Penn Court: Rusted serial number is not "defaced"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting decision. It seems the defacing statute was clear but the possession statute was not. Court decided to read them in harmony.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...orrode-is-not-a-crime/?utm_term=.c741404c90b3....

However, it is a state court decision based on the interpretation and application of a state statute.

On the other hand, federal law is (18 USC 922(k)):
(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.

And let's also look at some federal court decisions on the topic:

  • U.S. v. Horey, 36 F.3d 1106 (C.A.10 (Okl.), 1993), at 1106:
    ...We turn to defendant's argument that his conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. 922(k) was also based on insufficient evidence. Defendant argues the government failed to sufficiently show that the revolver's serial number was removed, obliterated, or altered. He asserts the statute does not reach serial numbers that are still readable.

    Police officers testified that the serial number was obliterated. In addition, an expert in firearms and tool mark examination testified the revolver's serial number was partially obscured or obliterated. The examiner also noted that it was possible one or two additional serial numbers were completely obliterated. Based on the clear language of 922(k), we reject defendant's argument that the statute does not reach the firearm recovered by the police in this case. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction, and we AFFIRM the jury's verdict....

  • U.S. v. Adams, 305 F.3d 30 (1st Cir., 2002), at 34 -- 35 (emphasis added):
    ...As for the evidence, that was clearly sufficient once it is understood that any alteration that works against legibility is enough; once again, we assume defendant's knowledge of the alteration which, in this case, can hardly be disputed. The pistol was presented to the jury. The case agent testified at trial that he could read the six digits of the serial number but with difficulty. At oral argument, Adams's counsel asked that this court examine the original pistol, and we now report the results.

    Of the original six digits, the first four have been scratched or abraded so that they are significantly more difficult to read. In the case of the first, second and fourth, about half or more of the digit has been obscured by the scratching although the original can still be made out, while the third is damaged badly enough that it could be taken as a 3 or a 5. The case agent identified it as a 5, but it is so far from a slight scratch or minor imperfection as to make concerns about the borderline academic in this case. (To complete the story, the fifth digit is completely readable but was thoroughly scratched at and only the sixth digit is unmarred.)

    Of course, judgment as to the degree of impairment was for the jury. But a reasonable jury could easily conclude that this pistol had been altered so as to make it appreciably more difficult to read the serial number. Indeed, a reasonable jury could hardly reach any other conclusion.. ...
So while Mr. Ford's possession of the gun in question might not violate Pennsylvania law, it might well violate federal law. Mr. Ford might therefore still be subject to prosecution by the federal government.
 
Good decision... let's consider a few scenarios that support it:

Citizen has his Glock burnt to a crisp in a housefire that melts the metal serial number tag... felony?
Citizen bails off his touring bike and gets some road rash that makes the serial number on his pistol unreadable or defaced... felony?
Citizen uses his pistol in self defense and it's taken as evidence at trial. While in police custody dried blood corrodes the engraved serial number... felony?
Nope, not in any of the examples.

No crime as there's no mens rea, no 'guilty mind'. I'm sure we're all aware that current jurisprudence is that the courts must give the benefit of any doubt in the favor of the accused,
 
Good decision...

A narrow and not particularly meaningful decision. Under federal law, certainly in the First and Tenth Circuits, it's still a crime to have in one's possession a gun on which the serial number has been removed (by someone at some time) or rendered illegible to any degree. See post 3.

...let's consider a few scenarios that support it:....
Since when do scenarios support court decisions. Court decisions must be supported and supportable by statutes, court decisions and legal authority. Court decisions determine the legal consequences.

....Citizen has his Glock burnt to a crisp in a housefire that melts the metal serial number tag... felony?
Citizen bails off his touring bike and gets some road rash that makes the serial number on his pistol unreadable or defaced... felony?
Citizen uses his pistol in self defense and it's taken as evidence at trial. While in police custody dried blood corrodes the engraved serial number... felony?
Nope, not in any of the examples....
Hogwash.

Note that the federal crime is not defacing the serial number. It is essentially having possession of a gun on which the serial number has been rendered illegible to any degree. So the crime in your hypotheticals is not the fire destroying the serial number, or the bike accident damaging the serial number so as to make it illegible, or the serial number being damaged by corrosion. The federal crime would be continued possession of the gun after the serial number became illegible to any degree.

