{"id":111501,"date":"2025-08-06T21:16:32","date_gmt":"2025-08-07T02:16:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111501"},"modified":"2025-08-06T21:16:32","modified_gmt":"2025-08-07T02:16:32","slug":"111501","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111501","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Minnesota Supreme Court rules it is legal to possess \u2018ghost guns\u2019 without serial numbers<\/a><\/p>\n

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Wednesday that it is legal for Minnesotans to possess ghost guns without a serial number because current state law does not clearly restrict it.<\/p>\n

Justice Paul Thissen\u2019s majority opinion delves into the intersection between federal law around what firearms require a serial number and the Minnesota legal statute for felony possession of a firearm without a serial number.<\/p>\n

It was not a unanimous opinion. Thissen was joined by Justices Anne McKeig, Gordon Moore and Sarah Hennesy. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Karl Procaccini. Justice Theodora Ga\u00eftas recused herself from participating in the case.<\/p>\n

The case stemmed from a single vehicle car crash in Fridley in 2022. A Minnesota state trooper who arrived on the scene saw a gun magazine inside the car and the driver told the trooper he had a pistol.<\/p>\n

The trooper found a black 9 mm Glock 19 without a serial number and identified it as a privately made firearm, which are commonly called ghost guns.<\/p>\n

The driver was charged with possessing a firearm without a serial number and filed a motion to dismiss the charge. An Anoka County judge agreed, ruling that state law was \u201cunconstitutionally vague.\u201d The state appealed that ruling; the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said Minnesota\u2019s legal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm without a serial number \u201cplainly applies to any firearm.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court disagreed.<\/p>\n

The opinion focuses on how Minnesota\u2019s legal statute came to lean on federal law to interpret the phrase \u201cserial number or other identification\u201d and how, in the absence of clearer state laws, the court needs to use federal laws to consider whether the possession of a ghost gun without a serial number is a felony.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Thissen wrote that federal laws were built through an amendment to the National Firearms Act and the implementation of the Gun Control Act. Both defined the need for serial numbers on firearms. The National Firearms Act clarified that any \u201cmanufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm\u201d to identify the weapon with a serial number so law enforcement could trace ownership of the firearm.<\/p>\n

Minnesota\u2019s legislation around serial numbers on firearms was passed in 1994 at the same time as a \u201cwide-reaching federal statutory scheme\u201d for placing serial numbers on certain firearms.<\/p>\n

Thissen wrote that Minnesota\u2019s statutory language of \u201cserial number\u201d is clearly based on federal law and also set out to emphasize punishment for the \u201cobliteration of serial numbers or identifying marks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Anders Erickson, the attorney who handled the appeal on behalf of the gun owner in this case, said the function of the state law in 1994 was so Minnesota law enforcement could charge criminals for altering serial numbers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey wanted to make it a state offense so they didn\u2019t have to have the feds do all that prosecution,\u201d Erickson said. \u201cThey wanted to be able to do it themselves but they relied entirely on federal law.\u201d<\/p>\n

He said in recent years prosecutors have \u201cmisinterpreted that statute\u201d to shoehorn ghost gun kits that did not have serial numbers but were not federally prohibited.<\/p>\n

The state Supreme Court took 14 months to deliver its opinion. Erickson said he read it with a \u201cbig sigh of relief.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s vindication for a lot of people who are not criminals and not using these guns in an improper way,\u201d he said. \u201cThey didn\u2019t believe they were committing a crime.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a statement, Attorney General Keith Ellison called the opinion \u201cconcerning\u201d given the spread of ghost guns in the state.<\/p>\n

\u201cGhost guns, by definition, circumvent many of the protections in place to ensure firearms are only put into the hands of qualified buyers, allowing them to more easily be used for criminal acts and to be trafficked,\u201d the statement said. \u201cLeaders in Minnesota need to work together to fill this gap in state law, ban ghost guns, and keep people safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

Requests for comment on the opinion were left with the Anoka County Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n

Thissen\u2019s opinion also noted that issues around serial numbers do not just involve ghost guns, as firearms made before 1968 do not have serial numbers, either.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs recently as 2022, the State of Minnesota itself sold firearms that did not have serial numbers,\u201d Thissen wrote, pointing to an auction of confiscated hunting and fishing equipment by the Department of Natural Resources.<\/p>\n

He said if the court ruled that all firearms without a serial number were illegal it \u201cwould have the unfortunate and unnecessary effect of turning a large group of currently law-abiding Minnesotans … into unsuspecting criminals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chief Justice Hudson\u2019s dissent was built around her reading of the legal statute which she felt \u201cplainly mandates that the serial number requirement applies to all firearms, regardless of the federal registration requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n

She wrote that while the ghost gun in this case might \u201cfall outside\u201d federal serial number regulations, that doesn\u2019t mean it should skirt Minnesota\u2019s law restricting the possession of a firearm without a serial number.<\/p>\n

Hudson also wrote there has been success in tracing ghost guns after a manufacturer voluntarily engraved a serial number on a part of the firearm kit. And while it wouldn\u2019t be voluntary to engrave a serial number on a ghost gun under Minnesota\u2019s legal statutes, she wrote, \u201cit would serve the important function of allowing law enforcement to trace firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rob Doar, the senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said the need to trace ghost guns was rightly not imposed by the courts in this instance.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf there needs to be new legislation to fix that, then there\u2019s a need to make new legislation,\u201d Doar said. \u201cWe\u2019ll look at that carefully and see if it poses any threat to our members, but we are in full agreement that this statute was being misapplied to these firearms.\u201d<\/p>\n

Erickson pointed out that the Biden administration passed an executive order requiring complete ghost gun kits to have serial numbers, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that decision.<\/p>\n

But he said Minnesota\u2019s law is lacking clear definition when it comes to enforcing what kind of guns need to have serial numbers, which was echoed in Thissen\u2019s opinion.<\/p>\n

Thissen wrote that ghost guns pose real dangers to public safety and it\u2019s a complex public policy issue. He said many states have enacted laws around the issue and the Minnesota Legislature had a proposed prohibition on ghost guns before it in 2023 but did not enact it.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the end,\u201d Thissen wrote, \u201cthe final decision on whether and how to regulate ghost guns rests with the Legislature.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Minnesota Supreme Court rules it is legal to possess \u2018ghost guns\u2019 without serial numbers The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Wednesday that it is legal for Minnesotans to possess ghost guns without a serial number because current state law does not clearly restrict it. Justice Paul Thissen\u2019s majority opinion delves into the … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111501","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=111501"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111501\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":111502,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111501\/revisions\/111502"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=111501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=111501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=111501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}