Old gun with a serial number, but someone has ground down the number so its not readable. Seems like gunsmiths had a technique, a mild acid, or and x ray, or something else, to be able to bring the serial number out.

Help, for all you knowledgeable people, tell me how they do it. Can't call Abby at NCIS on this one.......

Yes, I know this brings out the comments on "it's stolen" and we will handle this within the law. Deceased person, executor of the estate needs some help. Obviously the owner is dead, so they are not available for giving input.

Asking for a friend.

The traditional method is acid etching. X-ray is a backup. A new technology described in the WaPo link describes an electron microscope method using “backscattering”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.21ad6773c85a

None of these methods, as far as I know, are in use by gunsmiths or civilians. They are used by crime labs, and pretty well-equipped ones at that.

Before any further research, even as an executor of an estate, I would contact an attorney on how to proceed. The penalties for possession may be just as severe as for ownership. The sentimental or even collector’s value of a gun is almost meaningless to the BATF and crime labs. It is probably not persuasive for a lighter or differential application of the laws regarding serial numbers. One would have to weigh risks vs. rewards when traveling through this area of the law.

So, ignoring the legal issue of an obliterated serial number and speaking only to the technical aspects or "recovering" the number...

Depending upon the way the number was defaced and how deep it is, material, etc. it also may be impossible. There are many ways to do it but most all will require a level of expertise and equipment/supplies not readily on hand for an individual. I am not aware of any "business" that does such a service for individuals and outside of the law enforcement community.

Good luck.

https://forensicresources.org/wp-con...09-22-2017.pdf

RECOVERY OF DEFACED SERIAL NUMBERS USING INFRARED THERMAL IMAGING | National Institute of Justice

To my knowledge there is no legal way for a civilian to restore a serial number, it can only be done by petitioning ATF with a case to be made of extraordinary historical significance of the firearm. The first question to answer is the age of the firearm; if all of that particular model were manufactured prior to 1898 then it would legally be considered an antiquity not subject to regulation and would therefor be legal. My advice as extreme as it may sound would be to contact ATF and explain the situation so that you do not get yourself in trouble. Keep in mind that ATF is a federal regulatory agency and they can be problematic to deal with (to say the least!).

Do NOT personally contact the ATF on this issue.

The question of intent will come up at some point. If it was “ground down” intentionally so that the deceased had an untraceable firearm, then that pretty well paints it in a very negative and criminal light regardless of age.

If on the other hand the serial was “ground down” as a result of rust removal and or refinishing, then that carries an entirely different intent. In that case being old and unreadable might it less likely for possession to be viewed as a crime provided:
- it is pre 1898 *and* is not considered a firearm;
- it never had a serial number to begin with;
- it was a home built firearm that did not fall under the NFA and did not (and still does not) require a serial number; or
- it has never been used in interstate commerce after the serial was obliterated (this one is really tricky).

Serial numbers were not required prior to the NFA of 1934 and then only on weapons that fell under the NFA.

The GCA of 1968 required all firearms to have serial numbers and made it illegal to possess a firearm where a serial number had been removed. Prior removal wasn’t punishable as it would be an ex post facto offense, but possession going forward was illegal. That meant firearms with obliterated serial numbers were legal to own on 10-21-1968 but were illegal to own on or after 10-22-1968. But there’s a loop hole based on 18 U.S.C. 922 (k):

“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess or receive any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”

In short, the government avoiding a “Taking” by using congresses innumerated powers under the commerce clause as the legal basis, as it avoided a compensable taking from occurring. If it had taken a broader interpretation separate from interstate commerce, it would have not only been a taking but been a compensable taking as well.

Based on a narrow technicality then you could argue that possessing the weapon or even transferring it within the state would be legal as it does not involve interstate commerce.

Realistically though, ATF will jump on you with both feet and assume it has been used in interstate commerce in the past, and more or less leave it to you as a defendant to prove otherwise wise, ignoring a so called presumption of innocence.

Government agencies have deep pockets and lots of attorneys and they know they can wear you down over a period of years while they keep turning the screws and running up your legal bills until you agree to a plea or settlement. Even if you out last them and win in court, they’ll stall for years if ordered to pay your legal fees, and will als probably ensure that anyone associated with your unlawful prosecution has time to move their assets into someone else’s name before a decision is rendered giving you a right to sue them, so that there is nothing for you to go after. It’s a rigged system.

Sorry I can't help and step away.

