The Future of Ghost Guns in Minnesota: An Analysis of State v. Vagle 

Annika Schultz*

For years, the media has been reporting a rise in ghost guns in the United States.¹ But what are ghost guns and why should we care about them? A ghost gun—otherwise known as a privately made firearm (PMF)²—is a “homemade or self-assembled firearm with no recognized serial number . . .”³ or “a commercial firearm from which the serial number has been removed.”⁴  

The number of ghost guns recovered from crime scenes has increased dramatically and rapidly, with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reporting “an almost 1,600% increase in recoveries and traces between 2017 (1,629) and 2023 (27,490).”⁵ In response to concerns about these untraceable firearms, some states have passed laws regarding ghost guns.⁶ In Minnesota, one such law regulating ghost guns is § 609.667 of Minnesota Statutes, which criminalizes the removal or alteration of a serial number as well as the possession of a firearm without a serial number.⁷  

On August 6, 2025, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling reducing the reach of § 609.667, subd. 3, which criminalizes the possession of a firearm without a serial number.⁸ In this Blog I will analyze State v. Vagle and opine on the future of ghost gun regulation in a post-Vagle Minnesota.   

An Analysis of State v. Vagle

In State v. Vagle, the Minnesota Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether § 609.667, subd. 3 criminalizes the possession of all firearms lacking a serial number or only the possession of firearms that are required to have a serial number under federal law.⁹ The case arose out of a single vehicle crash involving a vehicle driven by Logan Hunter Vagle.¹⁰ Law enforcement searched Mr. Vagle’s vehicle and found a pistol without a serial number.¹¹ Subsequently, Mr. Vagle was charged with possessing a firearm without a serial number in violation of subd. 3.¹² The district court granted Mr. Vagle’s motion to dismiss, declaring sua sponte that § 609.667, subd. 3 was constitutionally vague as it applied to Mr. Vagle’s case.¹³ The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected Mr. Vagle’s argument that § 609.667, subd. 3 only applies to firearms required to have a serial number under federal law and determined that the statute criminalized the possession of any firearm without a serial number.¹⁴ Mr. Vagle appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, arguing the charge should be dismissed because, as a matter of statutory interpretation, § 609.667, subd. 3 only criminalizes the possession of a firearm without a serial number if the firearm is required to have a serial number under federal law.¹⁵ 

The Minnesota Supreme Court began its analysis by looking at the language of § 609.667, which provides: 

Whoever commits any of the following acts may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both: 

(1) obliterates, removes, changes, or alters the serial number or other identification of a firearm. 

(2) receives or possesses a firearm, the serial number or other identification of which has been obliterated, removed, changed, or altered; or 

(3) receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified by a serial number. 

As used in this section, “serial number or other identification” means the serial number and other information required under United States Code, title 26, section 5842, for the identification of firearms.¹⁶ 

The court noted the explicit reference to federal law and Minnesota’s lack of an independent serial number regulation scheme, leading it to investigate the history of federal firearm serial number legislation.¹⁷ Notably, the court explained that there are two federal statutes which require serial numbers of firearms: The National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5842(a)) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. §§ 921–934).¹⁸ Section 609.667 expressly references the National Firearms Act in subdivisions one and two, but not the Gun Control Act.¹⁹ 

After exploring relevant federal legislation, the court returned to its task of interpreting § 609.667, subd. 3.²⁰ The court concluded the term “serial number” as used in the statute has a specialized, technical meaning.²¹ Although § 609.667 references the National Firearms Act with the phrase “serial number or other identification” in subdivisions one and two, the court determined that one cannot conclude that the phrase “‘identified by a serial number’ in § 609.667, subd. 3 cannot also refer to a serial number required by federal law.”²² Moreover, the legislative history shows that the Legislature only intended to criminalize firearms that require serial numbers under federal law.²³ Thus, the court concluded that the language of the statute, considered in context, dictates that § 609.667, subd. 3 only criminalizes the possession of firearms that must have a serial number under federal law.²⁴ 

At the end of its opinion, the court warned readers about the dangers ghost guns pose to the public.²⁵ The court noted that this is “an important and complex public policy issue”²⁶ and “the final decision on whether and how to regulate ghost guns rests with the Legislature.”²⁷

The Future of Ghost Gun Regulation in a Post-Vagle Minnesota  

In this post-Vagle age, many ghost guns in Minnesota are legal because they are not required to have a serial number under federal law.²⁸ However, as noted by the court, ghost guns present a great risk to public safety.²⁹ Thus, the question Minnesotans are left with is, what will happen next?  

