Help!!!!!

[mrgoodwrench76]

Buy a replacement slide, destroy the old one, and kick that girls behind. I also dont believe the aforementiond law pertains to this case as the serial number is clearly still in tact on the frame.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

By the way, I did some more reading on this trying to find an example where the serial number was ruled as "not altered" because there was a second unaltered serial number somewhere else on the firearm and could not find one.

I did, however, find this case: U. S. vs. Adams, 305 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2002).

In this case the owner tried to scratch out the serial number with a screwdriver. He gave up before completing the job so that it was still possible to read all six numbers with the naked eye, though with some difficulty. He was convicted of possessing a firearm with an altered serial number and the First Circuit upheld the conviction.

[AK103K]

I think the assumption here is everything is an "illegal" act. Which isnt always the case, although here, it would probably be construed as such if it were reported.

What of the instances where the serial number is simply restamped or removed to be placed elsewhere on the gun, due to refinishing or modification? In those cases, its still perfectly legal to restamp the number, as long as the number is the same number, is done in a proper fashion, and the removal isnt done for the purpose of obscuring or altering the number.

[brickeyee]

The serial numberon the slide is not ikelt to be THE seraial number for the gun.

While a few guns have them NOT on the grip frame (Ruger Mark II for example) most of the time THE serial number is on the grip frame.

Any other place is just to keep parts together during manufacture, and the other numbers are NOT required.

It is THE serial number that cannot be altered, not ANY serial number.

[gc70]

The law certainly prohibits fooling with the serial number on a firearm.

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."

But the law also specifies where the legally-required serial number is placed on a firearm.

18 U.S.C. 923(i)

"Licensed importers and licensed manufacturers shall identify by means of a serial number engraved or cast on the receiver or frame of the weapon, in such manner as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, each firearm imported or manufactured by such importer or manufacturer."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think the problem here is that a reasonable interpretation of 922(k) is that the OP's firearm may not be shipped, transported or possessed. There may be other reasonable interpretations; but looking at 922(k), you can't say that this interpretation is clearly out of whack. As the Adams court noted, there is no legislative history available for 922(k) - so judges have considerable leeway in interpreting it.

My experience has been that if lawyers can't agree on the answer, the default setting for the law enforcement officer dealing with it will be to arrest the possible criminal and let the justice system handle it. At this point, whoever still possesses the Sig Mosquito has lost more money than the gun is worth; but now he can't get off the train.

The next step is the prosecutor. If he is unable to find law directly addressing the subject, the law he does find has some disturbing lines in it for the defendant. First, it says that even if the serial number is still visible to the naked eye, the person can be convicted for altering the serial number. If the argument is that the serial number altered wasn't the same one mandated by 923(i), I think that is also a reasonable argument; but I bet you can buy a lot of Sig Mosquitos for what it costs to make it.

The First Circuit in Adams raises the issue of "What if it is an accidental mark that scratches or alters the serial number?" They suggest that this would probably not fall under 922(k); but they also suggest that it is a question of fact for the jury to decide and that if the jury doesn't buy that explanation, then the conviction can still stand.

All in all, I don't see the upside of keeping the Sig Mosquito described. Having the serial number restamped and the original handywork covered up to the point it doesn't attract LE attention would probably cost as least as much as the pistol. Same thing with having a lawyer work out the details with ATF. The most cost effective solution would probably be just to junk it or replace the slide.

[mrgoodwrench76]

Again, couldn't you just replace the slide and avoid any further legal problems? Surely that is a more economical solution than replacing the entire firearm. My opinion of the Sig Mosquito is quite low, but even it deserves a long life.

[MLeake]

Mosquito MSRP: $390.00
http://sigsauer.com/Products/ShowCat...0&productid=98 See "specifications" tab.

I checked the sigsauer.com website; Brownells.com; MidwayUSA.com; and topgunsupply.com. None of them had Mosquito slides. Doesn't mean they aren't out there, just means I couldn't find them.

Note, MSRP on .22LR conversion kits for the P220 and P229 is around $350, so if SIG-Sauer does have Mosquito slides, my guess is they won't cost much less than a replacement Mosquito.

Probably best bet is to call SIG customer service.

Note: Whether you change the slide or ditch the gun is not something I have an opinion about. I don't know if there are any legal ramifications of altering the number on the slide, and am not offering any opinion on that.

[sixgun67]

I have to ask, in my lack of understanding, if it is illegal to deface in ANY way a serial number, how come many of my milsurps have had lines stamped thru the original numbers on the receiver, with new serial numbers electro-penciled onto them from the importer/seller?
sixgun

As for the Sig in the OP, I believe I'd try and find another slide, or just strip it for parts and destroy/dispose of the receiver. Many milsurps don't have matching numbers, and the numbers of record are from the receiver. It looks to me like it is from this point on, a money pit, that will cost a fortune to clear up or cost a fortune along with jail time. Not a good set of options, either way.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I have to ask, in my lack of understanding, if it is illegal to deface in ANY way a serial number, how come many of my milsurps have had lines stamped thru the original numbers on the receiver, with new serial numbers electro-penciled onto them from the importer/seller?

