The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision on March 26, 2025, to uphold the Biden administration’s 2022 regulation on ghost guns has sparked outrage among Second Amendment advocates, who argue the ruling tramples on constitutional protections. The regulation, issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), classifies ghost guns—untraceable firearms assembled from kits or parts—as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, requiring serial numbers, background checks, and licensing for manufacturers. Critics contend that this move sidesteps the Second Amendment’s core guarantee of the right to bear arms, as the court failed to directly address whether the regulation infringes on the individual right to self-defense. By focusing on the ATF’s regulatory authority rather than the constitutional question, the majority, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, effectively ignored the broader implications for gun rights, prioritizing administrative power over a fundamental liberty.
 

The dissent from Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito highlights the ruling’s disconnect from Second Amendment principles. Thomas argued that the kits are merely parts, not firearms, and warned that the decision opens the door to broader regulations on other weapons, eroding the right to bear arms through incremental overreach. The court’s conservative majority, which has historically expanded gun rights—such as in the 2022 ruling recognizing the right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense—appears to have taken a step back here. Critics point out that the Biden-era rule targets law-abiding citizens who craft firearms for personal use, a practice with deep historical roots in America, dating back to the founding era when individuals often made their own weapons. By equating these kits to commercial firearms, the court dismisses the Second Amendment’s protection of such activities, allowing the government to impose burdensome restrictions without proving a historical basis for doing so, as required by prior gun rights precedents.
 

Gun rights groups, like the Second Amendment Foundation, have decried the ruling as a betrayal of constitutional values, arguing it empowers the government to rewrite laws at will. The decision comes amid a broader pattern of tension, as the court has both expanded and restricted gun rights in recent years—striking down a Trump-era bump stock ban in 2024 while upholding a law disarming domestic abusers.