By: Melissa Stuckey
Ghost Guns and the Gun Control Act of 1968
Ghost guns have been of prominent public concern since 2016, when their use in crime grew exponentially.[1] The term “ghost gun” originates from the fact that these firearms are not serialized and thus are predominantly untraceable by law enforcement.[2] Today, most ghost guns are built by users from components either 3D-printed or purchased online, largely through do-it-yourself kits.[3] These kits generally include an unfinished frame or receiver as well as all parts necessary to install the firing mechanism.[4] Others, though, are sold with every component required to make a functioning firearm.[5]
In 1968, Congress adopted the Gun Control Act (GCA), which aimed to regulate firearm sales and purchases.[6]Congress limited the scope of the Act to “firearm[s],” but allowed a broad definition of the term.[7] A portion of the relevant definition is as follows: “(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; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; . . .”[8]Any firearms that fell within the Act were required to be marked with serial numbers,[9] and their manufacturers and dealers were obligated to obtain federal licenses,[10] conduct background checks on purchasers,[11] and keep records of their sales.[12]
However, since the frames/receivers included in gun kits require further finishing, such as drilling holes for pins, gun kits and the weapons they produce had not historically been recognized as firearms.[13] Logically, the purchase of gun kits became an avenue for disqualified persons and criminals to readily access weapons. This practice was incentivized by the fact that it would be difficult for the weapon to ever be traced back to them.
As a result, in 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) proliferated two new rules, attempting to expand the definition of “firearm” to include gun kits. To begin, the ATF interpreted Section 921(a)(3)(A) to include gun kits since they are “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive.”[14] Additionally, the ATF expanded Section 921(a)(3)(B)’s definition to encompass “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit.”[15] However, before these new rules could be widely enacted, numerous gun manufacturers brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act.[16]
The Bondi v. VanDerStok Decision
On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision on the matter in Bondi v. VanDerStok. In a 7-2 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that the GCA “embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers.”[17]
The Court first analyzed the language of Section 921(a)(3)(A) and determined that the gun from a gun kit is “a weapon capable of ready conversion into a working firearm.”[18] The Court first determined that gun kits are a weapon by stating that the finished product is an instrument of combat.[19] It also reasoned that Congress embraced encompassing unfinished instruments by explicitly referencing starter guns in the Act, as well as by including the “ready conversion” option as a way to satisfy the second element.[20]
Regarding the second element, the Court stated that Congress’s reference to a starter gun implied that it met both elements of Section 921(a)(3)(A). Thus, since a starter gun clearly could not satisfy the definition by being able to expel a projectile or being designed to do so, the Court reasoned that a starter gun is a weapon under the third option—it is susceptible to ready conversion to expel a projectile. Therefore, since starter guns took around an hour for a novice with everyday common tools to convert into a weapon that could fire live ammunition, the Court concluded that some gun kits also met the definition. Specifically, the Court emphasized how the Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit enabled a novice with common tools to produce a working firearm in around twenty minutes.[21]
Then, the Court held that the unfinished frames or receivers included in gun kits fall within Congress’s definition of “frame or receiver” in Section 921(a)(3)(B). First, it noted that Section 931(i) uses the phrase “frame or receiver” to extend to some unfinished frames, making it likely that the same is true of Section 921.[22] Moreover, the Court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not dispute or challenge that the ATF has consistently regarded subsection (B) as extending to unfinished frames and receivers.[23]
Ultimately, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by rewriting the law.[24] Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson each authored concurring opinions, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito filed dissents.
Implications in North Carolina
Currently, North Carolina does not have any legislation or regulations concerning ghost guns.[25] Interestingly, in 2024, Governor Josh Stein, the then-acting Attorney General of North Carolina, joined an amicus brief in the VanDerStok case, along with twenty-four other state attorneys general.[26] Written in support of the government, the brief urged the Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns and the associated gun violence.[27] Now that the Court has upheld the ATF’s regulations, Governor Stein may be less likely to push for North Carolina-specific legislation.
