Ghost Gun Prosecutions
Overview: What Are Ghost Guns
“Ghost guns” are firearms that:
Are made from kits or 3D printers.
Have no serial numbers.
Are sold or built without background checks.
They are often untraceable and have become a significant problem for law enforcement. Prosecutions typically fall under:
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1)(A) – Unlicensed firearm manufacturing or dealing.
18 U.S.C. § 922(k) – Possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers.
18 U.S.C. § 922(g) – Possession by prohibited persons (felons, etc.).
18 U.S.C. § 371 – Conspiracy to violate firearm laws.
Case 1: United States v. Joseph Roh (2018, Central District of California)
Facts:
Joseph Roh operated a business offering “build parties,” where customers could complete unfinished firearm receivers using his equipment. He claimed these weren’t firearms because they were only “80% complete.”
Issue:
Whether unfinished receivers that could easily be completed into functioning guns qualified as “firearms” under federal law.
Court Findings:
The court found that Roh’s operation effectively produced firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
Although the court criticized ATF’s unclear guidance, it ultimately concluded the kits were firearms because they could readily be converted.
Roh was found guilty of unlicensed firearm manufacturing and dealing.
Significance:
This case became one of the first major federal actions clarifying that “ghost gun kits” qualify as firearms when they can easily be assembled into operable weapons.
Case 2: United States v. Matthew Hoover and Kristopher Ervin (2023, Florida)
Facts:
Hoover and Ervin sold “auto key cards,” metal plates engraved with firearm conversion diagrams that could convert semi-automatic rifles into automatic weapons. They were sold under the claim of being “novelty items.”
Issue:
Whether such engraved metal cards were firearm conversion devices under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) (National Firearms Act).
Court Findings:
The jury convicted both defendants, determining that the “auto key cards” were machinegun conversion devices.
Hoover was sentenced to over 5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
This case extended ghost gun liability to 3D-printed or diagram-based parts that can enable untraceable firearms to become automatic — reinforcing that intent and potential use matter as much as physical completion.
Case 3: United States v. Patrick McGinnis (2021, Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Facts:
McGinnis built and sold multiple unregistered ghost guns, including Glock-style handguns, using 3D-printed receivers and unmarked parts. He sold them to undercover agents and convicted felons.
Charges:
Unlicensed firearm manufacturing.
Sale to prohibited persons.
Possession of firearms with no serial numbers.
Court Findings:
The court held that even though McGinnis used 3D printing, the end product was a functional firearm under federal law.
He was sentenced to 78 months in federal prison.
Significance:
This case confirmed that 3D-printed firearms are fully covered by the Gun Control Act, regardless of how they are produced.
Case 4: United States v. Davon Holmes (2022, District of Maryland)
Facts:
Holmes operated a network selling ghost gun kits online. Agents recovered over 40 untraceable firearms and hundreds of parts. Holmes argued that kits were not “firearms” because they were incomplete.
Court Findings:
The court ruled that the kits were firearms because they were “readily convertible” into working guns.
Holmes was convicted of unlicensed dealing and possession by a felon under § 922(g).
Sentence:
9 years imprisonment.
Significance:
The case reinforced that even partially finished receivers and kits qualify as firearms if they can easily be assembled, setting precedent for online ghost gun kit sellers.
Case 5: United States v. Polymer80, Inc. (2023, Nevada)
Facts:
Polymer80, one of the largest ghost gun kit makers, sold “Buy, Build, Shoot” kits that included all parts needed to make a working handgun. The company argued that they were not “firearms” because they were unfinished.
Action:
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Polymer80 for violating federal gun laws.
Court Findings:
The court found that Polymer80’s kits were firearms under the Gun Control Act.
The company agreed to a civil settlement and was ordered to stop selling complete build kits without serial numbers or background checks.
Significance:
This case set a corporate-level precedent: companies selling full ghost gun kits are considered firearm manufacturers and must comply with federal licensing and serialization requirements.
Case 6: United States v. Kevin VanBuren (2020, New York)
Facts:
VanBuren, a convicted felon, was found in possession of multiple 3D-printed ghost guns and a 3D printer loaded with polymer used for frames. None of the guns had serial numbers.
Court Findings:
The court ruled that even though the guns were homemade, they met the definition of firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
VanBuren was convicted of felon in possession of a firearm and possession of unserialized firearms.
Sentence:
10 years in federal prison.
Significance:
This case confirmed that felons cannot legally possess ghost guns, even if self-made, closing a major loophole in personal 3D printing of weapons.
Conclusion
Ghost gun prosecutions demonstrate that:
Method of creation (3D printing, kits, or homemade) doesn’t exempt a firearm from federal law.
Possession, manufacturing, or sale of untraceable guns without serial numbers and licenses is a serious offense.
Both individuals and companies face severe penalties — from multi-year imprisonment to permanent injunctions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments