These cases are sometimes described as “ghost gun” incidents, involving privately made firearms (PMFs) assembled from parts kits or unfinished frames and receivers. The legal issues can be complex because manufacturers and sellers often argue they are selling “parts,” not firearms, and because federal immunity defenses can come into play.

Below are the product liability and related legal theories families most commonly ask about, and why the specific facts of the sale, marketing, and distribution matter.

What makes an “untraceable” firearm different in a civil case

Traditional firearms typically have serial numbers, a regulated sales pathway, and records that can help investigators trace the chain of distribution. Untraceable firearms are designed or sold in ways that can reduce that accountability, which can affect how plaintiffs frame claims around foreseeability, safety features, warnings, and unlawful sales practices.

The legal landscape has also shifted in recent years. In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld ATF’s 2022 rule regulating certain kits and parts that can readily be assembled into functioning firearms, reinforcing that some of these products can fall under federal firearms regulation.

Legal theory 1: Design defect

Families often ask: was this product inherently unsafe as designed?

A design defect theory may focus on whether the product was designed to make unlawful or dangerous use easier, such as rapid home-assembly into a working firearm, or whether safer alternative designs were feasible. The details vary by jurisdiction, but the core question is whether the design created unreasonable risk when used as intended or in foreseeable ways.

Legal theory 2: Failure to warn and inadequate instructions

Families also ask: were people warned about how easily this could be turned into a working gun, or how it could be misused?

Failure-to-warn claims can center on whether instructions, packaging, and marketing downplayed key risks, especially when the product’s functionality, legal status, or required compliance steps were unclear or misleading.

Legal theory 3: Negligent marketing and negligent distribution

This is a common theme in cases involving products marketed for “easy build” or sold in ways that allegedly encouraged evasion of oversight.

These claims may focus on:

• How the product was advertised (including who it seemed to target)
• Whether sellers used sales channels that predictably reached prohibited or high-risk buyers
• Whether the company ignored red flags about downstream distribution

Several cities have pursued claims and settlements involving ghost gun kit sales practices, including settlements that restricted sales in certain jurisdictions and required monetary payments.

Legal theory 4: Negligence per se and “predicate” statute arguments

Families may hear that gun companies are protected by a federal law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and ask whether any exceptions apply.

One of the most discussed pathways is the “predicate exception,” which can apply when a plaintiff alleges the defendant knowingly violated a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms, and that violation contributed to the harm. Courts analyze these arguments carefully, and outcomes can differ depending on the jurisdiction and the specific statute involved.

Legal theory 5: Consumer protection and deceptive practices

Another question families ask is: were consumers, regulators, or the public misled about what was being sold and whether it was legal?

Some lawsuits have used state consumer protection or unfair trade practice laws, alleging deceptive statements about legality or compliance obligations. A Washington, D.C. court action against a major ghost gun kit maker, for example, included findings related to misleading claims about legality.

Legal theory 6: Wrongful death and survival claims built on underlying product theories

In fatal shootings, the civil case is often pleaded as wrongful death (and sometimes a survival action), using one or more of the underlying liability theories above to establish fault and damages.

In at least one recent case discussed by firearms law scholars, a federal judge allowed wrongful death and negligence claims against ghost gun manufacturers to proceed past a motion to dismiss, highlighting how these cases can turn on the interaction between product allegations and PLCAA defenses.

The defenses families should expect to hear

Even strong cases face aggressive defenses, including:

• PLCAA immunity arguments
• “We sold parts, not a firearm” framing
• Intervening criminal act arguments (claiming the shooter’s conduct breaks the chain of responsibility)
• Causation disputes about how the specific product moved through the marketplace

That is why early investigation is critical: preserving digital sales trails, ad targeting, distributor relationships, product configuration, and compliance history can make or break the liability analysis.

Talk to a product liability team about your options

If your family is dealing with the aftermath of a shooting involving an untraceable firearm, you deserve straight answers about whether a manufacturer, seller, or distributor may share responsibility. McEldrew Purtell can evaluate the facts, explain the most viable legal theories in your jurisdiction, and help you understand next steps. Contact us for a confidential consultation.