__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!

Good advice. Ask a lawyer to call the ATF. They can't make a lawyer divulge the identity of the client or the whereabouts of the gun.

Alternatively, unless the piece is really something special, you can "deactivate" it (there's a better word as I recall) and make it a decorative piece.

Deactivation would include removing the firing pin or otherwise breaking it and pouring lead or solder into the barrel to cause it to be unable to permit bullets to pass through. Then it's not a firearm any longer and can be placed on a bookshelf. ICBW BIDTS

__________________
Come and take it!!

I won't go into legal issues about it. If you sanded the area smooth to say 600 or 1200 grit and soak it in ferric chloride diluted 50/50 with white vinegar the serial number might show up. Ferric chloride is available at better electronics shops. Do not polish with power equipment

What is the value of the pistol and is it worth all this fuss?

Just for reference I was looking on line at a 1903 Colt and the serial number looked weird. I asked about it and was told it had been ground and the number “recovered”. Not sure who or how it we acomplished.

__________________
Who are those guys?

A local shop offered me a Remington Rand 1911A1 with the serial number missing. It could have been done by the G.I. that orignally stole it or some thief a couple weeks ago. Who knows? The shop owner tried to convince me that the holsters were bad to wear the serial number off. I'm not sure if he actually believed that one or just thought I would. I'm not sure how he planned to document that one in his bound book.

Now that I hope we've gotten past all the bloviating on the question you didn't ask, here's what you wanted to know:

1. This can be done with nitric acid, or "nicodate" sold in coin shops. After application, the # will magically appear. It's actually exposing the compressed metal from the stamping appear in a contrasting darker gray to the surrounding metal.
Is this a legal serial number?

2. Fry's reagent "serial number restoration fluid."
FRY'S REAGENT RESTORATION FLUID - 2 OZ

Development of new reagent for restoration of erased serial number on metal plates - ScienceDirect
Where to buy: fry's reagent where to buy - Google Search

3. Another method is to very fine bead blast the area where the s/n was with a very fine grit. Again it will show contrasting shades of gray.

__________________
Jim
S&WCA #819

You have not id the firearm as to make and model thus I'm wondering if the serial number is located elsewhere on the firearm, and can thus be ID' from that location. For example some Mauser rifles had the serial number on both the receiver and the barrel as well as partials on other parts. Could this also be the case.

It might be stolen, it might not be, but that's not the issue. The gun is not legal for a private citizen to posses, so it must be surrendered to your local law enforcement agency . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

This is terrible advice. There's not a commercially manufactured firearm in public possession that has not involved interstate commerce. . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

As mentioned in post #13 above I remember a solution sold in coin shops call Date Restorer or something like that. Many years ago Buffalo Nickels could occasionally be found in circulation. The date was completely worn off on many. When wiped with the solution the date would appear in a contrasting shade of grey to the rest of the area. If this was used on a gun and the original serial number could clearly be read wouldn’t that be good enough to be legal?

Here is the method. Depending on type of metal, the acid used is nitric which is diluted or sulfuric that is diluted. First the area where the number was must be polished to a high shine and ideally remain flat. Make a dam around the area as far out as possibly to prevent any acid from reaching other areas of the weapon or other object to be worked on. Use leads from 12 volt batteryand connect them with alligator clips to large cotton swabs which are then dipped in acid. Using the battery power to accelerate the reaction of the acid. In just a few minutes of working with the acid a ghost number in contrast with the polished surface will appear. Take a picture of it and cease using the electolysis with the acid. It is possible that the number will fade away after it appears so don't expect it to stay there indefinitely. It might but more often it will fade away.

That method is used by auto theft investigators to raise obliterated numbers on motorcycle engine casings and on frames. It can be used on things like firearms and that is what forensic specialists would use to try and identify stolen or criminally used items that have the numbers obliterated. Be advised that if the area in question was hit with a welding torch this method won't work. As time went on the people stealing Harley Davidsons started using welding methods to build up the serial number boss after grinding. When they did that they totally ruined any chance of restoring the numbers by Law Enforcement. I would doubt that it would have been done on a firearm.

Poking the bear is a poor pastime.

Not touching this, not even with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole.

__________________
VCDL, GOA, NRA

Real simple Cutting torch.

This is a proven method and I have used it. I was an auto theft detective in the 70's and was taught this method at an auto/motorcycle theft school. Alligator clip to the object and other connected to the swab dipped in the acid. Swab was a long wooden stick with a loosely coiled very small copper wire around it and then the cotton swab on end covering the wire. Seems to me we used one of those lantern batteries. This method is for umbers that are ground of filed off. Will not work if number has been obliterated by being punched out first and then ground/filed off.

Just turn it over to your local law enforcement agency for destruction. It isn't worth the trouble. One could possibly remove all useful parts, i.e. barrel, hammer, trigger, etc. before turning it over.

Read the laws of the state in which the "friend" who is holding the gun resides and your own state's laws. That should not require an attorney. Some states preempt firearm laws prohibiting cities and counties adding additional burdens but most do not. What you read might convince you that you do not want the gun's frame on your property regardless of federal law.

That said, if the serial was not removed for criminal purposes a gunsmith can apply to BATFE for them to assign a serial number for him or her to add to the frame making it legally transferable again.

Since this is the S&W forum it's odd that no one has written that 1955 and older S&W hand ejector revolvers also had the serial number on the barrel, cylinder, yoke, and extractor. If the numbers match on all those parts then it is very likely that's the frame's number.

How about stamping new numbers of your choice?? Given that you're not committing crimes with the weapon, but rather enjoying it, what is the probability you or any subsequent owner be accused of possessing an illegal weapon or altering serial numbers? It would require an incredible combination of circumstances to reveal that the gun has a duplicate or erroneous serial number. It is not legal to do such a thing, but once done there is no way or reason to determine who applied serial numbers. No, it's not legal, but should be if the owner's motivations are not criminal. The bureaucracy has rules for so many inconceivable circumstances. There is also the issue of prosecutorial discretion. There is also the issue of who you are. An FFL or gunsmith shouldn't do this (too much to lose), but a hobbyist that wants to use the piece and lock it away in a gunsafe can sleep well with a clear (mostly) conscience.

Serial numbers were not required before 1968 correct? So if the gun is older than that, is it required to be intact?

If you read the entire post you’ll see I addressed that really bad idea aspect of it, and your assumption that all commercially manufactured firearms have been involved in interstate commerce demonstrates why it’s a bad idea. Someone will be charged and prosecuted absent any proof at all that a particular firearm was ever involved in interstate commerce.

What you’ve done here is apply the ruling in Scarborough v United States where the court found that the ban on firearm possession by felons did not require contemporaneous interstate commerce, but rather interstate commerce “at some time”. The basis for this was the obvious larger congressional intent to prevent people who had demonstrated they should not be trusted with firearms (felons) from possessing firearms.

Similarly in the United States V. Barret the court determined that the GCA 1968 applied to intrastate transfers if the firearm had ever been shipped in interstate commerce anywhere in the chain from the factory to distributor to the dealer to possessor.

However it’s worth noting that if someone lived in, for example, Montana, bought a new Sharps from Shiloh Sharps and picked it up at the factory in Montana, that firearm will never have been involved in interstate commerce and would not fall under the provisions of GCA 1968. A lot of folks in MT take that very seriously.

The same could be said for any firearm made in any state that was never sold, shipped or otherwise transferred across state lines and this was never involved in interstate commerce. Absent paperwork showing, for example, a Hi Standard Victor made in Connecticut had been shipped or transferred to someone outside of Connecticut that particular pistol should not fall under The provisions of GCA 1968. But it will because federal agents will make the assumption that it has been involved in interstate commerce.

They ignore the whole presumption of innocence concept and immediately place the burden of proof on the suspect to prove a firearm has *not* been engaged in interstate commerce. That’s a more detailed version of what I stated above, and you’ve made my point very nicely.

I’ll add here that in 1995 United State v Lopez involved a federal law banning guns in school zones. The court ruled that nothing in the law showed any connection to interstate commerce and thus the federal law wasn’t valid as it was outside the scope of the commerce clause. The law had to be revised to explicitly stare that in order for the federal law to be applied, the prosecution had to prove the firearm had moved in or otherwise affected intestate or foreign commerce.

This is applicable as in the bigger picture it shows that the board application of the felon in possession aspect of the interstate commerce clause and GCA 1968 doesn’t automatically apply to all other uses of the commerce clause or provisions in GCA 1968, or any other federal gun control law based in the commerce clause.

But once again, successfully defending that in the court system will be a long arduous and expensive process, and one that will also be necessary as the feds involved will over reach and overcharge even with a complete lack of evidence that the firearm was ever involved in interstate commerce. it’s just not worth it.

