PSA: Minnesota Members Beware!

[LESchwartz]

Public Service Announcement:

In the ongoing fight over so-called ghost guns, Minnesota prosecutors have a new tool in their arsenal:  Minnesota Statutes §609.667(3) which says it a felony for anyone to "receives or possesses a firearm that is not identified by a serial number."

Previously it was thought that this statute only applied to NFA firearms, not ordinary firearms made by private individuals.  However, in recent months several counties have applied this statute to homemade firearms as well.  Unfortunately, in a Court of Appeals decision on December 18, 2023, it was decided that this statute applies to all firearms, not just NFA items.  The case in question regarded a homemade firearm.  For more information, see:  https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-court-of-appeals/115622947.html.

It is unclear what the status of firearms manufactured prior to the 1968 GCA may be, as these were not required to be marked with a serial number.  However, the clear wording of the Court of Appeals decision makes these problematic.

Also problematic are homemade firearms which you may have already marked, as there may be issues with the completeness, size, location, etc. of those makings.

Should you determine you do not wish to run afoul all this, it would be prudent to legally move such firearms out of state, etc. until this matter becomes fully settled.  Alternatively, you could quietly destroy such firearms.

Discretely spread the word to folks who may or may not have such firearms.

Larry

[Rocketvapor]

EDITED\
Hope the new NRA leadership goes after this one 

[LESchwartz]

So, transferring (temporarily) an "Illegal" weapon, maybe even an "assault high capacity weapon" to another person, in another state won't get you in dutch?

I expect folks will need to transfer to a state where possession of such a firearm is legal.

And you are correct, the transfer will also need to be done in a way that avoids running afoul of Minnesota's law, the other State's law, and Federal law.  So you wouldn't be able to give your homemade AK to your buddy from North Dakota and let him take it home with him next time he visits you (violation of MN's new "universal background check" law ).  Nor would you be able to leave you're Polymer 80 Glock clone with a relative in South Dakota next time you visit them (violation of Federal law).

However, you should be able to move such firearm to property you own in Wisconsin.  You should also also be able to send them an out-state dealer for safe keeping.  You could also just quietly destroy any such firearms.

Just don't get caught by MN LEOs while in possession of such a firearm.

Original post updated.

Larry

[LESchwartz]

Note that there are several cases currently winding their way through the Minnesota courts.  The most interesting one is the so-called "Walker case", where a young man built an 80% lower and purchased a complete upper.  He was originally charged under this new interpretation of §609.667(3), since the lower was not marked.  However, reports are that the upper was marked with some sort of number and his legal team is challenging the case on that basis (in addition to citing Bruen).

Also interesting is that Minnesota officials are themselves also apparently guilty of violating §609.667(3), since the MN DNR regularly auctions off firearms seized during their enforcement actions (poaching, etc.).  In 2022 the MN DNR auctioned of at least nine(9) pre-1968 firearms w/o serial numbers . . .

The whole thing is a complete crap show, since it's hard to know what's legal and what's not.  The 1968 firearms thing also probably represents a "taking" by the State.  All the while the MN AG is thumping his chest about what a great thing he's doing locking up otherwise law abiding citizens in cages.

I know the "shall not be infringed types" will be out there saying "shall not be infringed" . . . and those folks are free to do as they want.  But I would feel bad for all the other folks who are going to be caught up in this because they just didn't know.

Larry

[Rocketvapor]

While I doubt anyone will follow your revised recommendations, I see why you stated that on a public forum.

[Rocketvapor]

Owning something that was legal yesterday, but not today, without a Grandfather clause, making you a Felon tomorrow just don't sound right. 

 

[Scratch]

This sucks, little by little, piece by piece…
Coming soon, to a state near you!

[LESchwartz]

Owning something that was legal yesterday, but not today, without a Grandfather clause, making you a Felon tomorrow just don't sound right.

So far nobody has been tagged for a per-1968 unmarked firearm.  However, it's only a matter of time given the current environment.  It doesn't help folks who get tagged meantime.  But it may be one of the approaches that will be used in appeals going forward. 

Larry

[LESchwartz]

While I doubt anyone will follow your revised recommendations, I see why you stated that on a public forum.

I expect most people will just stash them away somewhere and keep a low profile.  However, if they get tagged they have no one to blame but themselves.

Larry

[LESchwartz]

UPDATE:  The judge in the Walker Anderson case rejected his attorney's arguments.  The case is going to trial later this year.  In the meantime the MN Supremes are set to hear the Vagle's appeal this summer.  For more information, see:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TbFPVCWwcA.

It's hard to tell if the judge also rejected the fact that the upper had a serial number, or whether that issue will be determined at trial.  This portion is scary because the county attorney is apparently happy to ignore the cited Federal law (that only NFA items need serial numbers), while happy to embrace Federal regs about which part of the firearm require a serial number on them. 
Several MN county attorneys have now said things in other cases like "that's not a real serial number" and "the gun wasn't properly marked".

As I said previously in the thread:  "Just don't get caught by MN LEOs while in possession of such a firearm."

Larry