A Closer Look at ‘Ghost Guns’ Post-Manhattan Murder
On a chilling December morning in 2024, a health insurance executive, Brian Thompson, was gunned down in cold blood on the bustling streets of Manhattan. Predictably, the incident ignited fresh calls from gun control activists for tighter regulations, especially concerning ‘ghost guns’ and ‘3D-printed firearms.’ The incident, whilst grave, serves as a rich source for an in-depth discussion into these controversial topics.
Understanding Initial Case Details
Even though the understanding of this case might be preliminary, two critical factors need to be considered in the discourse on gun control following this tragic incident. First, there are early reports suggesting the use of a ‘ghost gun’ or a 3D-printed firearm. However, these are speculated, and investigation remains ongoing. Second, provided the alleged perpetrator did utilize a homemade, unmarked firearm with a 3D-printed frame; virtually all actions conducted in New York and other associated jurisdictions would have constituted illegality. The situation illustrates that even in the existence of “ghost gun” regulations, determined criminals still find ways around the law. It is unclear yet what type of firearm was used in the murder, as the exact nature of the weapon remains a subject of investigation.
Terminologies In Spotlight: ‘Ghost Guns’ and ‘3D-Printed Firearms’
It is important to demystify the terms ‘ghost gun’ and ‘3D printed firearm’ that have been thrown around loosely in media conversations post the Manhattan murder. A ‘ghost gun’ is an unmarked firearm, personally or homemade, out of regulated commerce circuit, essentially rendering them untraceable. On the other hand, a ‘3D-printed firearm’ is one where at least the frame or receiver, and some other parts, are produced using computer-controlled additive manufacturing. Not all ‘ghost guns’ are ‘3D-printed,’ and vice versa. It is crucial to keep this distinction clear while discussing the kind of firearm used in this particular case.
The Reality of Criminal Involvement with ‘Ghost Guns’
Popular lore of gun control suggests criminals effortlessly print untraceable ghost guns. While criminals may be involved in making guns with the aid of 3D printing or otherwise, it is important to highlight that such activities already violate federal law and most state laws. Furthermore, homemade guns do not bestow any special legal privileges upon criminals who are not permitted to partake in weapon-related activities.
Myths of Contraceability and Criminals’ Preference for ‘Ghost Guns’
Another common misconception regarding these unmarked guns is their supposed untraceability. Many believe this makes them more appealing to criminals. However, the effectiveness of traceability should not be overestimated. In most cases, the initial retail purchaser of firearms involved in crimes is often not the suspect, who in many cases, wouldn’t pass the legal requirements to purchase guns from a dealer.
The Law, Homemade Firearms, and the Suspect's Scenario
Federal law recognizes the rights of a person to produce an unmarked firearm for personal use. However, if anyone transfers such guns for profit, they are subject to federal laws governing commercial manufacturers, which include mandatory markings and meticulous recordkeeping. The case of the suspect in Brian Thompson’s murder underlines the fact that stricter regulations on homemade firearms do not deter criminals and do not make the technologies involved disappear.
The Conundrum around the Murder Weapon’s Legality in Different States
In a rather ironic twist, the suspect was reportedly linked to California, Hawaii, and Maryland. These states all have laws that deem possession of an unregistered firearm illegal, be it 3D printed or otherwise. Despite these regulations, the suspect’s ability to commit the crime was seemingly unhampered, opening up questions on the effectiveness of existing firearm laws.
Lessons Drawn from the Manhattan Murder Case
This case paints an ample illustration that crime is not hampered by gun control laws or the type of firearms available to criminals. It also underlines that laws aimed at legal and law-abiding entities only serve to limit their rights and freedoms, rather than deter criminals who, by their nature, reject the law.
Originally Post From https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-control-activists-cite-loopholes-ceo-murder-ignore-facts-law