Ask for free legal advice, and you get what you paid for.

Even if the logic were good on this one, and it’s not, the lack of understanding what the legal term “altering” means and the associated potential felony penalties make this advice the worst yet posted.

Unfortunately yes. GCA 1968 made it illegal to remove serial numbers and also to possess a weapon where the serial number had been removed.

Someone who removed a serial number prior to 10-22-1968 could not be charged as it would be an ex post facto offense (“I did it before it was illegal and they charged me anyway” isn’t legal).

However possession is an on going action so possession of a firearm where the serial number had been removed became a chargeable offense on 10-22-1968. There was some debate about grace period at the time, but since we’re over 50 years past 1968, any intended grace period has long passed.

So in short, if a gun never had a serial number and was made before 10-22-1968 it’s legal to possess it and to transfer it.

However, it if ever had a serial number and it was removed, even of that was prior to 10+22-1968, it’s illegal to possess or transfer.

Acquired a 1911A1 that had the serial # ground off. Contacted ATF agent I knew and he submitted it to their lab. It took a few months to get it back and number was not recoverable. They issued a new number (about 10 digits & letters long) and accompanied me to engraver to observe as they applied new number to frame. It was no value to me with no serial # so I had not much to lose. It is a very nice weapon and is a good representative of a Colt .45.

In the past it wasn’t uncommon for a gunsmith to round butt a square butt revolver and in the process remove or at least truncate the serial number. In that case they didn’t worry about it and just re-stamped the full number elsewhere on the grip frame.

It wasn’t an issue then, even with the ATF as they recognized the intent for what it was and didn’t over apply the law in that case. I don’t think the same can be said today.

However, with that said, if the OP’s revolver were an older S&W with multiple serial numbers, an illegible serial number should not be a huge issue as the gun still has legible and matching serial numbers elsewhere. In the past most gunsmiths would just re stamp the illegible or hard to read serial number and move on.

Today, most would probably still do that, provided they had plausible deniability. ATF could theoretically come in and prove the stamp was in the wrong font, was stamped rather than roll marked, etc, but to what end and for what purpose?

That said putting a new serial number of your choice on the gun is in fact illegal and goes beyond the bounds of just replacing a serial number that was partly or wholly illegible due to rust, refinishing, round butting, etc.

If you were to use parts of a unserialized revolver on a frame/receiver you made yourself then adding your own serial number is just fine (and not even required). But that won’t pass muster on a factory made revolver that had a different serial number at some time.

Altering, removing, obliterating the manufacturers applied ser# on a firearm became a Felony under Fed Law in 1938.
That was with the signing of the Federal Firearms Act 1938 (FDR).
The same language was turned over into the GCA68 when that law went into effect.
GCA68 took the place of the FFA38 and FFA38 was nullified (correct term).

As far as the gun being transported in Interstate Commerce ,,or not making it subject to any of these laws,,IIRC there have been rulings that came to the conclusion that the raw materials used to make the guns would be included in the make-up of the firearms.

So if the steel, wood, whatever else came from an OOS source,,,the gun was already considered as having gone through Interstate Commerce.

No I don't know where I read it but it's probably out there to be found.
They're not going to leave a huge loop hole like that open.

As far as the gun w/o a ser# that has been 'ground off'..everyone knows what it is.
An attempt to hide the ID of the gun. Stolen? maybe. Some people just don't like gov'mnt numbers on things. So they take them off and feel like no one can find them. Like living in a plywwod shack in the woods.
That's OK,,but there is a law that says taking the number off the frame of a firearm is not legal,plain and simple.

Each state has a similarly worded law that may also contain language that prohibits removing other factory applied markings like the Model, caliber, Makers name, ect.

Placing your own ser# on a firearm that you did not yourself mfg'r is unlawful.
Re-stamping the manufacturers applied ser# on a firearm is
'altering a manufacturers applied ser'.
Because of the fact that the orig marking is now over stamped with non- orig font, depth, size, ect characters,,the orig mfg ser# has been defaced.

They may allow that one to pass,,they may not. Want to poke the bear.?

I was hit up at a ATF compliance check yrs back when the Agent checking the guns in inventory was handed one was working on,,an engraved shotgun frame.
The ser# on the frame I had inlayed in gold as per the customers request...and certainly not an uncommon thing to do.

