Curiosity
 

Good morning all,

I ran across this while surfing and thought it interesting. Someones artistic rendition of an artillery ?

https://www.bullmooseguns.com/produc...stom-engraving

Base Luger was not an artillery; 'standard' P08 rear toggle, no tangent rear sight on barrel. Looks like an amateur engraver practicing on an otherwise uncollectable P08 with a long barrel. The grips are especially hideous; I mistakenly bought a pair myself and threw them out after trying them on a few times. :(

Engraving a handgun is a way of hiding defects, same as floral enbossing on leather goods. Not all are pitted & rusty, maybe just normal wear or poor buffing/bluing. The engravings on this aren't the best; curves aren't smooth and lines aren't quite straight. The pictures aren't very good either - not enough detail.

A way to practice, maybe a 'feasibility study', to see if maybe the engraver was interested enough to put in the time and effort, and $$$ in tooling & jigs, to pursue this hobby. He seems to be experimenting with various styles/techniques.

IMO, $2500 is way out of line. I'm also particularly annoyed at the web site. It takes way too long to load. :mad:

"Fly with Eagle" doesn't sound quite right, maybe eagles? The box is nice.

There is a special place for these highly customized, gaudy masterpieces...like in the glove box of a clown car.

I do like the box. :)

parts of the engraving I like, parts I do not

I have thought for some time I would like a mismatched or reblued Simson and have it partially engraved in the germanic style.

Luckily we all have different tastes ;)

The engraving is no better than what you'd normally find carved into the wall in a public restroom. Hideous.

... killed the cat!

Just wondering but is it legal in this case to remove the serial number from a firearm. :confused:

Lon

You cannot remove a serial number from a firearm, nor lawfully possess one from which the serial number has been removed or altered.

18USC CH44 §922(k) It shall be unlawful 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.

Thanks Bill, I always believed that to be the case but didn't know if there might be exceptions to that law as I was not able to locate one in those photos.

Lon

Weeeeell....there's sort of an exception: but it's not really an "exception", merely the way the law is written. IIRC, it was the '68GCA that required handguns to have serial numbers and thus plenty of pre-1968 firearms (handguns and long guns) don't have serial numbers. They are lawful to possess. I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I have several in my own collection.

Likewise, there's no requirement that any post-1968 Title I firearm have a serial number if it's a homemade one - i.e., one you made for yourself and made without the intent to sell. Case in point being the so-called 80% AR15 and 1911 receivers that folks finish at home. You can make them and possess them lawfully. In fact, you can even sell or trade them as long as it's not your intent to make them for sale/disposition. (If you make these with the intention of selling/trading/gifting/giving them away you need to have an 07 FFL (Manufacturer's FFL.))

So while it's lawful to possess certain firearms made without a serial number, once one has been applied/assigned, it's unlawful to alter or remove the serial number.

The caveats to all of this are that: A. this is per federal law - state laws may vary; and B. Title II/NFA stuff has to have a serial number; that's how it's registered and tracked in the NFRTR. (I just registered a 12" H&R shotgun that originally had no serial number so I had to create/assign one to it. I chose "7/11CC" - it's short for "7 Eleven Credit Card" :D )

Bill,
what you wrote is accurate, except you gloss over the caveat that the item must have been in "interstate or international commerce". I wonder if a bring back from WW whatever has been in "commerce"?

Serial number(s)
 

a little closer look

On the home made kit assemblies, I believe if you do sell one you have to put an identifying stamp and a number on it-sic "Mike's Guns #1"
Maybe even a one per year limit if you do sell them without a Class 7.

Too easy to break some law you never heard of if someone takes an interest,

Close up shots: Please, my eyes hurt.

Say, is that the same artist that's in Tijuana that carves the bull and little cactus in those cheesy leather wallets?

Nope. There’s no limit, nor is there any federal requirement to assign a serial number. Not yet anyway.
Back to selling a homemade gun, again, it boils down to “intent” - a vague and anomalous standard for sure, based as much on the length of the judge’s arm as anything else a lawyer may or may not sucessfully argue. It’s much the same as selling off the culls from your collection versus seling on a regular basis “with the principal objective of livlihood and profit.” (ref. 18USC 921(a)(21) and (22).)

I’m not entirely sure I’m following your comment, Don. But even if a gun has moved in interstate commerce (as likely 100% of WW bring backs have), pre-1968 there was no requirement that a gun have a serial number; thus, if it never had one assigned by the manufacturer there’s no prohibition on possession or transfer. (Again, it hinges on whether a serial number was removed, altered, or obliterated. You can’t remove/alter/obliterate something that never existed in the first place.) Anyway, I believe the reference to interstate commerce in the USC is there to provide the basis for the fed’s authority.
Back to the question of whether or not the gun has ever moved in interstate commerce, Wickard v. Filburn (1942) set the precedent that virtually anything can be declared as affecting/affected by interstate commerce. US v. Stewart (2003) and Ashcroft v. Raisch/Gonzales v. Raisch (2005) effectively upheld Wickard.

I looked this one up and this seems pretty close. In this case, it was a lack of participating in interstate commerce that was seen to affect interstate commerce, thus within the Agriculture Dept's realm of calling the shots. The logic, I think, is similar to the conclusion that not making a choice is, itself, a choice.

WWII was fresh when this was argued, a few months old. Everybody was expected to pull for the war effort. I wonder if it had any dffect on the decision.