As the court alluded to, the Minnesota Legislature can pass new legislation banning ghost guns.³⁰ In fact, this idea was proposed by Minnesota Senator Ron Latz just one day after State v. Vagle was issued.³¹ In his statement, Senator Latz expressed his intent to introduce legislation in the 2026 Legislative Session requiring serial numbers on ghost guns.³² The approach offers a feasible solution, as sixteen other states have passed laws regulating ghost guns.³³  

Alternatively, Minnesotans can wait to see if the federal government passes legislation or executive orders regarding the regulation of ghost guns. However, in this current political climate, this seems unlikely as President Donald Trump issued an executive order on February 7, 2025, ordering the Attorney General to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment Rights of all Americans.”³⁴ 

Regardless of if or when any legislation passes at the state or federal level, in this current post-Vagle world, Minnesotans are living in a gray area in which some ghost guns are legal while others are not.³⁵  

*Annika Schultz, J.D. Candidate, University of St. Thomas School of Law Class of 2027 (Associate Editor). 

1. See Reg Chapman, How Untraceable Ghost Guns are Impacting Crime in the Twin Cities, CBS News (Aug. 18, 2022, at 18:21 CT), https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/how-untraceable-ghost-guns-are-impacting-crime-in-the-twin-cities/ [https://perma.cc/9UDD-9BET] (explaining how ghost guns have quickly become a problem for law enforcement in the Twin Cities); Nada Tawfik, Why Ghost Guns are America’s Fastest-Growing Gun Problem, BBC News (Aug. 8, 2023), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65170507  [https://perma.cc/FB7V-9U4S] (describing how the number of ghost guns recovered from crime scenes in the U.S. is increasing each year); Claudia Lauer, Gun Safety Advocates Warn of Surge in  Untraceable 3D-Printed Weapons in the U.S., NBC Phila. (Oct. 16, 2025, at 12:13 CT), https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/ghost-guns-3d-printers-law-enforcement/4286563/  [https://perma.cc/4F5J-B27Q] (expressing concern about the rise in untraceable 3D-printed guns).  ↩︎
2. Privately Made Firearms, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (May 19, 2025), https://www.atf.gov/firearms/privately-made-firearms [https://perma.cc/YLH3-TT5V] (“PMFs are commonly referred to as ‘ghost guns’ . . . .”). ↩︎
3. Ghost Gun, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). ↩︎
4. Id. ↩︎
5. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Part V: Privately Made Firearms Updates and New Analysis 11 (Jan. 8, 2025), https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files2/nfcta_volume_iv_-_part_v_0.pdf [https://perma.cc/JLH9-EJWZ]. ↩︎
6. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, supra note 2; see Everytown Research & Policy,  Which States Regulate Ghost Guns?, Everytown (Jan. 14, 2026), https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/law/ghost-guns-regulated/ [https://perma.cc/3GKA-6GZV] (detailing the sixteen states that regulate ghost guns).  ↩︎
7. Minn.  Stat. § 609.667 (2024). ↩︎
8. State v. Vagle, 24 N.W.3d 481, 482–84 (Minn. 2025).  ↩︎
9. Id. at 484. ↩︎
10. Id. at 483. ↩︎
11. Id. ↩︎
12. Id. Mr. Vagle was also charged with carrying a pistol without a permit, however, that charge is not relevant to this discussion of ghost gun regulation. Id. ↩︎
13. Id. ↩︎
14. Id. ↩︎
15. Id. ↩︎
16. Minn.  Stat.  § 609.667 (2024); Vagle, 24 N.W.3d at 484. ↩︎
17. Vagle, 24 N.W.3d at 484–87. ↩︎
18. Id. at 484. ↩︎
19. Id. at 484–85. ↩︎
20. Id. at 487. ↩︎
21. Id. at 489. ↩︎
22. Id. at 489–90. ↩︎
23. Id. at 490–91. ↩︎
24. Id. at 491. ↩︎
25. Id. at 493. ↩︎
26. Id.  ↩︎
27. Id. at 494. ↩︎
28. Id. ↩︎
29. Id. at 493. ↩︎
30. See id. at 494 (“In the end, the final decision on whether and how to regulate ghost guns rests with the Legislature.”). ↩︎
31. Ron Latz, Senator Ron Latz to Introduce Legislation Closing Ghost Gun Loophole, Minn. Senate DFL (Aug. 7, 2025), https://senatedfl.mn/senator-ron-latz-to-introduce-legislation-closing-ghost-gun-loophole/ [https://perma.cc/T5PQ-FCUW]. ↩︎
32. Id. ↩︎
33. Everytown Research & Policy, supra note 6. ↩︎
34. Protecting Second Amendment Rights, 90 Fed. Reg. 9503 (Feb. 7, 2025).   ↩︎
35. Vagle, 24 N.W.3d at 494 (holding that § 609.667, subd. 3 criminalizes possessing a firearm without a serial number only if one is not required under federal law). ↩︎