He immediately said that I had obliterated and altered the ser#!
I said that was the ser#. and back and forth it went.
He shook his head and finally told me that he was going to take the frame (confiscate it),,do further checking and get back to me.
I did get him to finally agree to leave the frame with me with the agreement that I would do no further work on it and would not send it back to the customer while he did his research.

About 2 or 3 weeks later he called and said it was Ok for the Original mfg'rs ser# to be so inlayed as has been commonly done by engravers,,but made a strong point of noting that in no way should the mfg'rs ser# be changed.
...OK,,Thank You...
You never know who and what they are thinking.

You can place a ser# of your choosing on a firearm that you yourself did make. None actually needed though as you cannot resell the gun (legally). A ser# may be needed if State/Local laws demand it for registration purposes though.

If you are going to make and sell even a small number of firearms,,then you need in the least a 07FFL (manufactures). Along with the ser#, your name or business name, address, model, and caliber must appear on the gun. Don't forget to pay FET if you make over 50 per yr.

Yes there are ways to 'retrieve' a ground, filed, punched out marking.
Sometimes they are successful,,other times not.
But why the process needs to be done in the first place is the question when it comes to a firearm.

OP says the owner is deceased and the Executor of the Estate needs the Ser# retrieval help.
An Executor of an Estate who finds themselves with a firearm with a ground -off ser# should simply contact local LE or the BATF and turn it in.
Simple as that.

There's no playing detective and taking a chance at handing over a stolen or defaced firearm to another person,,all on paperwork besides.
What are they thinking...

That is a very tight, technical question. I would take the first quoted statement at face value. You can presume without argument that every commercially manufactured firearm in America passed through interstate commerce. Even if a firearm was made in a foreign country and is imported into a coastal state our friends at the ATF could then use customs rules to cause the firearm to be subject to the GCA.

As for Montana, that's extremely technical - to pass muster every part of that firearm would have to be manufactured from scratch in Montana. Every spring, screw, nut, bolt, wood, etc., would have to provably have originated in that state.

I can't say what the ATF will or won't allow in re serial numbers but they did permit me to register a class III NFA AOW holster/derringer bearing a serial number that my FFL hand wrote onto the leather.

__________________
Come and take it!!

The phrase is “possess in or affecting commerce.” The Yankee Gov’t, prior to charging a crime with one of the elements being the commerce clause, conducts what’s known as an interstate nexus determination. Generally, this is fairly simple process. Born in Montana, found in Missouri. Problem solved.

In the case you cite, of a Sharps rifle in Montana, or a Smith & Wesson firearm in Massachusetts, it’s not much more complicated. Here are some questions that the Yankee Gov’t will ask during this process:

Where did the raw materials come from? How were payments for the raw materials made?

Is the company publicly traded?

Who handles the company’s financials?

Where did the equipment to manufacture the firearm come from?

How was the firearm paid for?

Any or all of the above can create an interstate nexus. I was once involved in the prosecution of an egregious hillbilly assault of a very pleasant Hispanic family at a state park. The interstate nexus for a successful federal civil rights prosecution of those three morons was in part created because the toilet paper at the outhouse at the campground came to Missouri from Ohio, after being manufactured in Missouri . . .

It’s one thing to read about it and speculate from afar. It’s quite another to live it and deal with it as it happens, with real world consequences . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Agreed.

About 15 years ago a friend and I assisted assisted the daughter of a deceased friend of mine. Her father had died and left a large and very impressive collection of firearms, including a dozen class III firearms. We helped her assess the value of them with the intent of ensuring she got fair market value for them. We also connected her with a class III dealer who could help her legally transfer or sell the NFA weapons.

Unfortunately, that dozen class III full auto weapons turned into 13, with a select fire AK-47 that didn’t have any paper work. Going through John’s notes and talking with other shooting friends who knew him, we were able to determine that he was storing it for a solider who was on another deployment to Afghanistan. What we could not find was a name for that solider or any evidence that it was a properly registered AK-47.

Worse, it was a US made commercial receiver and I suspected it wasn’t legally converted. In the proces of cross referencing the serial number with the date of manufacture I discovered it didn’t matter as the company hadn’t made AK receivers at all until 1990. That made it crystal clear it was made or more likely converted after the Hughes Amendment of the FOPA. As such it could not legally be possessed as anything other than a dealer sample, and that wasn’t the case.

It’s remotely possible that the receiver was a replacement for a worn out AK that had been legally registered prior to 1986, but that again is irrelevant. You can repair a full auto receiver but you can’t replace it.

