Gun-control advocates and anti-gun politicians thrive on much of the public’s ignorance of gun laws and policy. How many times have Americans been lectured about the supposed “gun-show loophole” for firearms sales? Of course, federal firearm-transfer laws are the same at gun shows as anywhere else. Then there’s the effort to ban so-called “assault weapons.” Anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center wrote in 1988 that “the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons … can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
A similar story is playing out in the context of what gun-control advocates term “ghost guns.” When discussing this issue, the media conflates three distinct issues under the same spooky branding. There’s the matter of “undetectable” firearms, which the U.S. Congress has repeatedly addressed. Then there are homemade firearms. Finally, there are firearms with parts manufactured using relatively new 3D-printing technology. For instance, the anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg-backed outlet The Trace covers all three of these issues under the category “ghost guns.”
Following a rash of misconceptions concerning the advancement and popularity of polymer-framed pistols like the Glock in the 1980s, Congress enacted the Undetectable Firearms Act in 1988. Since then, the act has been renewed a handful of times—most recently in 2024 with NRA’s assent.
The legislation called for the creation of a “security exemplar” consisting of 3.7 ounces of stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun. The law then made it illegal to manufacture or possess a firearm that is less detectable to a walk-through metal detector than the security exemplar. Moreover, the law made it illegal to manufacture or possess a firearm with a “major component” that is undetectable to “the types of X-ray machines commonly used at airports.” “Major component[s]” are “the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm.”
Therefore, this type of so-called “ghost gun” is already prohibited outright. Manufacture or possession of an undetectable firearm is a felony that carries up to five years imprisonment.
As for firearms made for personal use, these items are just that—firearms. Under federal law, the definition of a firearm doesn’t depend on whether it was produced in a commercial factory or a home workshop. This means that the prohibited-persons categories that apply to commercial firearms already apply to homemade guns. A felon found in possession of a commercial firearm faces up to 15-years imprisonment; a felon found in possession of a firearm he made in his basement faces up to 15-years imprisonment.
Gun-control advocates complain that an individual making a firearm for personal use is not required to comply with the same record-keeping and marking requirements as licensed firearms manufacturers. They contend that the ability to trace a firearm, via serial number, to its first retail sale is vital. The ability of criminals to simply deface or remove serial numbers from commercial firearms to thwart this scheme often goes unmentioned.
The current framework makes sense in more than just a practical manner. Americans have enjoyed the right to make their own firearms without government interference since before the country’s founding. This admirable tradition is important given the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In Bruen, the Court made clear that for any given gun-control measure to pass constitutional muster, it must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” There is no historical tradition of requiring individual citizens to submit to government-mandated marking and record-keeping requirements for firearms they have made for personal use.
Finally, there are 3D-printed firearms, which utilize parts created through additive manufacturing, typically with polymer. Commercial manufacturers of all sorts, including those in the firearm industry, have employed this emerging technology to great effect.
As with many new technologies, 3D-printing also improves the individual’s ability to create and manufacture all manner of goods. As one might expect, the same folks with a dispositional opposition to individual rights aren’t too keen on anything empowering individuals to manufacture more easily.
In the case of firearms, if a person chooses to use 3D-printing for ill, we already have the laws to deal with them. All existing gun laws apply regardless of manufacturing method. If an individual attempts to manufacture a (likely ineffective) firearm using 3D-printing to evade security screening, they are in violation of the Undetectable Firearms Act. If a felon or other prohibited person manufactures or possesses a firearm with 3D-printed parts, they face up to 15 years in prison.
Given the current federal laws addressing so-called “ghost guns,” and all other firearms, there’s no need for the topic to be confusing. Now, how to finally get government at all levels interested in vigorously enforcing these laws against violent criminals—there’s the real puzzler.
