Photo Credit: Michelle Rippy, The Ghost Guns Haunting National Crime Statistics, Federation of American Scientists, (June 6, 2023), https://fas.org/publication/the-ghost-guns-haunting-national-crime-statistics/.
Authored by: Ashley B. Carroll
Ghost guns have been a rising threat to society with the number recovered by law enforcement growing from nearly 1,600% from 2017 to 2023.[1] A study conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) found that during that period 92,702 ghost guns “which can be obtained without background checks and do not contain serial numbers, were recovered and reported to law enforcement.”[2] Ghost guns recovered in crimes from this timeframe grew exponentially from 1,629 to 27,490.[3] Among the recovered materials, “1,700 of them have been tied to homicides, while another 4,000 have been linked to a number of other violent crimes.”[4] Additionally, the ATF found that there was an astonishing increase of 784% of illicit machine gun conversion devices from 658 in 2019 to 5,816 in 2023.[5] ATF’s director, Steven Dettelbach, voiced his concern over this issue and in his perspective the study supports the need for more regulation especially pertaining to “the need for background checks before firearms are sold.”[6] He stressed the involvement of ghost guns being entangled with another major concern inflicting the United States stating, “[t]he data show[s] that in 60% of trafficking investigations, the end recipient of a trafficking firearm is a convicted felon.”[7]
Ghost guns, an informal expression denoting the more technical term privately made firearms (PMFs), “are firearms (including a frame or a receiver) that have been completed, assembled or otherwise produced by a person other than a licensed manufacturer.”[8] These ghost guns are typically produced and sold by licensed manufacturers without any serial numbers.[9] The ATF has recognized 10 different types of PMFs to include: “pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, frame or receiver, machinegun conversion device (MCD), destructive device, machinegun, firearm silencer, and any other weapon.”[10] The ATF points out however, that not all of these devices are illegal or are required to be branded with a serial number.[11]
The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) was passed to prevent firearms from landing in the hands of criminals and to aid law enforcement in investigative measures involving firearms.[12] The GCA accomplished this by requiring the firearm industry to comply with stricter licensing requirements and regulation which barred the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and other prohibited persons.[13] Firearm as defined in the GCA is “(A) 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; [and] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.”[14] With the rapid development of weapon parts kits that have changed the way guns are made and sold, it has provided a way for these ghost guns, typically assembled at home, to evade the GCA’s definition of a firearm.[15] In 2022, in order to address concerns surrounding this issue, the ATF established a rule that would alter the interpretation of the GCA “to cover weapon part kits that are ‘designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile’[16] and ‘partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional’[17] frames or receivers.”[18] This decision sparked widespread controversy among gun manufacturers alongside others who protested this change by filing “a facial challenge under the American Procedure Act, arguing that the GCA cannot be read to reach weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers.”[19] The district court ruled in favor of the gun manufacturers and vacated ATF’s new interpretation of the rule.[20] The Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision, “holding that § 921(a)(3)(A) categorically does not reach weapon parts kits regardless of completeness or ease of assembly, and that § 921(a)(3)(B) reaches only finished frames and receivers.”[21]
The conflict surrounding the regulation of ghost guns was recently decided on March 26, 2025, in the Supreme Court case of Bondi v. VanDerStok.[22] The Court first addressed subsection (A) of §921(a)(3) which sets out two requirements.[23] The first requires a weapon to be present.[24] The second requires that the weapon “be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, deigned to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way.”[25] Those opposed to the interpretation of this subsection under §478.11’s new provisions contend that no weapon parts kits can successfully satisfy the two requirements as noted above.[26] The Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit is presented as an example to show that there are in fact at least some weapon parts kits that do satisfy both of the requirements.[27]
Three points are raised in support of the “Buy Build Shoot” kit along with other weapon parts kits satisfying the two requirements under subsection (A) of §921(a)(3).[28] The first point considers the plain language of the word weapon itself.[29] The Court recognizes the word weapon as an artifact noun – “a word for a thing created by humans. Artifact nouns are typically ‘characterized by an intended function,’ rather than by ‘some ineffable “natural essence.'”‘[30] A “Buy Build Shoot” kit, as the Court describes, clearly fits into this definition; even though it might take time to assemble, it is sold with all of the essential components and “its intended function as [an] instrument of combat is obvious.”[31] The second point looks to how the statute itself addresses the word weapon.[32] The term weapon in the statute includes “a starter gun” within its definition.[33] A starter gun does not come ready to use live fire and would require assembly in order to be used for that purpose; yet before it is assembled, “the statute teaches that . . . it is a ‘weapon’ before anyone invests that work.”[34] This same logic, the Court asserts, should be applied on weapon part kits such as the “Buy Build kit”.[35] The third point also looks to the words in the statute that include weapons that are “‘designed’ to accomplish that function (“‘expel a projectile by the action of an explosive'”) or ‘capable of being readily . . . converted’ to do so.”[36] This language, known as the “ready conversion” test, has been applied to starter guns.[37] The “Buy Build Shoot” kit, for example, passes this test as it can be readily converted into a firearm without any “more time, effort, expertise, or specialized tools to complete” compared to a starter gun.[38]