Around the same time the ATF had convicted a gunsmith for cutting the serial numbered section of worn out M16 receivers and welding those sections into a new AR-15 receivers converting them to accommodate the full auto sear and calling it a “repair”. He ended up with about 15 years in federal prison to contemplate the downside of over stepping what the ATF considered to be a “repair”.

We all reached a consensus that the full auto parts needed to be destroyed, and as the receiver had been altered to accommodate full auto parts, it needed to be de-activated. It was torched into three pieces.

I never heard what happened when (or even if) the solider involved came to pick up what was now just an AK parts kit. If he did, he probably wasn’t happy, but getting ATF involved would have probably cost him his career plus about 10 years in federal prison.

For the daughter as executor of the estate, doing anything other than what was done would have been all downside. At best it would have subjected the rest of John’s NFA registered firearms to a great deal of scrutiny that could have potentially tied up the estate for months or years while the ATF verified the provenance of each and every NFA item he had.

Once again Muse we agree. You provided a superb example of the regulatory creep, over reach and over enforcement that has sadly become common in America.

I certainly saw it happen the department I worked in as a fed, and while it is often well intended it almost invariably contains unhealthy doses of “the ends justify the means” reasoning.

The old saw that it is better to let 100 guilty men go free than convict one innocent man is an ethical tenet that has long fallen out of common use. Law enforcement that consistently exceeds the original scope of the law, uses narrow reads of the law to circumvent the intent of a law or court ruling (such as creating a nexus by looking at the source of raw materials, accounting services/software etc) still isn’t ethical even if it is widely practiced. Yet ad populuum logical fallacies abound as “justification”.

Well, hope for the best . . .

Misprision - North Carolina Criminal Defense

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I’m pretty much done here. I’m sorry you don’t like our laws or agree with their enforcement. You had knowledge of a significant felony, which you knew was a felony, and destroyed the evidence. Anything else you post will be duly noted . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Thanks Muss, I appreciate it. I appreciate qthe NC tie, but it didn’t happen in NC, More importantly, our capacity was advisory, we were never able to determine who may have committed the crime or even if a crime had occurred. Other than hearsay we also had no evidence that the deceased hadn’t done it himself and concocted a cover story (it’s also not something you suggest to a grieving daughter either). Conversely, we also did not have any concrete proof that it wasn’t legally registered and then possibly incorrectly repaired by parties unknown, consistent with was apparently not a one off practice as the ATF raked someone else over the coals for repairs on an AR-15 that the ATF determined (after the fact) were in excess of their definition of “repair” around the same general time frame. I don’t recall exactly when the ATF went after the gunsmith in question, but I do know we didn’t hear about it until after this event and we all had the same thought “oh good call cutting it up”.

What the daughter did have on her hands was an unaccounted for class III firearm with no paperwork, no clear ownership, and a suspect provenance. It was destroyed it to conceal or avoid reporting a crime, but rather in an abundance of caution regarding its legality in order to avoid the daughter/executor committing a crime by knowingly being in possession of an unregistered NFA item.

I used the example as the parallel to the OPs question is direct.

Like it or not he’s in possession of a firearm without a serial number. It’s unclear whether a crime was committed or not for a variety of reason, but it is crystal clear that it isn’t legal to possess it, and it’s quite likely that any view a federal ATF agent would take on it would be negative.

In other words, if in doubt cutting it up is a much safer approach than relying on fine points of the law.

And once again you’ve demonstrated that some federal agents are hardwired to look for an offense regardless of context, intent, public interest or lack of harm.

More assumptions, and now a threat.

Nice.

IMHO, unless the firearm in question has some significant monetary, or historical value, or if it is truly exempt in any way of requiring it to have a legible serial number, by far the only reasonable thing to do is to contact your local law enforcement agency, and surrender it. Unless it's something that Christopher Columbus wore on his hip as he landed in the New World, the legal fees defending yourself may far outweigh the value of the piece.

Wow! And I guess your Signature “Wisdom comes thru fear” pretty much says it all huh? That you be the all knowing dispenser of wisdom thru fear

IIRC California has a provision in their laws (or they did) which allows that should a person come in possession of a firearm without a serial number that person may stamp a number of his/her choice onto the firearm.

How that affects the legality of the process as far as the feds are concerned is unknown to me, though I'm fairly sure they would do their utmost to stick the person in jail for as long as they can get simply because it's one more conviction. And they have then, once again, shown themselves to the the sledgehammer of the Federal Government. Nothing against any one individual, but IMHO those individuals that use the law in such a fashion, should all be taken out and stood against a wall, from the top down.

