Ghost Guns

by | Oct 23, 2025 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

On August 12, 2025, a three-judge appellate panel decided the Mercer County case of State v. Malihki Oliver. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 concerned the legality of transporting and assembling “ghost gun” kits in New Jersey that were legally purchased in Pennsylvania.

Judge Rose wrote for the Appellate Division in relevant part: Defendant argues the motion judge erroneously agreed with the State’s grand jury instruction that Paragraph k is comprised of two elements when “the Legislature intended one element,” “purchasing with the intent to assemble.” Noting the ghost gun kits were purchased in Pennsylvania, where it is legal to do so, defendant argues Paragraph k only “prohibits purchasing firearm parts in New Jersey for the purposes of manufacturing the firearm without a serial number.” Because the State cannot demonstrate the purchase occurred in New Jersey, defendant asserts the State failed to present prima facie evidence of the elements of the offenses charged in counts one and two of the indictment, and the judge misapplied the territorial jurisdiction statute.

The plain terms of Paragraph k and the territorial jurisdiction statute refute defendant’s contentions. In our view, Paragraph k requires the State prove defendant: (1) purchased a ghost gun kit; (2) acted with purpose to manufacture or assemble a firearm; and (3) was not registered or licensed to manufacture or assemble a firearm in this state. The conduct stated in the first element, the ghost gun purchase, is distinct from the conduct stated in the second element, the actor’s state of mind. Contrary to defendant’s argument, nothing about the language of the statute requires the ghost gun purchase occur in New Jersey or that the first and second elements of Paragraph k constitute a single element.

Accordingly, we are not persuaded the motion judge misapplied the territorial jurisdiction statute. Defendant argues N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) is not applicable to the charges at issue here because “that section requires either the conduct or the result of the conduct be committed in New Jersey.” Instead, defendant contends the exception to territorial jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(b)(6) applies because the charged conduct is not a crime in Pennsylvania and the State presented “no evidence that he owned or intended to assemble the firearms.”

Although the evidence presented to the grand jury revealed the purchase of ghost gun kits occurred outside this state, and was lawful in that jurisdiction, the State presented sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer defendant purchased the kits with the purpose of manufacturing firearms in New Jersey, satisfying the culpability element under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-14(h)(3)(b), and territorial jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a). As the motion judge found, the State presented evidence that defendant and Tucker purchased five ghost gun kits with “two slides and two extended magazines” and transported them to New Jersey. Further, they were stopped in defendant’s car in the vicinity of his Trenton address. That evidence and the reasonable inferences that could be drawn therefrom demonstrated defendant’s “purpose to manufacture or otherwise assemble a firearm” in this state, satisfying the second element of Paragraph k.

We therefore discern no error in the DAG’s grand jury instruction that Paragraph k required the jurors to consider two elements, “the purchase and the intent to readily manufacture.” Having acknowledged the purchasing of ghost gun kits was legal in Pennsylvania, the DAG reasonably instructed the jury “the intent was in New Jersey because they brought the kits into New Jersey for the purpose of manufacturing them.”

Ghost guns have no serial numbers or identifying marks. They can be purchased and assembled without background checks. They are therefore difficult to trace.

Most states have no laws concerning ghost guns. California, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont require serial numbers and background checks for the components. Washington, Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey require serial numbers, background checks for the components, and ban undetectable plastic and 3D printed guns.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I think Fred's alerts are a great service to his audience and a very smart marketing tool. Keep up the good work, Fred.
Charles O
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Today my life was about to change! With great communication and excellent service he was able to create the impossible!! I am now able to continue to drive for a living!! I highly recommend his services and trust his judgment-HE KNOWS HIS STUFF!!! He saved my life and livelihood today! Mr.Frank Sisto is an absolutely amazing attorney! Thank you again I’ll never forget this day! God Bless
Edward J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I had the pleasure of dealing with Mr Sisto personally from beginning to end. He was very Professional, very clear with his communication and acted quickly to find a solution to my particular issue. I HIGHLY recommend Frederick P Sisto to any and all who need an amazing and hard working attorney...
Eddie B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Especially given the situations we had to work under right now with COVID-19, I am glad to have had Fred Sisto represent me. The outcome was much better than anticipated, and he always ensured to maintain proper communication, including not going any further until you 100% understood what's going on, and made a point to keep me updated as much as possible with any of the incoming changes due to quarantine (which was confusing for me at first). Always has your best interests in mind, and an all-around great attorney and person.
Mel C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am thankful and fortunate to have had Fred represent me as counsel. His expertise, responsiveness and professionalism are second to none. I was more than satisfied with the outcome of my case and the level of service Fred's practice provided.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
....and his Dog Gonzo is a great attorney.
Duane H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The most important thing an attorney can do for their client is get results in the courtroom. Fred Sisto did this for me, and did so in such a professional and communicative manner that I would absolutely recommend him to anyone in New Jersey who is dealing with criminal charges. Fred was able get results when other attorneys did not. I definitely recommend speaking with him.
Brian C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
always feel better knowing I don't need to be stopped when I haven't done anything wrong it's a great service and gives me peace of mint
Liesel T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great Job! Enjoy getting the updates.
Ed R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
He has helped numerous people stay out of trouble
Christopher B