My guess is that the importer made those marks in accordance with 923(i) that gc70 quoted above. The importer is required to stamp a serial number by law and is required to do so in the manner prescribed by the Attorney General.

[sixgun67]

Thanks. I just now wonder what was wrong/unusable about the already existing serial numbers. (unless it is for tracking purposes, the gov possibly wants a specific range of numbers on the imports) My curiosity never ends, it seems....
sixgun

[brickeyee]

If the number is not on the legal part the IS the gun it does not matter.

Is the number on the receiver/grip frame also?

Is the slide a restricted part (FFL only purchase)?

If you can purchase the slide without an FFL it is NOT legally the gun.

[divil]

If you can purchase the slide without an FFL it is NOT legally the gun.

I don't think it's so simple. While the slide on it's own is just an inert object, when it's on the gun, it's part of the gun. From the legal federal definition of a firearm:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...1----000-.html

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

So although the frame, or lower receiver, is legally a firearm, the whole assembly, including the slide, also constitutes a firearm.

I'm not a lawyer, but an interpretation of that definition could be that you could buy a slide and file the number off to your heart's content, no problem. But put that slide on a matching frame (my matching I mean a frame that fits so that together they constitute a working gun), and then the serial number becomes untouchable.

I agree only the sn on the slide should matter (for instance, what is the slide has a different number?) but I would not be surprised to see the government prosecute a case like this, and I would not be surprised to see someone going to jail for it. Personally, I would get rid of the altered component - better safe than sorry.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by brickeyee

If the number is not on the legal part the IS the gun it does not matter.

Could you point me towards the case law or statute that clarifies that? Because during my time reading all of those cases concerning altering a firearm's serial number, I didn't come across one case that even asked where the altered serial number was located.

[brickeyee]

So although the frame, or lower receiver, is legally a firearm, the whole assembly, including the slide, also constitutes a firearm.

As long as the lower receiver with the serial number is present you have a firearm.

Without THAT PART you have NOTHING.

The other parts are NOT CONTROLLED and are NOT a firearm (thus they can be purchased and shipped as PARTS and NOT a firearm).

The only number that would matter for a prosecution is the REQUIRED number.

How is a case that was NOT prosecuted since it did not involve the legally required number to be found?

Think about it.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Divil

So although the frame, or lower receiver, is legally a firearm, the whole assembly, including the slide, also constitutes a firearm.

The "whole assembly" constitutes a firearm only when it is actually assembled. The slide is NOT considered a "firearm" on its own. NOTHING except the frame is legally considered to be the firearm for purposes of the serial number.

My Glock (and I presume all) came from the factory with the serial number inscribed on the barrel. It is perfectly legal to destroy that barrel. I can refinish/polish/buff that serial number off of the barrel. It is a completely uncontrolled piece.

The ONLY number that matters is the one on the little chrome plate under the frame. The frame constitutes the legal firearm and the chrome place constitutes the legal serial number.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, here is a case from the Fourth Circuit that is relevant:
U. S. vs. Sullivan, 455 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2006).

In this case, the defendant possessed a Glock. He had removed the serial numbers from the frame and the slide. On cross examination, the defense raised the point that the serial numbers were still intact on the barrel.

Fourth Circuit says: "Although this number remained, we are of opinion that it does not establish that the conviction was improper. Indeed, the statute does not require that all serial numbers be obliterated." Note that the Fourth Circuit could have easily said - "Doesn't matter because the serial number on the frame was obliterated." They didn't take that view however.

From the Second Circuit, U.S. vs. Moore, 54 F.3d 92 (2nd Cir. 1995):

"Regarding the defaced firearms counts, the government must prove that the defendant knowingly possessed a firearm with an obliterated serial number. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The defendant must know that the firearm had an altered serial number. See United States v. Haynes, 16 F.3d 29, 34 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Hooker, 997 F.2d 67, 72 (5th Cir.1993)."

The defendants conviction was upheld on the basis that a rational jury could have concluded that he knew the guns had altered serial numbers based on the defendant receiving the guns (a Glock .45 and Davis .380_ in a trade for drugs.

If the issue of WHICH serial number was obilterated/altered was relevant, then it seems odd the court here never discussed it since they specifically discussed the elements necessary to prove a 922(k) violation and what the jury could have rationally concluded. Note also how the court states the elements - it doesn't specify the importer's or manufacturer's serial number, it says "an altered serial number" - implying that in the Second Circuit, any alteration of any serial number might be enough.

[MLeake]

... they said "an obliterated serial number." They didn't say, "obliterated serial numbers."

So, one could also construe it as "the serial number on the barrel doesn't help, because the one that counts, on the frame, was obliterated."

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Finally, a case on point out of the 9th Circuit:
United States vs. Romero-Martinez, 443 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006)

Romero-Martinez first argues that the serial numbers on the slide and barrel do not qualify for the enhancement because they do not fall within the federal definition of a "firearm." Romero-Martinez contends that the slide and barrel are not part of the firearm because they may be detached from the gun and are not part of the "frame or receiver" of the weapon.