I have watched as dealers doing background checks mistakenly used another number from a gun instead of the serial number. Check goes through, incorrect number used in their books and life actually went on as usual.

You guys have been yapping about this for 2 days and the op hasn't replied to any comments or questions. Me thinks something is amiss...

True, more often than not.

Until it’s not.

Then people have to start negotiating with BATF over potential felony charges. Minor mistakes are just that, until some one with a little bit of authority decides to . . . Make a federal case out of it.

Once such an unintentional mistake is uncovered, it is probably better to correct it ASAP to show lack of criminal intent. It becomes problematic if there is a series of such mistakes.

Gun stores running background checks around here always have a second employee check the form for just such errors. Up front effort is rewarded with fewer problems later.

The OP doesn’t want to reveal the owner of the gun in question or what type of gun it is. The type of gun involved could make a big difference because as mentioned above many guns have the serial number in more than one place.

So have I. I correct them when that occurs, but it gets complicated when it went into the bound book with the wrong number. That sometimes happens when there is a prominent serial number stamped on the slide, frame and barrel of a surplus military pistol, as well as a less obvious importer added serial number (required by law) that goes unnoticed or unrecognized in the larger importer information.

I also see firearms like P08 and P38 being sold that have a 4 digit serial number with a prefix letter. In effect, every 10000 units the prefix letter advanced one letter in thr alphabet but sometimes the prefix is left off. That obviously means it is no longer a unique serial number and that there are then scores or even hundreds of pistols of that same model with the same 4 digits.

More commonly, the FFL will fail to realize that the prefix resets at the end of the year, and just record the prefix and serial number. However to capture a truly unique serial number with a pistol like the P38 you need to record the year, the prefix and the 4 digit serial number.

You also need to properly record the manufacturer as with a P38 there may well be three pistols with that same year with identical prefix and 4 digit number - “ac” for Walther, “byf” for Mauser and “cyq” for Spreewerk. Unless the FFL knows the codes and the manufacturer, they are likely to incorrectly put “Walther” as the manufacturer.

In part because of this misunderstanding and knowledge gap by FFLs, and in part because ATF also didn’t fully appreciate how the systems in use out there worked to avoid duplicate serial numbers, the law was changed to require importers to put a unique serial number along with their name and address on all imported surplus firearms. In most cases it was unnecessary as the system used by the maker as a whole ensured a uniquely identifiable firearm.

FN was one of the few and more notable exceptions. For example, a friend of mine owns FN Hi Power serial number 27. It isn’t all that early as Hi Powers go, it was just number 27 on a small police contract where they wanted their own serial number range starting with “1”. Taken out of the larger context of the other stamps and property marks it is easy to confuse with an unknown number of other Hi Powers with 27 for the serial number.

The problem is that this fix created the larger problem of firearms having multiple serial numbers and FFLs now recording the wrong one in bound books and when they are transferred.

However, in the bigger picture, I agree with you that the difference is small and that even for firearm tracing purposes if a firearm is recovered, law enforcement has the option to trace both numbers as one of them would have been recorded by the
FFL, and when applicable forwarded when the FFL closed.

That said, I’m sure a large percentage of ATF agents would find fault with that kind of unintentional mistake - and a few federal agency might even decide that you, as a witness to it who did not report it, committed a crime.

Don’t be too hard on him.

Muss and I have a long history of philosophical disagreements. He was probably good at what he did in terms of following directives he was given. My career was mostly spent determining what directives should be given and pointing out the pitfalls and unintended consequences when short term goals or objectives are used to drive long term policy.

——

I am not a narrow read of the law person by any means as I’ve seen over the last 30 years how that ends badly when very narrow read of the law or guidance in a particular case is then generalized.

The ongoing rule making process for braced handguns is a great example.

They were clearly illegal and from a common sense perspective were a “stock” intended to circumvent the SBR provisions of the NFA of 1934 - until a company made the case that they were a disability accommodation for veterans who wanted to shoot heavy AR-15 pistols. The ATF should have just said “nice try but the answer is no.” The ATF also could have put some amended rules regarding disability accommodation and documenting disability, etc for lawful users of said braces. But they did not, because the federal rule making process is very time consuming, and there was no real legal authority to amend the regulations to accommodate disabilities.

