The Rise Of The Ghost Gun

Criminals have always built firearms, especially those who perhaps weren’t tapped into criminal fraternities and networks, that would allow them to illegally obtain manufactured weapons. In the 1960’s and 1970’s these were often referred to as “Zip Guns” and would be constructed out of parts from non-working firearms, and/or other mechanical parts, such as car locks that could be used to construct a firing mechanism. Often these improvised weapons were as much a danger to the person pulling the trigger as they were to the person they were pointed at. However, these firearms used to make up a very small percentage of all those used in illegal activities; most were stolen, serialized weapons that had been stolen from homeowners who had licenses for them, and/or gun shops and stores. An even smaller number were stolen from manufactures, before they had a serial number assigned to them.

This is beginning to change, and in various parts of the US, PMFs (privately manufactured firearms) are starting to become more prevalent in crime, than company manufactured weapons with a serial number that is federally registered e.g., legally registered firearms that are obtained for illegal activities. This is especially true for certain models of Glocks. These firearms are often referred to as “Ghost Guns” because there is no actual record of them. They have been privately manufactured, legally, whilst missing out on the serialization step, in their manufacture. This means that when one is used in a crime, there is virtually no record of its existence anywhere. In this article I want to look at why these weapons have become more prevalent, and their use in crime likely to keep increasing. For the sake of the article, I am going to refer to these weapons not as “Ghost Guns”, as labels of this nature are often used to create moral panics, and have certain connotations to them, such as those who manufacture them are deliberately doing so for nefarious purposes etc. Instead, I am going to use the accepted term, Privately Manufactured Firearms (PMF) to refer to them.

Most PMFs, come from two sources. The largest percentage, around 80% come from kits, that are partially built weapons consisting of the lower receiver, but require the addition of other parts such as the barrel and the slide etc. Another, growing source, is through the 3-D printing of weapon parts that are then assembled. Despite the way the media likes to present the 3-D printing of firearms as a simple and effective process, this at the moment is not the case, and many of these weapons are extremely unreliable when assembled. However, with the speed at which technology is advancing in this area, this is likely to change. The kits used to require some form of knowledge of milling and access to a “shop” with the necessary equipment to perform some simple manufacturing processes etc. However, in recent years the manufacturers of these kits have simplified some of these processes so that anybody with a garage, and a few home-improvement tools would be able to put together a working firearm. This has changed the demographics of those who are purchasing these kits. It used to be that it was mainly individuals who worked in the selling and maintenance of firearms that were building these weapons, whereas as now, almost everybody has the equipment, resources, and access to the knowledge to do so. This allows most people the ability to manufacture an untraceable and non-serialized weapon, with really the only way to identify the weapons owner being the method they used to purchased it, such as a receipt or credit card transaction etc.

Whilst these kits have been around for awhile, the demand for them sky-rocketed when the Obama administration announced after the Sandy Hook school shooting, in 2012, that there was going to be a ban on sales of the AR-15 rifle. Rather than simply buying registered weapons, concerned firearm owners, didn’t want to buy licensed weapons that could be traced, in case a ban also involved the confiscation of any previously registered weapons etc. Although no such ban took place, firearm owners started to buy PMF AR-15 kits that they could assemble and own, without having to register them. At that time there were no PMF kits for short-barreled weapons. However, around 2016 this started to change, and Glock PMF kits started to come onto the market. In many ways Glocks are the equivalent of the AK-47, in that they are reliable, and you can interchange parts from one pistol with another, and still have a working firearm – many other handguns have parts that are too individually precise to allow this to happen. This meant that the forgiving nature of the Glock design(s) made it a very suitable weapon for private manufacture. It is estimated by the ATF, that in states such as California there are more non-serialized Glocks than serialized/registered ones.

As reliable and well manufactured as these weapons may be, there is always the chance that a criminal who manufacturers their own weapon may not do so to the same standard as a manufacturer e.g., they might not use the same quality of materials, or find themselves missing steps and/or lacking the exact skills needed to make a firearm that is safe to use/fire etc. I have long been an advocate of not looking to use a disarmed weapon “hot” because of the fact that it is not your weapon, and you lack full knowledge about it, and that it is more reliable to use it “cold” as an impact weapon to deliver concussive force and pain to your assailant etc., as you know that as a piece of metal that it should be able to do this. Historically, my reasons for doing so, were because after the firearms ban in the UK took place ammunition became scarce, and you never knew if a disarmed weapon was even loaded etc., but also because legally when you step away, separating yourself and putting distance between you and your assailant, you may now be seen as the aggressor if you level the weapon at them and don’t disengage etc., losing your claim of “innocence” which is needed to support any claim of self-defense. I would, in the light of the prevalence of facing a “ghost gun”, also include doubts concerning the integrity of the weapon e.g., has it been built/constructed correctly, and if not, what could be the potential consequences of pulling the trigger?

The fact that anyone – including those who have been banned from owning guns - can make their own untraceable firearm, using an idiot-proof kit, receiving an education/instruction from YouTube, without needing access to machine shop tools etc., means that we are likely to see more of these weapons on our streets. In May of this year, law enforcement in Dorchester, Boston raided a “ghost gun mill” where weapons were being manufactured for sale on the street i.e., to those who were looking to commit crimes with unregistered and untraceable weapons. With the improvements in 3-D printers and printing this technology is only going to get better at producing reliable and accurate firearms, which are going to be less traceable and identifiable than those sold in kit form.