...No crime as there's no mens rea, no 'guilty mind'....
Wrong. The mens rea requirement for the federal crime is satisfied by continued possession of the gun with knowledge that the serial number has been rendered illegible to any degree. The statute, 18 USC 922(k), prohibits, among other things knowingly possessing, a gun with a serial number rendered illegible to any degree. See:
  • U.S. v. Sullivan, 455 F.3d 248 (4th Cir., 2006) at 261 (emphasis added):
    ...18 U.S.C. § 922(k) makes it a crime "for any person knowingly . . . 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." The defendant must know of the alteration. United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d 200, 206 (3d Cir.2003) (collecting cases). Knowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected the pistol and discovered the absence of a serial number.....

  • United States v. Haile (11th Cir., 2012, No. 10-15965):
    ...generally, "[k]nowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected [it] and discovered the absence of a serial number."...

...I'm sure we're all aware that current jurisprudence is that the courts must give the benefit of any doubt in the favor of the accused,
Cite legal authority supporting that claim. If you mean the Rule of Lenity, you don't understand it and have stated it far too broadly.

Basically, the Rule of Lenity is:
...a judicial doctrine requiring that those ambiguities in a criminal statute relating to prohibition and penalties be resolved in favor of the defendant if it is not contrary to legislative intent. It embodies a presupposition of law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment....
[/intent] So whether the Rule of Lenity is applicable in a particular case will first require a judicial determination that a statute describing a prohibition or a penalty is ambiguous in its application in a particular circumstance, and second that resolution of the ambiguity in favor of the defendant would not be contrary to legislative intent.

That is not the same thing as giving the benefit of any doubt to the accused.​
 
You're right, Frank it would be a crime IF there were continued possession, which would only occur AFTER the person was aware of the serial number being corroded, defaced, etc.(as well as giving evidence of mens rea) Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain how Mr. Citizen is supposed to have "Knowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected the pistol and discovered the absence of a serial number....." for a pistol that's being retained as evidence by law enforcement in a police property room?

As for the second example (road rash) a damaged pistol isn't somehow miraculously evidence of a crime whilst Mr. Biker is still waiting for an ambulance for his shattered femur.

Further, relating to the first example I don't think any competent court is going to accuse Mr. Homeowner for 'defacing a serial number' for a firearm while his house is still on fire and firefighters are either still responding or still involved in fighting the conflagration.
 
You're right, Frank it would be a crime IF there were continued possession, which would only occur AFTER the person was aware of the serial number being corroded, defaced, etc.(as well as giving evidence of mens rea) Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain how Mr. Citizen is supposed to have "Knowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected the pistol and discovered the absence of a serial number....." for a pistol that's being retained as evidence by law enforcement in a police property room?

As for the second example (road rash) a damaged pistol isn't somehow miraculously evidence of a crime whilst Mr. Biker is still waiting for an ambulance for his shattered femur.

Further, relating to the first example I don't think any competent court is going to accuse Mr. Homeowner for 'defacing a serial number' for a firearm while his house is still on fire and firefighters are either still responding or still involved in fighting the conflagration.
All of which means what?

I was pointing out that your hypotheticals had nothing to do with the law, the Pennsylvania case, or the discussion. In the Pennsylvania case, Mr. Ford wasn't accused of letting his Glock burn up. And no matter what the news story might say, the case is not about letting the serial number of your gun get damaged. Ford is about possession of a gun with a corroded serial number, not about allowing the serial number to become corroded.

As I've pointed out multiple times here, news stories usually get the details wrong and can't really help understand the legal issues. So even though the news story includes a link to the court decision, it appears that you didn't bother to read the decision.

So your examples are red herrings and worthless for the purposes of trying to understand the legal issues here.

The Pennsylvania court of appeals interpreted the applicable Pennsylvania statute as not prohibiting Mr. Ford's possession of the gun with the corroded serial number because of the way in which the serial number on Mr. Ford's gun became illegible in some degree. Whether one agrees with the reasoning of the Pennsylvania court or not, it's irrelevant to the federal law question.

In the federal cases I've cited how or why the serial number is illegible in some degree is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the serial number is illegible in some degree and that the defendant kept the gun knowing that the serial number was illegible in some degree.
 
You're right, Frank it would be a crime IF there were continued possession, which would only occur AFTER the person was aware of the serial number being corroded, defaced, etc.(as well as giving evidence of mens rea) Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain how Mr. Citizen is supposed to have "Knowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected the pistol and discovered the absence of a serial number....." for a pistol that's being retained as evidence by law enforcement in a police property room?

