ATF makes crime gun comply with law
The ATF has nothing better to do than to issue a serial number to an otherwise untransferable firearm so it may be auctioned. Seems Bonnie’s gun (of Bonnie and Clyde) that was strapped to her when the police introduced her insides to the outside is worth something and will be auctioned.
I’m not quite sure how this squares with the law or ATF regulations.
September 27th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
I never understood the romanticism given to those
chicken-killing weaselsweasel-killing chickens.September 27th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
IANAL, but I think the obliteration rule making it illegal to possess only applies to guns that are required to have the serial, not guns made before that date.
September 27th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Obliterating a serial number makes for a contraband firearm, regardless of when it happens. Since it’s a Colt and not a cheap potmetal POS, it had a number, and the GCA doesn’t distinguish between defacement before or after 1968. ATF has authority to issue a new number (and it’s always a new number, even when the original is known).
September 28th, 2012 at 5:37 am
Have they tried to apply forensic methods to discover the original serial number ? Be interesting to know when it was made and who bought it first.
September 28th, 2012 at 6:17 am
Where is the sporting purpose???
September 28th, 2012 at 7:57 am
I’d actually have to say that that’s one of the more beneficial things the ATF has done lately. More bureaucracy (the good kind of bureaucracy) and less cowboy (fast and furious etc.) from them would be a good thing.
September 28th, 2012 at 9:38 am
Disturbing trend.
Will Smithsonian now de-accession “Dillinger’s 22”?
September 28th, 2012 at 9:45 am
Cui bono? Always follow the money.
My guess is that the sellers called a Congresscritter, the Congresscritter sent a letter or made a phone call, and said Congresscritter will receive an “honorarium” (cough* campaign kickback! *cough) when the piece is sold.
September 28th, 2012 at 11:19 am
I like the precedent …
September 28th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Says Uncle: This has been standard procedure for a long time.
A whole bunch of firearms were made without serial numbers before the NFA of 1934 required SOTs to serial number firearms and before it was made unlawful to remove the number.
And an individual can build his own personal firearm without a serial number, as long as it is for his personal use.
If you need to put one of these through an FFL, the SOT calls the ATF, and they assign the weapon a serial number. You then serial it immediately, either with stamps or an electropen.
September 28th, 2012 at 11:35 am
In fact, I watched an FFL get a serial number over the phone for a breakdown CIA special Vietnam era sniper rifle that was dead clean … no numbers on it anywhere.
Even the scope was scrubbed clean of markings and repainted.
September 28th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
As I recall (old thread on TFL or THR?) there are conflicting ATF letters on whether you can legally modify a serialized weapon in such a way as to remove or render illegible the original serial number as long as you restamp the number elsewhere on the receiver, or apply for a new number I suppose.
Given ATF’s flip-flops, I would file that under “interesting ATF letter contradictions to never ever act on.” =/
September 28th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
The ATF issues serial numbers all the time, Unc. Seen it done.
September 28th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
One story off the top of my head:
Customer had an old Smith M&P that someone had filed the serial number off; he got it as part of an estate. He called up the BATFEIEIO and told them about it, they told him to put it in the back of his safe and not go running around with it, and then called him back a couple weeks later and told him to take it to a gunsmith and have it marked “2003-12345” (year and an obviously incrementing number).
It’s not uncommon or something they’re doing special for this auction.
September 28th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
There’s only three times when a serial number can be issued.
1. The original maker or manufacturer (includes someone “making” or “manufacturing” an NFA controlled item out of a pre-existing non-NFA gun) can (MUST in the case of manufacturers or for NFA) serialize it. Makers of non-NFA guns can choose to serialize at any time before they transfer the gun, but MUST serialize before transfer (according to latest ATFE guidance I’m aware of). Makers and manufacturers can also serialize guns THEY “made” or “manufactured” (with the same number they originally assigned it) in more than one location (and can do so at any time) — and so long as ONE of those serial number locations meets ATFE minimum requirements (location, size, depth) and is not obliterated or obscured, the rest are redundant (and can be obliterated or obscured). (This is the ONLY way I am aware of to “move” a serial number around without involving ATF.)
2. The importer of a gun MUST assign a serial number that meets ATFE requirements, and so long as the original serial number meets ATFE specs (only the 26 letter/10 digit “English” character sets, and it has to be a number THAT importer has never assigned to a gun he has made, manufactured, or imported), he can simply adopt the original number as his own (if size, depth, or location are inadequate, he’ll have to restamp it IAW ATFE regs). Legally speaking, the original SN is irrelevant — only the number the importer assigned (even if he just adopted the OEM number) counts, so it is like the maker/manufacturer deal — he can mark it as many times as he wants, and any one of them that is IAW ATFE regs and visible counts; the others are redundant and can be obscured.
3. “The Secretary” (AKA “the guy in ATFE the Attorney General delegated authority to”) can provide for a variance in marking designations at his sole discretion. So, ATFE can lawfully assign new S/Ns, allow you to obscure, obliterate, or move S/N, etc. — no legal problem, because anything they tell you to do with a serial number is de facto and de jure 100% legal.
September 29th, 2012 at 10:03 am
It seems to me this is the sort of thing the ATF ought to be doing. More to the point, the weapon in question is now not only legal, but C&R eligible!
September 29th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Hey, New York Times, you gonna edit your post? π
September 29th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
If this was the NYT I’d delete the criticism.
September 29th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Touche! π
October 1st, 2012 at 9:37 am
$504,000 – I’m sure a generous donation to the ATF orphan fund is in order.