The Rise of Ghost Gun Prosecutions in New Jersey
New Jersey has long been at the forefront of strict firearm regulation, but recent years have ushered in a new challenge for both prosecutors and defense attorneys: the proliferation of so-called “ghost guns.” These untraceable weapons—sold in kits without serial numbers and easily assembled into functioning firearms—have tested the reach of state laws designed before such technology existed.
In State v. Malihki X. Oliver, decided August 12, 2025, the New Jersey Appellate Division confronted, for the first time, the interpretation of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k), the statute criminalizing the purchase of firearm parts to manufacture weapons without serial numbers. The court’s published opinion clarifies not only what the State must prove under this law, but also how far New Jersey’s territorial jurisdiction extends when part of the alleged conduct occurs in another state.
For defendants and families facing weapons charges in Camden, Trenton, Cherry Hill, and Gloucester County, this case is a pivotal reminder: New Jersey courts will aggressively assert jurisdiction over ghost gun cases, even when the purchases take place lawfully in another state. Understanding the scope of this decision is critical for anyone charged under New Jersey’s rapidly evolving firearm statutes.
Background: The Arrest and Indictment
The case began in July 2022, when law enforcement officials from New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey coordinated an interdiction operation at a gun show in Trevose, Pennsylvania. Investigators observed Oliver and another man negotiating with vendors to buy ghost gun kits, Polymer 80 frame kits lacking serial numbers and capable of being assembled into operable handguns. These sales required no identification or paperwork under Pennsylvania law and were transacted entirely in cash.
After the purchases, the men placed the kits in a silver Mercedes registered to Oliver at a Trenton address. Surveillance officers saw them return to the show for additional purchases before driving back to New Jersey. Acting on the intelligence, New Jersey State Police coordinated with Trenton officers to stop the vehicle near Oliver’s home, citing tinted windows as the basis for the motor vehicle stop. Oliver and his companion appeared nervous and denied attending the gun show. A consent search revealed five ghost gun kits, two Glock slides, and two extended magazines, each capable of holding thirty-four rounds.
Neither Oliver nor his companion had a firearms license. A state grand jury indicted Oliver on multiple counts, including conspiracy, purchasing firearm parts without serial numbers, unlawful possession of large-capacity magazines, and transporting those magazines. He moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the Deputy Attorney General misinstructed the grand jury and that New Jersey lacked jurisdiction. The motion was denied, and Oliver later pled guilty to one count of purchasing firearm parts to manufacture a firearm without a license, under a negotiated plea agreement. He was sentenced as a third-degree offender to a three-year prison term.
The Appeal: Three Core Arguments
Oliver’s appeal raised three central issues. First, he argued the indictment was defective because the State misstated the elements of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k). In his view, the Legislature intended only one element—purchasing firearm parts with the intent to assemble them into a firearm. Since the purchase occurred in Pennsylvania, where it was lawful, he maintained New Jersey lacked authority to prosecute.
Second, Oliver challenged territorial jurisdiction. He asserted that because the purchases occurred entirely outside New Jersey, and because possession of the kits was legal in Pennsylvania, New Jersey could not extend its criminal laws beyond its borders.
Third, Oliver claimed the Deputy Attorney General presenting the case to the grand jury engaged in misconduct by misinforming jurors about the elements, suggesting mere presence in New Jersey was enough to satisfy jurisdiction, and cutting off juror questions about hypothetical scenarios such as “just passing through.”
The Court’s Analysis
Interpreting N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k)
The Appellate Division began with statutory interpretation. Paragraph k of the statute makes it a second-degree crime to purchase firearm frames or receivers lacking serial numbers, with the purpose to manufacture or assemble a firearm, without being licensed or registered to do so. The court held the statute requires three distinct elements: the purchase of ghost gun kits, the intent to assemble a firearm, and the lack of a license. Oliver’s argument that the purchase and intent were a single element was rejected. Nothing in the statute required that the purchase occur in New Jersey.
