Ghost Guns: The Complex Debate Around Homemade Firearms
Gun-control advocates have long pushed for stricter regulations on homemade firearms, but the debate is complex and nuanced. While they argue for record-keeping and marking requirements to aid traceability, criminals can easily circumvent these measures. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists often exploit public ignorance about gun laws and policy.
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 prohibits firearms that are less detectable than a specified security exemplar and those with undetectable major components. Homemade firearms, often referred to as 'ghost guns', are subject to the same prohibited-persons categories as commercial firearms. Felons found in possession of these weapons can face up to 15 years imprisonment.
Anti-gun activists often conflate 'assault weapons' with fully automatic machine guns to gain public support for restrictions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision emphasizes the importance of historical tradition in firearm regulation, which does not include government-mandated marking and record-keeping for personal firearms.
Manufacture or possession of an undetectable firearm is a felony punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Despite the rise of 3D-printed firearms, there have been no substantial legislative amendments specifically designed to address their implementation and monitoring at the federal level. Existing laws, such as the Undetectable Firearms Act, were not originally written for 3D-printed weapons, and no major new regulations targeting them have been enacted.
The debate around homemade firearms, or 'ghost guns', is multifaceted and involves various legal and public perception issues. While gun-control advocates argue for stricter regulations, the effectiveness of these measures is debated, and existing laws already cover these weapons. Public education about gun laws and policy is crucial to inform the ongoing discussion.
