The Truth About Ghost Guns, Gun Registration, and Serial Numbers

New York, NY—The cold-blooded, brazen murder of a UnitedHealth CEO recently reignited the national conversation about so-called “ghost guns.” But what exactly is a ghost gun, aside from being a sensationalized propaganda term? At its core, it is simply a firearm without a serial number.

The push for serial numbers and gun registration has long been a favored strategy of politicians aiming to infringe on Second Amendment rights when outright bans on firearms were politically or constitutionally untenable. The end goal has often been the creation of a comprehensive registry to track every firearm in the United States—something that could facilitate future confiscation schemes if a total gun ban were ever implemented.

Do Serial Numbers and Gun Registration Actually Solve Crimes?

A basic application of common sense suggests they do not. The only time a firearm is typically left at a crime scene is when the criminal is incapacitated—dead or wounded—or caught in the act. In such cases, the firearm’s connection to the crime is already established. Tracing the gun back to its original purchaser rarely provides actionable information, especially since most guns outlive their original owners and often end up passed down to family or friends.

Furthermore, the serial number traceability mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 only works for the first transfer of ownership, from the manufacturer to the initial purchaser through licensed dealers. After that, private transfers, inheritances, and undocumented exchanges render most firearms effectively untraceable by design.

In practice, the tracing of firearms has often been abused by law enforcement. Agencies routinely trace every firearm they encounter—whether or not it was used in a crime—then cite inflated numbers to support calls for stricter gun control. This misuse feeds into the narrative that every “recovered” firearm is associated with criminal activity, even when they are seized during unrelated investigations, such as searches conducted for non-violent offenses.

The Impact of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

The Gun Control Act of 1968, which imposed serialization requirements on firearms, has been effectively rendered unenforceable by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In that 6-3 decision, the Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment’s original meaning, declaring that government efforts to regulate firearms must align with the text, history, and tradition of the right as understood in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in Bruen, rejected the “interest-balancing” approach that allowed courts to uphold gun laws in the name of public safety. Instead, the Court made clear that no modern governmental interest—no matter how urgent or compelling—can override the Constitution’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

This decision has significant implications, effectively casting doubt on the constitutionality of tens of thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws. It also builds on earlier decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which collectively affirmed the individual right to bear arms and extended Second Amendment protections to the states.

A History of Supreme Court Decisions on Gun Rights

The Supreme Court has addressed gun rights in only a handful of cases:

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - While infamous for its pro-slavery ruling, the Court noted in passing that granting citizenship to African Americans would afford them the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went,” inadvertently underscoring the broad scope of the Second Amendment.

2. United States v. Miller (1939) - The Court upheld a National Firearms Act restriction on sawed-off shotguns, but only because it erroneously determined there was no evidence such weapons were commonly used by militias. This case left significant questions unanswered.

3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Court definitively ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms, striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

4. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) - This case incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments, ensuring that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed at any level of government.

5. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) - The most recent and transformative case, Bruen dismantled many longstanding assumptions about permissible gun regulations, setting a precedent that laws must align with the Second Amendment’s original context.

The Reality: Rolling Back Unconstitutional Gun Laws

The Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights; instead, it has consistently struck down laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates lack the political support necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment, leaving them to pursue their goals through unconstitutional legislation that the courts have begun to unravel.

Efforts to vilify “ghost guns,” enforce registration schemes, or push for universal tracing of firearms are not about solving crimes—they are about control. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller, the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people,” enshrining the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution to prevent government overreach.

The ongoing assault on gun rights underscores the importance of vigilance. Without the judiciary’s recent reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the Second Amendment could have been eroded by decades of incremental infringements disguised as public safety measures. In reality, these measures serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens, while doing little to prevent crime or protect lives.