Citizen bails off his touring bike and gets some road rash that makes the serial number on his pistol unreadable or defaced... felony?

Very possibly. How long did he possess it? 20 minutes until the ambulance got there? Or was it something minor that he just rode home and then 2 years later gets busted?

One scenario seems to fit and the other doesnt.

Seems that you answered you own question.


Citizen has his Glock burnt to a crisp in a housefire that melts the metal serial number tag... felony?

If the fire was that hot, is it even gun anymore?

This amounts to your car being burnt to a crisp and being convicted for your car being on a public road with out tags on it and a non working smog system.


Citizen uses his pistol in self defense and it's taken as evidence at trial. While in police custody dried blood corrodes the engraved serial number... felony?


If it's in the evidence room for a SD shooting then he doesn't even have possession!

So how do you apply?:
Knowledge of defacement of the serial number may be inferred where the defendant has possessed the gun under conditions under which an ordinary man would have inspected the pistol and discovered the absence of a serial number....."
 
what do you do with a Winchester 1886 rifle made after 1900 that has had the tang replaced by a gunsmith who ordered one from Winchester as a replacement part(no serial number) after the original was broken in a fall while hunting? eastbank.
 
what do you do with a Winchester 1886 rifle made after 1900 that has had the tang replaced by a gunsmith who ordered one from Winchester as a replacement part(no serial number) after the original was broken in a fall while hunting? eastbank.

I have no idea and have no plans to do the research necessary to provide a good answer.
 
Eastbank,

You didn't say whether the firearm originally did have a serial number. Before 1968 they were not required to have one. Unfortunately I'm almost certain that Winchester's all were serialized.

However, if it DID have one it is unlawful to possess if the serial number has been removed or defaced.

There appear to be instances on record where gunsmiths have been able to contact the ATF and work out a way that a serial number could be relocated or re-engraved if required. But I don't know the details.

As Frank said that would take a little research to figure out the right way to handle it, so are you repair could be done lawfully in the gun didn't become contraband.
 
all 1886 Winchesters had serial numbers from the factory. after 1968 the atf started the serial number crap, eastbank.
 
...As Frank said that would take a little research to figure out the right way to handle it, so are you repair could be done lawfully in the gun didn't become contraband.

And look at the statute I quoted in post 3 and the cases I've cited. They don't distinguish between a pre-1968 gun that had a serial number even though one wasn't legally required and a post-1968 gun legally required to have a serial number, nor do they consider how or why the serial number was removed, obliterated, or altered. Has a federal court distinguished between a pre-1968 gun that had a serial number even though one wasn't legally required and a post-1968 gun legally required to have a serial number, or considered how or why the serial number was removed, obliterated, or altered? I haven't looked, so I don't know; but I'm not aware of any such federal court decisions.

So it's possible that a gunsmith could mistakenly turn a good firearm into contraband by removing or altering a serial number in the course of a repair. Someone in possession of such a gun might be well advised to hire a lawyer.
 
For those that didn't see the post, there was an rare example of a pistol that had it's serial number defaced but it was deemed historically significant . The ATF was able to furnish a new serial # to satisfy legal requirements in order to be sold at an auction.

The pistol in question belonged to Bonnie Parker of Bonnie and Clyde fame, her .38 caliber Colt revolver was recovered by a Texas Ranger years ago but had it's serial number defaced and couldn't be offered for sale at an auction. But the ATF recognized the historical significance of the Colt and issued a serial number so the Colt could be sold.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/2...de-federally-compliant-will-be-auctioned.html

"ATF special agents were then able to obtain an ATF-issued serial number — ATF7620091 — for RR Auction, which was later stamped onto the revolver’s receiver and making it federally compliant for an auction on Sept. 30, when it is expected to fetch upward of $200,000."


The ATF made this statement

"ATF understands the importance of this historically significant firearm,” Guy Thomas, Special Agent in Charge of the ATF’s Boston field division, said in a news release. “We are pleased we were able to work in partnership with RR Auction to make the gun legally compliant.”


So there was a happy ending for all concerned...

 
Yes, I had heard about that. It illustrates a couple of things:

1) The ATF is willing to work with folks, at least sometimes, if everyone's above board and trying hard to do things correctly.

2) Even with a known historically significant firearm this is a BIG DEAL and the gun would have had to be destroyed if the ATF had not stepped in to make special arrangements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top