Quite obviously, the enforcement of the ATF’s rules will halt, or at least limit, the sale of gun kits by manufacturers. Without the appeal of easy, virtual, background-check-free sales, prohibited persons will be less inclined to attempt to purchase gun kits. Ultimately, this should reduce the number of ghost guns used in crimes in North Carolina. Moreover, the requiring of manufacturers to serialize the gun kits they do sell will enable law enforcement to trace a gun from manufacturer to purchaser to possessor or crime. Therefore, it may be easier to solve crimes and prosecute individuals since the weapons used have a greater likelihood of being associated with a specific person.
With a reduction in ghost guns in the community, not only will there (hopefully) be less gun violence and crime, but those who are charged with such a crime will likely not receive as harsh of sentences as they may have previously received. Federally, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are used to calculate a defendant’s sentencing range, require a four-point offense level enhancement when a “defendant knew that any firearm involved in the offense was not otherwise marked with a serial number . . . or was willfully blind to or consciously avoided knowledge of such fact.”[28] The effects of a four-point enhancement can be significant—for instance, if a defendant is an Offense Level 9 and Criminal History Category III, their sentencing range would be 8–14 months; but, if the same defendant is increased to an Offense Level 13, their new sentencing range would be 18–24 months.[29] However, if fewer non-serialized firearms are available or in the community, then the people caught with firearms are more likely to avoid receiving this enhancement. This is significant since a large proportion of the crime that the federal government prosecutes in North Carolina is gun-related.[30]
[1] Ghost guns, BRADY, https://www.bradyunited.org/resources/issues/what-are-ghost-guns (last visited Apr. 3, 2025) (“[T]he number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement agencies nationwide increased by 1,000%, with over 19,000 ghost guns recovered by law enforcement in 2021 alone.”).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Bondi v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852, 2025 WL 906503, at *3 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2025).
[6] Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 921.
[7] VanDerStok, 2025 WL 906503, at *2.
[8] 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).
[9] 18 U.S.C. § 923(i).
[10] 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).
[11] 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A).
[12] 18 U.S.C. § 923(a).
[13] BRADY, supra note 1.
[14] 27 CFR § 478.11 (2023).
[15] 27 CRF § 478.12(c) (2023).
[16] Bondi v. VanDerStok, No. 23-852, 2025 WL 906503, at *4 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2025).
[17] Id. at *12.
[18] Id. at *10. It broke the definition into two elements: (1) the item is a weapon; (2) the weapon must (a) be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (b) be designed to do so; or (c) be susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way. Id. at *5.
[19] Id. at *6.
[20] Id. at *7.
[21] Id.
[22] Id. at *10.
[23] Id. at *11.
[24] VanDerStok v. Garland, 86 F.4th 179, 197 (5th Cir. 2023).
[25] Everytown Research & Policy, Which States Regulate Ghost Guns?, EVERYTOWN, https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/ghost-guns-regulated/ (last updated Jan. 15, 2025).
[26] Nazneed Ahmed, Attorney General Josh Stein Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Federal Ghost Gun Regulations, NCDOJ, https://ncdoj.gov/attorney-general-josh-stein-urges-supreme-court-to-uphold-federal-ghost-gun-regulations/ (July 3, 2024).
[27] Id.
[28] U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1(b)(4)(ii) (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024).
[29] U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 5A (U.S. Sent’g Comm’n 2024).
[30] See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Section 924(C) Firearms, https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/section-924c-firearms (June 2024) (stating that the Eastern District of North Carolina prosecuted the third-highest number of individuals for § 924(c) charges in the United States in 2023); U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Section 924(C) Firearms, https://www.ussc.gov/research/quick-facts/section-922g-firearms (June 2024) (finding that the Middle District of North Carolina had the fifth-highest proportion of § 922(g) cases (36.3%) in the United States in 2023).
