Court is now tasked with determining whether Biden possessed that authority, with arguments on the matter scheduled for Tuesday.

Is Congressional approval necessary first?

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration overstepped when it claimed a bump stock could turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun and thus warrant a ban.

Similar to that case, the upcoming Supreme Court matter doesn’t directly involve the Second Amendment right to carry arms.

Instead, the justices will examine whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is misinterpreting the Gun Control Act of 1968, as claimed by opponents.

“Any necessary regulatory changes due to shifting circumstances must originate from Congress, not the ATF,” argued attorneys for gun owners, advocacy groups, and companies producing or distributing gun kits in front of the Supreme Court.

However, analysts believe it’s uncertain whether the justices will invalidate this regulation, as they did with the bump stocks.

This uncertainty is partly because two conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, previously aligned with the administration during an earlier phase of this case.

In 2023, they sided with the three liberal justices in permitting the regulation to proceed while it is being contested.

While the justices did not offer a rationale for their decision, it required that the government demonstrate a realistic probability of eventual approval of the regulation.

“This scenario presents a tangible possibility that the outcome may differ from that of the bump stocks case last term,” stated Deepak Gupta, an appellate lawyer monitoring the court’s proceedings.

Are gun kits similar to Ikea bookshelves?

The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” to encompass “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” along with “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, determined that the ATF improperly broadened the interpretation of “firearm” to include “aggregations of weapon parts” that can be easily assembled into a functional firearm and altered the definitions of “frame” and “receiver.”

In their defense, the Justice Department likened gun kits to an IKEA bookshelf that requires assembly by the customer. The government explained in a legal filing that Ikea can’t avoid tax on bookshelves by claiming it merely sells parts kits.

“The same applies to firearms: a business selling kits that can be put together into operational weapons in a matter of minutes—and that are designed, promoted, and utilized for that specific purpose—is indeed selling firearms,” asserted Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to the court.

She warned that interpreting the law otherwise would undermine its goal of preventing minors and criminals from easily acquiring guns.

However, a similar defense was previously dismissed by a majority of the court when it overturned the ATF’s ban on bump stocks for being legally inconsistent.

“A law is not deemed ineffective simply because it draws a line that is narrower than one of its possible legislative intentions might imply,” stated the 6-3 majority.

`Most criminals do not manufacture their own guns’

Critics of the ghost gun regulations argue that the rules mainly inconvenience hobbyists; criminals prefer fully assembled firearms as ghost guns are often unreliable.

“Most criminals do not create their own firearms,” stated David Thompson, one of the lawyers representing the challengers, at a recent event.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, stated, “These firearms are acquired through theft, illegal straw purchases, and connections with friends, or they are obtained from black market sources.”

However, the government reports that police departments are facing a dramatic rise in crimes involving ghost guns. Law enforcement agencies are recovering tens of thousands of these weapons, and this number has rapidly increased prior to any regulation being implemented.

The firearm that caused the deaths of 15-year-old Gracie Muehlberger and 14-year-old Dominic Blackwell was reportedly either assembled by the teenager who fired it or unlawfully taken from his father, who was prohibited from possessing a firearm by law. Muehlberger and Blackwell’s father submitted this detail in a brief to encourage the Supreme Court to maintain the regulation.

They emphasized, “No other parent, sibling, classmate, or friend should endure the pain of losing someone to ghost gun violence.”