The applicable definition of a "fire-arm" is set forth by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), which provides in part:

(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
The definition is set forth in the disjunctive and therefore any device meeting any of the definitions qualifies as a firearm (if it is not an antique). "Destructive device" is further defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4) and does not apply to the gun Romero-Martinez possessed. While it is true that the slide and barrel would not fall within definition (B) as they are not part of the "frame or receiver," it is clear that the slide and barrel fall within definition (A). Both parts are necessary to operate the weapon, and without them the gun cannot "expel a projectile by the action of an explosive." As such, it would be counterintuitive to exclude these components from the definition of firearm when they are necessary to complete the very action that makes a gun a "firearm" under part (A). Thus, at least when assembled as a functional weapon, the slide and barrel are part of a "firearm" under federal law.

Under Romero-Martinez's interpretation, the only objects meeting the federal definition of "firearm" would be 1190*1190 those incapable of firing a projectile by themselves. Congress did not intend such a limitation. We hold that, under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), both fully assembled guns, as well as major components of guns (i.e. the frame or receiver), qualify as "fire-arms." As such, altering or obliterating serial numbers on these components, at least when assembled as a functional weapon, qualifies for an enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(4).

B.

Romero-Martinez next argues that the serial numbers on the slide and barrel do not qualify for the enhancement because they are not required by federal law. This argument is foreclosed by Carter.

Carter held that a serial number was "altered or obliterated" when "accurate information [is made] less accessible." 421 F.3d at 910. Carter thus focuses on whether the information was accurate, not whether it was required by federal law. There is no argument in this case that the serial numbers on the slide and barrel were not accurate information.

So in the 9th Circuit at least, it doesn't matter which serial number has been altered.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by MLeake

So, one could also construe it as "the serial number on the barrel doesn't help, because the one that counts, on the frame, was obliterated."

That's how I take it.

The serial number on the barrel is meaningless. I could use that barrel in 10 different guns. The actual frame(s) of those 10 firearms may not even be the same original cartridge as was the original frame associated with the barrel.

It is perfectly legal to take a firearm, Glock for example, remove ALL the parts, leaving nothing but the serialized frame, and completely rework/refinish/destroy/alter every single part, leaving only the frame with it's serial number intact.

This is unquestionable. It's done by thousands of people all the time. It is indisputably legal.

[MLeake]

... it just causes a "reply" form to pop up.

However, it wasn't hard to Google it, so thanks for the pointer.

The jury found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the gun possessed an "altered or obliterated" serial number. The jury did not specifically indicate which serial number it believed was altered or obliterated.

But that was in the earlier case.

Note: Defendant got himself into the jam he was in by brandishing a weapon, then trying to ditch it when the police arrived. Weapon had no serial number on the frame (complete removal), and obliterated serial numbers on slide and barrel.

The cite does make it seem that the 9th Court found that even though numbers on barrel and slide weren't required by Federal Law, that they could still apply to "accurate information."

Personally, I think they were high, but then I often think that about the 9th Circuit Court, primarily for liability case law they've foisted on us, more than firearm law. Unfortunately, it seems to me that Bartholomew Roberts has a point, the 9th seems to have come up with some even more aggravating case law.

After reading this, I would get rid of the slide in question. Just consulting a lawyer would probably cost more than replacing the gun; odds are it would never come up, but if it did....

[Unclenick]

I agree with MLeake. The 9th Circuit, which practically trips over itself in its haste to uphold all gun control laws and regulations that make it harder on the gun owner, no matter how absurd, could not be expected to decide any other way. Nonetheless, that 9th Circuit decision is likely to be cited as precedent, making the filed Mosquito slide unsafe to own, and unless or until your own 11th Circuit Court says otherwise, that's got to be presumed to be the law.

What's stupid about it is that serial numbers only appear on parts other than the frame to show they were verified to fit and function properly on that frame; that they are a good match to it. Old military rifles that have such part matching serial number systems are mostly found with them at least partly mixed these days, because repair work done by military armorers used parts they had on hand that were often salvaged from other guns.

In this instance I think you have two practical options. Send it for factory service because the factory can, indeed, legally cut paperwork to reissue a serial number. They can even do it do destroy and replace a damaged frame. Send it to them without the slide. Tell them the slide was lost by a stupid relative, which, in the end, is what happened. If you send it with the slide they may be obliged to report the attempt at filing to authorities. Don't put them or yourself in that position.

The other possibility is just to buy a replacement slide on your own and make sure it fits and functions properly. If it is sold as a replacement part it will have no serial number, and that's fine because no serial number isn't the same as an altered serial number.

In the case of either action and even before then, I would take a cutting torch and completely destroy the original slide. Think of it as a hot potato. Even without that 9th Circuit decision, like being arrested with burglar's tools on your person, if you are stopped and found in possession of that gun, a prosecutor could charge you with criminal intent. The fact the filing job was done incompetently and incompletely won't necessarily mitigate the implied intent.

I recommend you take one of those actions not because it's fair to be have to do so, but because the legal system frequently is non compos mentis on the topic of firearms technology and the threat of them deferring to the 9th circuit decision is all too real. As the saying goes, genius may have its limitations, but stupidity knows no bounds. That clearly applies to "Gangsta", too.