Gun control activists are using the murder of health insurance executive Brian Thompson in Manhattan to push for stricter regulations on “ghost guns” and “3D-printed firearms.” However, the case is still under investigation, and reports suggesting the use of such weapons remain preliminary. Even if a homemade firearm was used, it would have been illegal in New York and other jurisdictions linked to the suspect.
The weapon’s nature remains unclear. Initial media speculation suggested a “veterinary pistol,” but no calls for banning such tools emerged. A suspect arrested in Pennsylvania had a “black 3D-printed pistol” with a Glock-style magazine and silencer. The NYPD labeled it as a “ghost gun,” but details about its manufacture are scarce. Reports indicate the seized gun matches evidence from the crime scene.
Terms like “ghost gun” and “3D-printed” are often misused by police and media. A “ghost gun” is an unmarked firearm made outside regulated commerce, while a “3D-printed firearm” involves parts made through additive manufacturing. Not all ghost guns are 3D-printed, nor vice versa.
Criminals making their own guns already violate federal laws, which do not provide loopholes for homemade firearms. These weapons can be obtained without government notice through theft or illegal purchases. Most crime scene guns originated legally before being diverted into criminal hands.
Some believe ghost guns are harder to trace, but tracing usually identifies only initial retail purchasers, who rarely match suspects due to legal restrictions on buying firearms.
Federal law allows non-prohibited individuals to make unmarked firearms for personal use but imposes regulations if they sell them. The Biden administration expanded rules on unfinished frames or receivers considered firearms under federal law, currently challenged before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Thompson’s case, using a ghost gun did not appear necessary or beneficial for the suspect, who had no known criminal history and could legally purchase firearms. Surveillance showed potential malfunctions with his weapon, common in homemade guns lacking commercial precision.
The suspect possessed his homemade firearm at arrest; ballistic tests matched it to crime scene evidence, rendering serial number traceability irrelevant here. Media links him to states where unserialized firearm possession is illegal, yet these laws did not deter him.
The motive behind using a homemade gun remains unknown; perhaps technological interest or avoiding bureaucratic processes influenced his choice despite being eligible for legal purchase in California, Hawaii, or Maryland—states with strict gun laws that failed to prevent this crime.
Strict regulations in these states proved ineffective against determined criminals who disregard laws—a challenge lawmakers face when imposing restrictions on law-abiding citizens regarding personally made firearms.