Territorial Jurisdiction
The court then turned to jurisdiction. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1), New Jersey may prosecute an offense if either the conduct constituting an element or the result occurs within the state. Although the purchases took place in Pennsylvania, the State presented evidence that Oliver transported the kits into Trenton with the purpose of manufacturing firearms in New Jersey. That intent created the required nexus. The panel relied on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Ferguson, 238 N.J. 78 (2019), which emphasized that conduct partially outside the state is prosecutable if there is a direct nexus to New Jersey.
The court also dismissed Oliver’s reliance on the exception in N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(b), which prevents prosecution when the result is intended to occur only in another jurisdiction where the conduct is not a crime. Here, the evidence demonstrated intent to assemble in New Jersey, not elsewhere.
Grand Jury Instructions
Finally, the Appellate Division addressed Oliver’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Citing State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216 (1996), the court explained that indictments are presumed valid and will only be dismissed if grand jury instructions are blatantly wrong or amount to an intentional subversion of the process. The Deputy Attorney General’s instructions were not blatantly wrong; they accurately conveyed that both purchase and intent were required. Her responses to juror questions properly focused on the facts in evidence, and her decision to curtail speculation about “passing through” was appropriate, given the lack of supporting evidence. She also reminded jurors repeatedly that her words were not evidence and that their recollection controlled.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed Oliver’s conviction. It held that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k) requires proof of purchase, intent to manufacture, and lack of a license; that New Jersey had territorial jurisdiction because Oliver intended to assemble firearms in Trenton; and that the grand jury was not misled. The decision, approved for publication, stands as the first appellate interpretation of Paragraph k and provides critical guidance on ghost gun prosecutions.
Implications for Criminal Defense
The Oliver decision carries significant consequences for defendants and counsel. First, it signals New Jersey’s expansive approach to firearm jurisdiction. A purchase outside New Jersey does not shield a defendant if prosecutors can show intent to manufacture within the state. This is particularly important given the proximity of Pennsylvania gun shows to cities like Trenton and Camden, where law enforcement actively monitors such events.
Second, the ruling underscores the limited grounds for challenging grand jury instructions. Defense attorneys must be prepared to argue that instructions were not just imprecise but blatantly wrong to succeed. The presumption of validity at the indictment stage remains powerful.
Third, the decision highlights the sentencing stakes. Although Oliver received a negotiated three-year term, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k) is a second-degree crime ordinarily carrying five to ten years. Without a plea, exposure would have been far greater.
What This Means for Defendants and Families
For families in South Jersey, this case is a wake-up call. Ghost gun prosecutions are among the most aggressively pursued offenses in New Jersey. Prosecutors view untraceable firearms and large-capacity magazines as threats to public safety, and appellate courts have shown willingness to uphold convictions even when purchases occurred in jurisdictions where the conduct was legal.
Defendants should understand that intent is often inferred from circumstances. Transporting ghost gun kits into New Jersey, storing them near a residence, or combining them with other firearm components can be enough for prosecutors to argue intent to manufacture. Challenging jurisdiction requires careful factual development, and preserving issues for appeal demands meticulous trial strategy.
The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Oliver reflects New Jersey’s uncompromising stance on ghost guns and its broad interpretation of jurisdiction. For those facing weapons charges, the stakes are immense. A conviction under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-9(k) can carry years in state prison, and the defenses are highly technical, hinging on statutory interpretation and constitutional principles.
At Ratliff Jackson LLP, we understand the high-stakes nature of these cases. Our attorneys bring relentless preparation, strategic insight, and courtroom experience to every defense. Whether you are under investigation, indicted, or seeking to challenge a conviction on appeal, we provide the sophisticated representation that complex firearm cases demand. If you or a loved one are charged with ghost gun possession, conspiracy, or related weapons offenses in New Jersey, contact Ratliff Jackson LLP today to schedule a confidential consultation.