Instead they made a narrow read of the law and determined a brace that looked like a stick and could be used like a stock despite its purported (and let’s be honest really improbable) design intent was in fact not a stock but a brace.

That opened the flood gates as ATF approved more of them on the same flawed logic.

At some point it occurred to them that these were items that were being very commonly used by non disabled people and that they were being used to circumvent the SBR registration requirement in the NFA. Rather than reverse their original option they added language that stated if you use a brace on a handgun as a stock, it changes the status from handgun to SBR. Worse, they used language about rifles being designed to be fired with two Handys that when read very narrowly meant my 1911 was no longer a “handgun”.

They figured that out pretty quickly and backed off from “mere use” as a criteria for defining classification of firearms. They also figured out it was virtually unenforceable:

Defense attorney: Agent do you agree that the law says that a braced handgun becomes an SBR when the brace is placed against the shoulder like a stock?

Agent: yes, that is how the law reads.

Defense attorney: How far away from you from the defendant when you observed him place the brace against his shoulder wand at what angle were you to the defendant.

Agent: I was about 50 yards away and at to his left rear.

Defense attorney: So.. you could not directly observe whether the stock was against his right shoulder or, as was the case, that it was still 1/4” in front of his shoulder.

Agent: (long pause) No I could not.


Consequently the ATF then said you can have braced handguns and shoot them off your shoulder, forget we ever mentioned it.

Fast forward a couple more years and the ATF has proposed a new rule change that will reclassify the vast majority of previously approved braced handguns as SBRs and require owners of said firearms to complete a form 1 application and pay a $200 tax stamp fee.

The basis for this is once again a narrow read of the law citing the use of braced pistols in 2 out of more than 2600 mass shootings since 2013 when braced handguns were first approved. That’s 2/2600 mass shootings and by its own estimate 2/3,000,000 braced handguns in existence.

That’s a problem as the scope of the NFA of 1934 is firearms that are likely to be used in crimes by gangs. Long guns of any kind are used in less than 1.5% of all crimes and they even take a distant second place in mass shootings to traditional unbraced handguns. Braced handguns are virtually never used in crimes as while they are still technically handguns, they are heavy and hard to conceal.

But like the “interstate nexus” Muss speaks about, if you get enough lawyers together taking a narrow enough read of the law, you can twist it around to do almost anything. Unless of course enough law abiding citizens step up and say “enough”.

The public comment period just closed on the proposed braced handgun rules and the ATF received over 180,000 comments. I suspect the vast majority of them are opposed to part or all of the proposed rule.

We’ll see what happens. By law they have to respond to all comments, although they can and will group them together. Unfortunately there is no requirement to change the proposed rule based on any comments, no matter how valid they may be. The ATF. Am simply say “we disagree” and refuse to make any substantive change.


Personally, I have no issue with having them classified as SBRs - going forward. Existing examples should remain as braced handguns. The ATF has rejected that alternative due to concerns for tracing these unserialized braces and deter owning what is pre or post reclassification. However it isn’t that hard. Current owners could just submit the proposed worksheet, with the criteria and include the serial number of the handgun the brace is on. It’s then only legal on that handgun, and only in that configuration. Any change in configuration would require a new worksheet be completed as a post classification requirement firearm.

The ATF also rejected the idea of waiving the $200 tax stamp out of fear that shooters would register all their current firearms as potential braced handguns and add braces later. The above mentioned method addresses that as well. I also don’t think the number of braced handguns would increase appreciably because of it.

If it does come to pass it will criminalize a large number of otherwise law abiding Americans who statistically have less than a one tenth of one percent chance they’ll ever use a braced handgun on a crime. For those that comply it will cost them literally hundreds of millions of dollars to comply.

For those that opt to convert them back to braced handguns, it won’t make most of them any less lethal. For example the British train their MP5 equipped officers to shoot them using a sling. They push the MP5 forward against the single point sling to stabilize the weapon. It actually works better than a stock if the office is wearing body armor and/or a gas mask, and it’s much easier and more compact to use in close quarters.

But we are not talking common sense here, or even public safety - instead we are talking about a pattern of using a narrow read of the law to achieve an agenda.

Speaking from personal experience this whole issue is a hot potato. Having a post 1898 firearm with a defaced serial number is a felony- period. The only solution is to voluntarily surrender it to a law enforcement agency. Not doing so risks criminal prosecution. There really is no wishful thinking or debate possible.