Vern Evans
Predictably, gun control activists are citing the cold-blooded Manhattan murder of health insurance executive Brian Thompson to call for more gun control, particularly in the hot-button areas of “ghost guns” and “3D printed firearms.” There are at least two main problems with this. One, the facts of the case are still being investigated, and preliminary reports of the use of a “ghost gun” or 3D printed firearm are just that … preliminary. Second, even if the perpetrator did use a homemade, unmarked firearm with a 3D printed frame, virtually everything he did in New York and the other jurisdictions with which he has been associated would have already been illegal. In this respect, the case is not one that argues for more gun control so much as one that proves ill-conceived “ghost gun” laws cannot stop a determined criminal.
At this point, there does not appear to be a definitive answer to the nature of the gun used to kill Mr. Thompson. The media at first circulated speculation that the murder weapon was a “veterinary pistol” designed to euthanize animals. Perhaps surprisingly, there does not seem to have been an immediate call to ban such implements, which were unfamiliar even to many people involved in the gun debate.
Then a suspect was arrested in the case and found with what a local police department in Pennsylvania described as a “black 3D-printed pistol” equipped with a loaded Glock-style magazine and a “black silencer.” The NYPD’s chief of detectives, however, described it as a “ghost gun,” without elaboration on the style of manufacture. An online photo of the gun supposedly seized from the suspect appears to show a polymer-framed pistol with a metallic slide, but it is not immediately clear whether or not the frame is of commercial manufacture or even if it has markings indicating its origins. More recent reporting does indicate the gun recovered from that suspect matches evidence recovered from the crime scene.
It’s unclear how accurately the police and media descriptions are using the terms “ghost gun” and “3D printed,” as some of the same reports, for example, use the terms “shell casings” and “bullets” interchangeably. But while “ghost guns” and “3D printed firearms” overlap, they are not necessarily interchangeable. “Ghost gun” is used as a shorthand term for a personally made (or homemade), unmarked firearm. The “ghostly” nature is because its manufacture occurs outside of the chain of regulated commerce, and the gun does not contain a serial number or other mandatory markings that allow it to be traced back to a commercial manufacturer or importer. A “3D printed firearm” is one in which at least the frame or receiver, and sometimes other parts, is made through computer controlled additive manufacturing.
Not all “ghost guns” are “3D printed.” For example, there are also programmable CNC milling machines that can take a partially finished receiver or aluminum blank and make a frame or receiver out of it. And there are commercially made frame or receiver blanks that have not yet been finished nor imprinted with markings of their origins. There are additionally many more crude forms of homemade firearms that have been around long before the advent of microcomputers. Moreover, there is no reason a 3D printed frame or receiver could not have markings designating its origins, if that was its creator’s wish. So not all 3D printed firearms are necessarily “ghost guns,” either. But the popular lore of gun control suggests criminals are printing out “untraceable” ghost guns as easily as Peter is printing out his TPS reports at the office.
To whatever extent criminals prohibited from possessing firearms are making their own guns, whether with the help of 3D printing or otherwise, they are already violating federal law and the laws of most states. There is no legal loophole under which homemade guns are somehow treated differently when it comes to all the things criminals are not allowed to do with guns.
Making one’s own gun may, however, allow a criminal to obtain a firearm without attracting the notice of the government. Of course, they do this all the time, anyway, including by thefts, straw purchases, through transfers by criminal associates, and by illegal private purchases. Most guns recovered from crime scenes still originated in legal markets before their eventual diversion into criminal hands.
Some also think criminals like “ghost guns” because they are more difficult to “trace.” But, tracing at best only identifies the initial retail purchaser. Most “crime guns” have been in circulation for years and have changed hands several times before they are recovered at a crime scene. Rarely is the suspect the initial retail purchaser, because many (if not most) suspects in firearm-related crimes could not legally purchase a gun for themselves from a dealer. Identifying an initial retail purchaser might provide a lead, or it might not. Maybe the initial retail purchaser, even if identified, will be unable or unwilling to cooperate. They cannot, after all, be forced (under constitutional constraints) to incriminate themselves.
Federal law recognizes the right of a (non-prohibited) person to make a homemade, unmarked firearm for personal use. If homemade guns are transferred or offered for sale to another for profit, however, the maker becomes subject to federal laws that govern commercial manufacturers, including licensing, mandatory marking requirements detailing the guns’ origins, and recordkeeping documenting their manufacture and subsequent transfer. It is also illegal under federal law to transfer a gun to another knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the person is legally prohibited from having it.
The Biden ATF published a rule to (among other things) expand the categories of unfinished frames or receivers considered “firearms” under federal law and to clarify that “do-it-yourself” firearm kits that contain such unfinished frames or receivers and all other parts necessary to build a functioning gun are also “firearms” under federal law. That rule was recently challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court, and a decision could be issued at any time. But whatever happens with the rule, it’s safe to say that anyone who makes homemade, unmarked guns and sells them to prohibited persons or persons who intend to use them in a crime is also already committing a crime (and probably multiple crimes).
As for the suspect in Brian Thompson’s murder, is implausible to suggest his use of a “ghost gun” was a necessary part of the crime or that it would not otherwise have been committed. In fact, there appears to have been no benefit to the suspect in the use of this kind of gun (assuming the media reports prove to be true).
First, the suspect was by all accounts of age, highly educated, had been gainfully employed, and had no known criminal history. Thus, he apparently was legally eligible and had the means to purchase any type of firearm he wanted.
In surveillance video capturing the crime, moreover, the suspect is seen repeatedly working the action of his firearm between shots. It seems the firearm may have been malfunctioning. This is a common byproduct of homemade guns, because they generally lack the more consistent and precise manufacturing of commercial firearms. So it may be that the suspect’s use of a homemade firearm, if that’s what happened, actually worked to his disadvantage.
The suspect was also found in possession of his supposedly homemade firearm when he was arrested, and reports indicate it has been ballistically matched to evidence recovered from the crime scene. Thus, the purported “untraceability” of the gun through a serial number is irrelevant in this particular case.
Finally, although it appears to be unclear where the suspect was living immediately prior to the crime or where the supposedly homemade gun was made, media reports tie the suspect variously to California, Hawaii, and Maryland. Ironically, these are all states where merely possessing an unserialized firearm – whether made by 3D printing or otherwise – is already illegal. That does not appear to have hampered nor deterred the suspect.
If the suspect did use a homemade gun, the question is why? That answer is unknown. It could be that, with his reported background in technology, he was simply inclined to make his own equipment. It could be he thought it was a quicker, more straightforward way of getting the gun he wanted than complying with the lengthy and bureaucratic process of obtaining a handgun legally in California, Hawaii, or Maryland. It would be ironic if those states’ laws are so burdensome that even legally eligible purchasers would use personal manufacturing to avoid them. That can hardly be what the laws’ proponents intended.
What is known for sure is that the strict gun control laws of California, Hawaii, Maryland, and New York were all useless in stopping or deterring the suspect. That is because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. And all the requirements and prohibitions that anti-gun lawmakers might try to foist onto law-abiding people when it comes to personally made, unmarked guns won’t change that, nor will it make the technology involved disappear.
—Courtesy NRA-ILA
Read the full article here