
People of the State of California v. Coast Runner Industries, Inc., et al.
Holding ghost gun companies accountable for selling and marketing products designed to allow users to evade firearm laws and create untraceable, unserialized firearms.
On April 3, 2025, the Superior Court of San Diego County granted the State’s motion for preliminary injunction, effectively enjoining Defendants from selling, offering to sell, transferring, advertising, or marketing the Coast Runner and any other substantially similar CNC milling machine in the state of California pending the outcome of this litigation.
Ghost guns are fueling crime. We’re taking Coast Runner, Ghost Gunner, and Defense Distributed to Court for making it possible.

GIFFORDS Law Center, alongside San Diego County and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, represents the People of California in a lawsuit against major ghost gun company, Defense Distributed and related entities, Ghost Gunner, Inc. and Coast Runner, Inc., for selling illegal gun-making machines that contribute to the proliferation of dangerous ghost guns—unserialized and untraceable firearms—that allow any person to sidestep state and federal gun laws by manufacturing handguns in their own home without undergoing a background check or other protections.
Ghost guns, formally known as privately-made firearms (PMFs), earn their name from the ease with which they can be manufactured by any individual with the help of a 3D-printer or milling machine and a gun build kit. While federal law requires firearms manufacturers to obtain a license to produce weapons and that those weapons come made with a serial number, the widespread availability of software and machines of this nature has opened a dangerous loophole—allowing individuals who are legally barred from owning a gun, let alone building one, to easily create dangerous and unserialized weapons in the comfort of their own homes.
The defendants in this case, Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner, and Coast Runner, make, sell, and market CNC (computer numerical control) milling machines specifically designed to enable users to make firearms. Unlike 3D-printers, which build objects by layering material, CNC milling machines use subtractive manufacturing, progressively removing material from a solid block to produce a finished product; in this case, a deadly, unserialized firearm.
The Ghost Gunner and Coast Runner machines allow anyone—including someone who cannot lawfully purchase a firearm—to make and assemble an unlimited arsenal of ghost guns capable of eluding law enforcement tracing at crime scenes.
The thrust of the danger from ghost guns lies not only in their ease of production, but in the importance of serial numbers for law enforcement agencies like the ATF, who use them to trace guns recovered at crime scenes. Tracing thereby enables them to solve crimes, uncover firearm trafficking, and prevent future gun violence.
In recent years, many communities have seen an explosion in the unregulated and untracked sale of “DIY” ghost gun kits and related products—and, predictably, a parallel surge in the number of these weapons showing up at crime scenes. Between 2017 to 2023, the ATF reported a staggering 1,600% increase in the number of ghost guns recovered by law enforcement nationwide. That translates to 92,702 privately-made, untraceable firearms, assembled without background checks or licenses and increasingly used to commit violent crimes.
Recognizing this crisis, the City and County of San Diego have led the state and the nation in efforts to curb the unchecked spread of ghost guns. In October 2021, the City of San Diego passed an ordinance banning the possession and sale of ghost guns, and in January 2022, the County of San Diego followed suit, passing a similar countywide ordinance. Later that year, California passed AB 1621, a landmark law that effectively banned the sale of CNC milling machines primarily designed and marketed for manufacturing firearms—machines like those sold by the defendants.
This legislation came at a time when the toll of ghost guns in California was becoming impossible to ignore. According to a 2023 report from the California Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the number of ghost guns recovered in connection with crimes in California each year has surged dramatically over the past decade, from 26 total ghost guns recovered in 2015 to 12,894 ghost guns recovered in 2022.
And yet, despite the clear illegality of their actions and the evident danger to California communities, Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner, and Coast Runner tried to continue to sell these illegal devices by slapping a new coat of paint and a new name on its Ghost Gunner CNC milling machine—undermining hard-fought public safety measures that Californians enacted to protect themselves from the rising tide of gun violence.
This legislation came at a time when the toll of ghost guns in California was becoming impossible to ignore. According to a 2023 report from the California Office of Gun Violence Prevention, the number of ghost guns recovered in connection with crimes in California each year has surged dramatically over the past decade, from 26 total ghost guns recovered in 2015 to 12,894 ghost guns recovered in 2022.
Our complaint alleges that Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner, and Coast Runner knowingly and deliberately violated California law by selling into California CNC milling machines designed to produce unserialized ghost guns.
In our court filing, we demonstrate that Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner, and Coast Runner are well aware of California’s laws banning these machines and spell out how they don’t just sell their illegal products in spite of the law, but in direct violation of it.When California enacted AB 1621, Defense Distributed promptly filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block its enforcement. In that lawsuit, the company openly acknowledged that AB 1621 would “effectively prohibit Defense Distributed from selling . . . the Ghost Gunner,” its CNC machine specifically built for manufacturing ghost guns, in California. That legal challenge failed. The court soundly rejected Defense Distributed’s argument that it had a Second Amendment right to market the Ghost Gunner to California consumers.
But shortly after Defense Distributed lost its lawsuit, a so-called “new” CNC milling machine conveniently appeared on the market: the “Coast Runner,” a purported “general purpose” CNC milling machine. The “Coast Runner” and the “Ghost Gunner” share more than just similar, rhyming names. The “Coast Runner” is in fact the Ghost Gunner with a new coat of paint. It has the same internal designs, the same features, and is being marketed for the same purpose: the illegal production of untraceable ghost guns. Even more troubling, it’s being sold and marketed by the same company. Public records show that Coast Runner Industries, Inc. is merely an alter ego of Ghost Gunner, Inc. and Defense Distributed.

