How much of the gun do you need to have to still be the gun?

[Elkins45]

I’m not 100% sure this doesn’t belong in NFA, but it’s really a legal question.

This is a bit of a Thesius’ Ship (or grandfather’s ax) sort of question. Let’s say you own a legally registered SBR and have a catastrophic malfunction that results in the lower being split into pieces. Let’s further say one of the pieces that remains completely intact is the section of the magwell that contains the serial number. Would it pass legal muster to cut out the same section of a new lower of the same brand and weld the surviving section of the original gun into that opening, thereby ‘repairing’ your SBR?

I would assume you would then take the serial number plate you cut out and attach it to the pile of broken pieces from the other gun and call that gun destroyed, not that it would really matter since you don’t have to report the destruction of a title 2 firearm in my state.

I know this is a hack/cheat, but would it be a legal one? Let’s not concern ourselves with the practicality: I fully understand the gunsmithing bill would be more than the cost of a new tax stamp...although that would not be the case for someone’s pre-86 M16 lower.

I vaguely recall someone getting in trouble for welding NFA serial numbers onto guns but I think they were buying cheap registered guns like Mac 10s and grafting the serials onto very expensive ones of entirely different models.

 

[Johnm1]

Not a lawyer but on its face I can’t see removing a serial number as not “defacing a serial number “. You don’t even need to go to the NFA regs for full auto.

My opinion and I’m sure someone who knows for sure will be along shortly.

 

[Elkins45]

Not a lawyer but on its face I can’t see removing a serial number as not “defacing a serial number “. You don’t even need to go to the NFA regs for full auto.

My opinion and I’m sure someone who knows for sure will be along shortly.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but “deface” implies make it unreadable or to change a number. If you remove it intact and transplant it then it might be arguable that it was never defaced.

 

[JohnKSa]

You want to attach the serial number from a broken gun to a new gun. What happened to the serial number of the new gun?

 

[Johnm1]

Like I said, not a lawyer but I’d hate to stand in front of a judge or jury while making that argument.

it would be a difficult plea that the new gun that hade the serial number removed wasn’t defaced.

 

[dogtown tom]

...... Let’s say you own a legally registered SBR and have a catastrophic malfunction that results in the lower being split into pieces. Let’s further say one of the pieces that remains completely intact is the section of the magwell that contains the serial number. Would it pass legal muster to cut out the same section of a new lower of the same brand and weld the surviving section of the original gun into that opening, thereby ‘repairing’ your SBR?

No.
1. The "new" lower already has a serial number.....you can't replace that.
2. Removing just the serial# from a destroyed receiver? Already been tried on machine guns. Guys were buying the portion of torch cut machine guns and welding the original serial# to a new receiver. ATF said nope.

 

[AlexanderA]

The relatively low value of an SBR doesn't make this worthwhile. Almost all the cases of switched serial numbers, etc., involve machine guns. The ATF comes down hard on such attempts when they become aware of them.

 

[WestKentucky]

Going at it wrong. Take the serialized chunk, as well as any other sizable pieces and weld that into an 80% and then finish it out. Since the donor was never a “firearm” then you are only dealing with 1 firearm which is damaged (never say destroyed because destroyed means not repairable... damaged can be repaired although it may come at great expense). So you take salvageable parts of the original receiver and a solid block of aluminum milled roughly into the form of the finished receiver and you repair that receiver with tig welds.

I’m not sure that it would pass muster under close examination at BATFE headquarters, but on the surface it seems the only logical way to repair a badly damaged reciever. And logically, the more parts of the original reciever that are used in the repaired part, the stronger the argument is for it being repaired. The whole issue is that this uses logic, an idea that BATFE seems to reject on its face.

 

[Elkins45]

No.
1. The "new" lower already has a serial number.....you can't replace that.
2. Removing just the serial# from a destroyed receiver? Already been tried on machine guns. Guys were buying the portion of torch cut machine guns and welding the original serial# to a new receiver. ATF said nope.

Yes, I mentioned that. But there’s a difference here in that those torch cut guns were destroyed and had been reported as such. They were in essence reviving a ‘dead’ serial number. In my hypothetical the serial number is still valid, the gun just needs repair.

I see your point about the problem with the serial number of the replacement donor, but maybe WestKentucky has that one figured out with the 80% solution.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Going at it wrong. Take the serialized chunk, as well as any other sizable pieces and weld that into an 80% and then finish it out. Since the donor was never a “firearm” then you are only dealing with 1 firearm which is damaged (never say destroyed because destroyed means not repairable... damaged can be repaired although it may come at great expense). So you take salvageable parts of the original receiver and a solid block of aluminum milled roughly into the form of the finished receiver and you repair that receiver with tig welds.

I’m not sure that it would pass muster under close examination at BATFE headquarters, but on the surface it seems the only logical way to repair a badly damaged reciever. And logically, the more parts of the original reciever that are used in the repaired part, the stronger the argument is for it being repaired. The whole issue is that this uses logic, an idea that BATFE seems to reject on its face.

Why do you think any of that has any value? Have you done any legal research on the issue? Is there any actual legal authority (regulations or statutes or case law) that supports any of what you've outlined?

1. As has been said here many times before, to understand the law, one needs to actually study it (whether formally or informally). Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out." One needs to do the research, study cases, and do the reading.
   
   
2. Logic is a process for examining and analyzing data. But without the applicable legal authority you don't have sufficient data upon which to base meaningful conclusions.

The penalty for an NFA violation is up to 10 years in federal prison and/or up to a $10,000.00 fine. In addition, if the violation is found to have been a willful attempt to evade the NFA tax, that would be an additional felony punishable by up to 5 years in federal prison and/or a $100,000.00 (which could be increased to $250,000.00) fine. A conviction for an NFA violation will also result in a lifetime loss of gun rights.

NFA compliance can be a hassle and expensive. Getting caught committing an NFA violation is an exponentially greater hassle and expense, and a possibly life destroying event.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but “deface” implies make it unreadable or to change a number. If you remove it intact and transplant it then it might be arguable that it was never defaced.

See above.

And remember, it doesn't matter how you see things. What matters is how the ATF and/or a federal prosecutor and/or a federal judge will see things. And to have a reasonable chance to anticipate how
the ATF and/or a federal prosecutor and/or a federal judge might see things, you must understand applicable legal authority.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Posts 6 and 7 are the best answers. Speculation without foundational legal research is a waste of time. Any useful legal opinion on a serious legal issue must start with applicable legal authority (regulations or statutes or case law).