Help!!!!!

[Brian Pfleuger]

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]

OTOH...

... 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]

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]

your case link doesn't work...

... 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.