Side-by-side images of the Coast Runner machine (left) and the Ghost Gunner machine (right), as included in our complaint. Despite the new name and paint job, the machines are virtually identical—evidence of Defense Distributed’s attempt to evade California law by rebranding and reselling the same illegal firearm-making device.
From the start, the Coast Runner was created and marketed with one goal: to give Defense Distributed a way to sidestep California’s vital gun safety laws—all in pursuit of profit. After a federal court dismissed the company’s lawsuit challenging one of those laws in 2023, Defense Distributed and Ghost Gunner quickly pivoted. They began advertising the Coast Runner as a California-specific version of the Ghost Gunner 3, even going so far as to post a notice on their website informing California customers that if they ordered a Ghost Gunner, they would receive a Coast Runner instead.
This brazen attempt to skirt California law with clever branding and duplicitous marketing isn’t just cynical—it’s dangerous. The Ghost Gunner/Coast Runner machine is an illegal device, explicitly designed, marketed, and sold to enable its users to build untraceable firearms at home, in violation of state gun laws and to the endangerment of all Californians.
Law enforcement officials in major cities including Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco report that ghost guns accounted for 25% to 50% of firearms recovered at crime scenes in 2020 and 2021. And these alarming numbers likely understate the problem, since many law enforcement agencies lack the proper tools or protocols to trace or record ghost gun recoveries.
The danger posed by ghost guns is real and growing. In 2013, a gunman who had failed a background check murdered five people in Santa Monica using a homemade, unserialized assault rifle assembled from gun parts he purchased online. In 2019, a 16-year-old, who would have been too young to purchase a gun legally, used a ghost gun to kill two students and injure three others at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita.
That’s why GIFFORDS Law Center, alongside the Office of County Counsel for the County of San Diego, is taking legal action on behalf of the people of California. We’re holding Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner, and Coast Runner accountable, stop their illegal conduct, and protect California communities from the ongoing threat of ghost guns.
The case was filed on May 3, 2024, in the Superior Court of San Diego County. The case was removed to the US District Court for the Southern District of California on June 3, 2024. The federal court ordered the case remanded to California state court on October 4, 2024.
On April 3, 2025, the Superior Court of San Diego County granted the State’s motion for preliminary injunction, effectively enjoining the sale, transfer, advertising, or marketing of the Coast Runner and any other substantially similar CNC milling machine by Defendants in the state of California pending the outcome of this litigation.
People of the State of California v. Coast Runner Industries, Inc., et al.
Case No. 202400020896 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego), 24-cv-00971-AJB-SBC (S.D. Cal.)
Date Filed | Key Filing |
---|---|
5/2/2024 | |
6/3/2024 | Notice of Removal to Federal Court — S.D. Cal. Defendants filed a notice to have the case removed from California state court to federal court, claiming the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over the case. |
6/17/2024 | Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue — S.D. Cal. Defendants filed a motion to change venue in support of their claim that the case should proceed in federal district court as opposed to California state court. |
6/17/2024 | |
6/18/2024 | People of California’s Motion to Remand— S.D. Cal. California filed a motion to remand the case to state court. |
7/17/2024 | Defendants’ Response in Opposition to California’s Motion to Remand— S.D. Cal. Defendants responded opposing California’s motion to remand the case to state court. |
7/23/2024 | People of California’s Response in Support of the Motion to Remand— S.D. Cal. California filed a reply brief further supporting its motion to remand the case to state court. |
10/4/2024 | Court Order Granting California’s Motion to Remand— S.D. Cal. The federal district court for the Southern District of California granted the State’s motion to remand, moving the case back to California state court. |
10/16/2024 | People of California’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Once back in state court, California filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stop the marketing and sale of Defendants’ CNC milling machines in the state for the duration of the case. |
10/31/2024 | Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike Defendants filed a special motion to strike all claims in California’s complaint, arguing that the state’s Anti-SLAPP statute protects their conduct on First Amendment grounds as a matter of free speech. |
2/14/2025 | People of California’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike California filed a brief opposing Defendants’ motion to strike all claims in the complaint. |
2/21/2025 | Defendants’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to Strike Defendants filed a brief in response to California’s opposition, further supporting their motion to strike. |
3/17/2025 | Defendants’ Reply in Opposition to California’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction Defendants filed a brief opposing California’s motion for preliminary injunction. |
3/21/2025 | People of California’s Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction California filed a brief in response to Defendants’ opposition, further supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction. |
4/3/2025 | Court Order Denying Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike The San Diego County Superior Court denied Defendants’ special motion to strike all claims in California’s complaint. |
4/3/2025 | Court Order Granting People of California’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction The San Diego County Superior Court granted California’s motion to preliminarily enjoin Defendants’ from marketing or selling CNC milling machines in the state for the duration of the case. |
MEDIA REQUESTS
Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at [email protected].
Contact
LAWSUITS

MAKE A GIFT
Every day, the experts at Giffords Law Center work tirelessly to craft, enact, and defend the gun safety policies and programs that save lives. A safer America is within reach, but we need your courage and commitment to get there.