To serialize or not to serialize ?

[brian10x]

I've already made my decision, but I was curious what opinions were.
I have a bunch of homemade guns from years of tinkering. As most of you know, it is not legally necessary to serialize homemade firearms.
However, should any of them ever get stolen, wouldn't it be wise to be able to positively identify the gun in order to get it back, or is it better that stolen gun never finds its way home?
In addition, if I ever decide to sell any of them, and I'm getting old, do you think serializing them would be a good idea?

 

[smithers599]

Hmmm. Interesting question.
What if, instead of a number, you put an "identifying mark" on each gun? Name them after famous American patriots, or zodiac signs, or birds, or Shakespeare characters, or something. Then, if one were stolen, you could identify it as "Hi-Point Pistol, marked Blue-Footed Booby" or "Rohm .22 revolver, marked Sam Whittemore."
Or give them names to confound liberals: Peace, Tolerance, Kindness, Understanding, Love.
If Da Gov were ever to give you a hard time about not having a serial number, you could say "That's the serial number." Doesn't have to be numerical, AFAIK.

 

[brian10x]

Well, I kinda have identifying marks an some of them already. I like to elctro-etch designs in my guns. I have Casper, the friendly ghost, the zombie response team, and crap like that. I have serialized a couple, but my serial numbers are simply my initials followed by a number ie: BS1

 

[mtptwo]

Well, what are the chances you would ever see them again in the case of theift? I would think 99% are gone for good, but I have no numbers to back that up.

 

[brian10x]

Valid point. However, I serialized them in a very discreet location, inside the receiver, so I may be the only one who even knows they are there.

 

[Java Junkie]

If you hide the numbers then no one even the cops will know they are there.
It all sounds like a big waste of time.

 

[Flash]

I wouldn't even consider serializing them.

I've got one gun now that isn't serialized, but it was manufactured before serial numbers became the law.

 

[xerts1191]

+1 what Smithers said

 

[smithers599]

Name them all "Kindness" plus a number: Kindness1, Kindness2, etc.
Lots of jury appeal, but only you will know that your motto is "Kill them with Kindness."

 

[Harrier]

I serialize all of my guns home built "U812"

 

[rjscolonel]

I built 3 1911's and was not going to serialize them. I took them to get cerakote but they would not take the frames in because of no serial number. I had to put a number on them to get cerakote. I put them under the grips so they would not be seen unless grips were off.

 

[knockonit]

I say whatever makes you feel like you accomplished something, numbers mean nothing except to authorities. jmo though.
happy holiday
Rj

 

[MarkItZero]

I serialize all of my guns home built "U812"

I know there's a joke or reference to something there, I'm just drawing a blank on what it is.

 

[Pscipio03]

I would serialize only if you are going to have any work on them done. Like what rjscolonel said above, no smith will touch it usually without a SN on it. If they are keeping the pistol they'll want to log it in my SN, and no SN means no ability to log it into their books. But, if you just plan on doing all work yourself like rattle can paint jobs and sight changes, I'd say leave them as is.

 

[MarkItZero]

I would serialize only if you are going to have any work on them done. Like what rjscolonel said above, no smith will touch it usually without a SN on it. If they are keeping the pistol they'll want to log it in my SN, and no SN means no ability to log it into their books. But, if you just plan on doing all work yourself like rattle can paint jobs and sight changes, I'd say leave them as is.

Serial numbers weren't required on guns made commercially before 1968. FFLs and C&Rs regularly handle weapons with no SNs. I believe they can simply write "none" or "N/A" or "NVSN" on 4473s and in their log books.

 

[Pscipio03]

I would serialize only if you are going to have any work on them done. Like what rjscolonel said above, no smith will touch it usually without a SN on it. If they are keeping the pistol they'll want to log it in my SN, and no SN means no ability to log it into their books. But, if you just plan on doing all work yourself like rattle can paint jobs and sight changes, I'd say leave them as is.

Serial numbers weren't required on guns made commercially before 1968. FFLs and C&Rs regularly handle weapons with no SNs. I believe they can simply write "none" or "N/A" or "NVSN" on 4473s and in their log books.

Not sure how that applies to ones that started as 80% built ones, though.

 

[sonofbp]

I would serialize only if you are going to have any work on them done. Like what rjscolonel said above, no smith will touch it usually without a SN on it. If they are keeping the pistol they'll want to log it in my SN, and no SN means no ability to log it into their books. But, if you just plan on doing all work yourself like rattle can paint jobs and sight changes, I'd say leave them as is.

How do ffls/smiths log/transfer the many legal non-serialized firearms made before the 1968 law requiring them to have an sn or home built firearms with no sn?

They log them as "NSN" and move on, easy as.
Nothing out there that says it wouldn't apply to 80%ers.

 

[792mauser]

I'd leave en as is.
Not much you can't do to em yourself if you can manufacture it yourself.

 

[Pscipio03]

[/quote]

How do ffls/smiths log/transfer the many legal non-serialized firearms made before the 1968 law requiring them to have an sn or home built firearms with no sn?

They log them as "NSN" and move on, easy as.
Nothing out there that says it wouldn't apply to 80%ers.
[/quote]

I don't have an answer to that and I see your point. In reality it's more of a game of if the FFL wants to explain the situation to an overly ambitious ATF agent. My experience with the ATF, and in particular the NFA branch, has led me to believe they the set rules up in a very nebulous manner on purpose allowing them to interpret the rules as they see fit in different circumstances. For example- I wanted to SBR a Roni with Glock 17. My concern was that the Glock itself is the serialized part of the SBR. So, what happens when I want to take out the Glock and use it as a pistol for carry, range, etc. Called ATF, was transferred around and was told I couldn't do that as the Glock 17 has now become a SBR. If you're still with me, it gets better. I asked for the reference code so I could make sure I was in compliance. The agent couldn't give that to me, so he took my info down and said he'd get back to me. Fast forward two weeks and no call/email return. I call again, go through the same transfer process and get another agent. Now this agent said that yes, in fact I could turn it back into a pistol for carry, but I needed to let the ATF know in writing that I had turned it back. But, no says I, I only want it temporarily as a pistol. Agent #2 then tells me, doesn't matter, we have to do that because if not, people would turn SBRs back into pistols when they want to go across state lines and don't want to fill out the 5320.20. Which, again caught me by surprise because I thought (and still do) that was completely legal to do. So, I said screw it and dumped the idea entirely.
So, short answer long, don't be surprised if a FFL'd smith/Cerekoter says, "No thanks". There's just so much grey area to operate in and it just matters what they in particular are comfortable with.

 

[sonofbp]

I don't have an answer to that and I see your point. In reality it's more of a game of if the FFL wants to explain the situation to an overly ambitious ATF agent. My experience with the ATF, and in particular the NFA branch, has led me to believe they the set rules up in a very nebulous manner on purpose allowing them to interpret the rules as they see fit in different circumstances. For example- I wanted to SBR a Roni with Glock 17. My concern was that the Glock itself is the serialized part of the SBR. So, what happens when I want to take out the Glock and use it as a pistol for carry, range, etc. Called ATF, was transferred around and was told I couldn't do that as the Glock 17 has now become a SBR. If you're still with me, it gets better. I asked for the reference code so I could make sure I was in compliance. The agent couldn't give that to me, so he took my info down and said he'd get back to me. Fast forward two weeks and no call/email return. I call again, go through the same transfer process and get another agent. Now this agent said that yes, in fact I could turn it back into a pistol for carry, but I needed to let the ATF know in writing that I had turned it back. But, no says I, I only want it temporarily as a pistol. Agent #2 then tells me, doesn't matter, we have to do that because if not, people would turn SBRs back into pistols when they want to go across state lines and don't want to fill out the 5320.20. Which, again caught me by surprise because I thought (and still do) that was completely legal to do. So, I said screw it and dumped the idea entirely.
So, short answer long, don't be surprised if a FFL'd smith/Cerekoter says, "No thanks". There's just so much grey area to operate in and it just matters what they in particular are comfortable with.

I know that logging a firearm that never had an SN as NSN was standard operating procedure when I worked for an ffl/sot, but shit that was 17 years ago...

You can definitely "deregister" an sbr into a pistol or rifle again by removing the stock or adding a 16.25" barrel then notifying the batfe, but (as far as I know) in AZ a concealed carry weapon isn't limited to a pistol as it states "firearm" in the law and there would be no problem to carry an sbr'd pistol open or concealed.

I used to joke about using an SBR'd glock to legally open carry a "rifle" in texas as it would legally be considered a rifle whether it had a stock attached or not.