Source.

A 22-year old man from Becker, Minn., is facing two felonies for possessing privately made firearms lacking serial numbers in a case his mother called a gross abuse of Minnesota law.

Sara Forgues, the mother of Matthew “Walker” Anderson, spoke with Alpha News regarding her son’s distressing legal battle. The case has concerning implications for gun owners across Minnesota, she said.

According to Forgues, in May 2022, Anderson and a friend were target shooting on private property in Sherburne County. The incident prompted a complaint from a neighbor, leading to the intervention of local sheriff’s deputies.

The neighbor alleged that a bullet had struck his house, but Forgues said no evidence was found to support this claim.

The charging documents provide few details about the incident, saying that the neighbor “heard glass shatter” on the lower level of his home. Discovering a broken sliding glass door, “he believed [to be] from a gunshot,” the neighbor called the police.

Anderson fully cooperated with the deputy who arrived to inspect the shooting range. He and his friend agreed to show the deputy their firearms, which included Anderson’s privately made firearms that did not have serial numbers.

He was then detained for several hours and the firearms were confiscated. Anderson was told by the deputies that he would be charged with two felonies for possessing firearms without serial numbers.

Forgues explained that after they looked into the statute the deputies cited, they believed the charges would be dropped. The statute outlines felony charges for removing a serial number from a firearm or possessing a “firearm that is not identified by a serial number.”

However, Anderson’s attorney notes in legal filings that the federal law referenced in the state statute does not consider his privately made firearms to be firearms that require a serial number.

“Under the plain meaning of the statute, the rifles made and possessed by Anderson were not ‘firearms’ as contemplated in [the federal law] and thus no serial number was required,” his attorney said in court documents. “Federal law does not require serial numbers to be placed on personally manufactured firearms created for private use.”

Additionally, if state law actually does ban Anderson’s privately made firearms with no serial numbers, then it should be ruled unconstitutional, his attorney argued.

“Commercially manufactured or imported firearms were not required to have serial numbers until 1968 and personally manufactured firearms still do not require a serial number under federal law. There is no historical tradition or authority to ban possession of rifles and shotguns that are in common use and circulation that are suitable for civilian purposes and target shooting simply for not having a number engraved on the metal,” he said.

Rob Doar, senior vice president of government affairs with the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said the legal issues are nuanced, but “essentially the prosecutor is taking a bad reading of poorly drafted legislation.”

“In a nutshell, 609.667 prohibits the possession of firearms that do not have a serial number. It defines a serial number by referencing federal law, the National Firearms Act,” Doar told Alpha News. “The clear intent of the statute is to prohibit possession of unserialized firearms that fall within the National Firearms Act regulations, for example, automatic weapons and short barrel rifles. Because these weapons are required to be registered at the federal level, they must possess a serial number. The federal government does not prohibit the manufacture of firearms for personal use, and creates zero requirements for serializing personally manufactured firearms.

“It cannot possibly be construed to extend beyond those types of firearms, because before 1968 firearms were not required to even have serial numbers, but there’s been no question that those are still legal to own today. In fact, the Minnesota DNR auctions off serial-less firearms every year,” he added.

Well, Minnesota.  Is anyone surprised?

The prosecutor is taking a bad reading of poorly drafted legislation.  You think?

Basically, the prosecutor is a bad and unscrupulous lawyer (but I repeat myself) and is using a clearly unconstitutional law to score political points at the expense of an innocent man.  We’ve seen this before (case in point, Kyle Rittenhouse).  There are many other thousands of such cases.

But via reddit/Firearms, consider this wise decision by Judge Joseph Goodwin, U.S. District Judge in WV.

Assume, for example, that a law-abiding citizen purchases a firearm from a sporting goods store. At the time of the sale, that firearm complies with the commercial regulation that it bear a serial number. The law-abiding citizen takes the firearm home and removes the serial number. He has no ill intent and never takes any otherwise unlawful action with the firearm. Contrary to the Government’s argument that Section 922(k) does not amount to an “infringement” on the law-abiding citizen’s Second Amendment right, the practical application is that while the law-abiding citizen’s possession of the firearm was originally legal, it became illegal only because the serial number was removed. He could be prosecuted federally for his possession of it. That is the definition of an infringement on one’s right to possess a firearm.

The case against the innocent man from Minnesota will be dropped, or it will be appealed through the channels and eventually overturned, with the inferior courts spanked at some point in the process.

The prosecutor is advised to forget all about this and apologize for the trouble he caused.

On the larger issue of serial numbers, you’re aware why they case so much, yes?  You can’t have universal background checks without serial numbers.  The controllers are nothing is not and relentless good tacticians.

We have to be just as good and relentless.

Prior: The American Tradition of Self-Made Arms