The Court then moved to examine whether subsection (B) of § 921(a)(3) regarding frames or receivers is facially inconsistent with ATF’s new interpretation in § 478.12(c).[39] To decipher this, the complete frame of a Glock-variant firearm and a partially complete Polymer80 frame were compared.[40] The main difference, the Court pointed out, are tabs located on the Polymer80 frame that “‘are easily removable by a person with novice skill using common tools . . . within minutes.”[41] After the tabs are removed a “few holes are drilled for the pins that hold [other] parts in place . . . [and] the Polymer80 product is a fully functional frame.”[42] Just as the word weapon above was defined as an artifact noun, the terms “frame’ and “receiver” in subsection (B) are also artifact nouns. Under this reasoning, the Court maintains these terms can be described as partially completed items which qualifies the Polymer80 to fall within this definition.[43] The use of the word frame and receiver, under the GCA in other sections, was also supportive to the Court’s analysis.[44] They look to how these words were interpreted under §923(i) that includes some unfinished frames or receivers within the definition stating, “it is hard to see how those same words might bear a more restrictive meaning when they appear just a few sections away in § 921(a)(3)(B).”[45] In this instance the Court rejects the “categorical conclusion” of the GCA regulating only finished frames or receivers and interprets it to regulate “at least some ‘partially complete’ frames or receivers.”[46]
The Court in VanDerStok has recognized that subsequent cases may give rise to additional and more complex questions regarding the control of ghost guns under ATF’s regulations.[47] In June, following this decision, gun manufacturer plaintiffs in VanDerStok, along with others, moved “for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that [this new ATF] rule violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Second Amendment.[48] Additionally, the Trump administration may decide to intervene by repealing the new rule.[49] The Attorney General, under the current administration, has been ordered to review ATF rules passed during the Biden Administration to ensure they are consistent with the Second Amendment and gun rights.[50]
[1] Sarah N. Lynch, Number of Ghost Guns Recovered at Crime Scenes has Surged since 2017, Study Shows, Reuters, (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/number-ghost-guns-recovered-crime-scenes-has-surged-since-2017-study-shows-2025-01-08/.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Lynch, supra note 1.
[7] Id.
[8] Gun Control Act, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/laws-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/gun-control-act (last visited October 5, 2025).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Pub. L. No. 90-618, 82 Stat.1213 (1968).
[13] Gun Control Act, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/laws-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/gun-control-act (last visited October 5, 2025).
[14] 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); See Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025).
[15] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 458.
[16] 27 C.F.R. § 478.11; VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 458.
[17] 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c); VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 458.
[18] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 458.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id.
[22] Id.
[23] Id. at 468.
[24] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 468.
[25] Id.
[26] Id.
[27] See id. (The “‘Buy Build Shoot’ kit comes with ‘all of the necessary components to build’ a Glock-variant semiautomatic pistol. And it is so easy to assemble that, in an ATF test, an individual who had never before encountered the kit was able to produce a gun from it in 21 minutes using only ‘common’ tools and instructions found in publicly available YouTube videos.”)
[28] Id. at 470-72.
[29] Id. at 470.
[30] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 470.
[31] Id. at 471.
[32] Id.
[33] 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(A); VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 471.
[34] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 471.
[35] Id.
[36] 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3)(A); VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 471-72.
[37] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 472.
[38] Id.
[39] Id. at 477.
[40] Id. at 478.
[41] Id. at 478-79.
[42] Id. at 479.
[43] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 479.
[44] Id.
[45] Id.
[46] 27 C.F.R. § 478.12; VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 477.
[47] VanDerStok, 604 U.S. at 473.
[48] Andrew Touma, How are States Responding to VanDerStok, Duke Center for Firearms Law, (Aug. 27, 2025), https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2025/08/how-are-states-responding-to-vanderstok.
[49] Id.
[50] Id.
American Journal of Trial Advocacy 