Serial Numbers: Regulation or Rights Infringement?

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently affirmed the constitutionality of Minnesota Statutes § 609.667(3), which makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a serial number, even if the gun never had one in the first place. In State v. Jones, the defendant, who crafted his own gun (without a serial number), argued that this law violates the Second Amendment because there is no historical tradition of banning the possession of firearms without serial numbers; therefore, in taking his gun away and charging him, his Second Amendment Rights were violated.   

The Court acknowledged its recent decision in State v. Gaal, in which it held that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of firearms with removed serial numbers. The Court reasoned that “the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Acknowledging that the removal of a serial number generally is for nefarious purposes. However, Gaal did not address firearms that had never had serial numbers in the first place.   

To analyze this issue, the Court referred to the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework established in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. This framework asks whether a modern gun regulation is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States.  

The Court noted that as early as the 1800s, laws were established that required newly manufactured firearms to be inspected, marked, numbered, and certified. The Court also noted that founding-era laws prohibited altering or removing firearm markings, which were practices aimed at identifying firearms and their owners. 

Jones argued that these historical practices existed only to deter theft, not to restrict possession of unmarked firearms. But the Court found that theft prevention was not the sole purpose and that these laws still reflected a longstanding tradition of marking and recording firearms to maintain traceability. Because Minnesota’s ban on possessing firearms without serial numbers is “relevantly similar” to these historical regulations, the Court concluded it fits within a permissible category of firearm regulation under the Second Amendment. 

Bottom Line 

State v. Jones reaffirms and expands Minnesota’s power to regulate firearm markings, emphasizing that courts will uphold modern gun laws as long as these laws are complementary to Early American traditions and the overall intent of the Second Amendment.  

At North Star Criminal Defense, our attorneys specialize in gun laws and restoration. We stay informed about all gun legislation and case law in the constantly evolving landscape of criminal law. Our commitment is to provide the best legal counsel for our clients. If you need assistance with your gun case, give us a call today!