Minnesota Supreme Court rules it is legal to possess ‘ghost guns’ 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’s 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.

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 Gaïtas recused herself from participating in the case.

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.

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.

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 “unconstitutionally vague.” The state appealed that ruling; the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said Minnesota’s legal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm without a serial number “plainly applies to any firearm.”

The Supreme Court disagreed.

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 “manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm” to identify the weapon with a serial number so law enforcement could trace ownership of the firearm.

Minnesota’s legislation around serial numbers on firearms was passed in 1994 at the same time as a “wide-reaching federal statutory scheme” for placing serial numbers on certain firearms.

Thissen wrote that Minnesota’s statutory language of “serial number” is clearly based on federal law and also set out to emphasize punishment for the “obliteration of serial numbers or identifying marks.”

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.

“They wanted to make it a state offense so they didn’t have to have the feds do all that prosecution,” Erickson said. “They wanted to be able to do it themselves but they relied entirely on federal law.”

The state Supreme Court took 14 months to deliver its opinion. Erickson said he read it with a “big sigh of relief.”

“It’s vindication for a lot of people who are not criminals and not using these guns in an improper way,” he said. “They didn’t believe they were committing a crime.”

In a statement, Attorney General Keith Ellison called the opinion “concerning” given the spread of ghost guns in the state.

“Ghost 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,” the statement said. “Leaders in Minnesota need to work together to fill this gap in state law, ban ghost guns, and keep people safe.”

Requests for comment on the opinion were left with the Anoka County Attorney’s Office.

“As recently as 2022, the State of Minnesota itself sold firearms that did not have serial numbers,” Thissen wrote, pointing to an auction of confiscated hunting and fishing equipment by the Department of Natural Resources.

He said if the court ruled that all firearms without a serial number were illegal it “would have the unfortunate and unnecessary effect of turning a large group of currently law-abiding Minnesotans ... into unsuspecting criminals.”

Chief Justice Hudson’s dissent was built around her reading of the legal statute which she felt “plainly mandates that the serial number requirement applies to all firearms, regardless of the federal registration requirements.”

She wrote that while the ghost gun in this case might “fall outside” federal serial number regulations, that doesn’t mean it should skirt Minnesota’s law restricting the possession of a firearm without a serial number.

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’t be voluntary to engrave a serial number on a ghost gun under Minnesota’s legal statutes, she wrote, “it would serve the important function of allowing law enforcement to trace firearms.”

“If there needs to be new legislation to fix that, then there’s a need to make new legislation,” Doar said. “We’ll 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.”

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.

But he said Minnesota’s law is lacking clear definition when it comes to enforcing what kind of guns need to have serial numbers, which was echoed in Thissen’s opinion.

Thissen wrote that ghost guns pose real dangers to public safety and it’s 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.