The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that firearms manufactured by individuals do not require a serial number under state law, unless federal law requires one. These firearms are often referred to as “privately made firearms” or “ghost guns.”
In the case of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle, Mr. Vagle was charged in 2022 with possessing a self-assembled Glock 19 pistol without a serial number. The charge was based on Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3), which prohibits possessing firearms not identified by a serial number. The district court initially dismissed the charge as “unconstitutionally vague” despite the fact that Mr. Vagle was not challenging its constitutionality. The state then appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, leading Vagle to appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
The court stated its decision directly, reversing the decision of the Appeals Court: “Minnesota Statutes section 609.667(3) (2024) criminalizes the possession of a firearm without a serial number only when the firearm must have a serial number under federal law.”
At hand was the vagueness of § 609.667 (which expressly references federal law) and whether the crime alleged is limited to possession under federal law or, alternatively, any firearm that lacks a serial number, even if federal law does not otherwise require one.
In its analysis, the court noted that the only two federal requirements for a firearm to have a serial number stem from the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1934 National Firearms Act.
The court also noted the distinctions in how these acts defined “firearm,” writing:
The National Firearms Act definition is substantially narrower than the definition in the Gun Control Act, meaning that the National Firearms Act covers fewer types of firearms.
Expanding on this, the court stated that many firearms in Minnesota already lack serial numbers:
This distinction is particularly relevant because non-National Firearms Act firearms—like traditional hunting rifles and shotguns—were not required to have engraved serial numbers until 1968, when the Gun Control Act was enacted. To this day, many rifles and other firearms Minnesotans own which were manufactured before 1968 do not have—and are not required to have—serial numbers under federal law.
While the National Firearms Act requires a person who assembles a firearm—even if the person is not engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms—to include a serial number, the Gun Control Act requires only licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers to do so. It does not require serial numbers for privately made firearms that do not qualify as firearms under the NFA definition, a case which applies to Mr. Vagle’s possession of the handgun.
Turning to the Minnesota statute, the court observes:
The state argues that it is a crime under section 609.667(3) to possess a firearm without a serial number even if federal law does not require that the firearm have a serial number….We are not convinced.
The state’s argument is that the gun should have *any* number on it, regardless of how applied, length, or what it references. The court says this is not correct:
Accordingly, we conclude—consistent with Vagle’s argument—that the term “serial number” as used in section 609.667(3) means a serial number required under federal law.
And then it concludes, “What is clear is that the dissent’s interpretation is not required and that Vagle’s conviction under section 609.667(3) for possessing a firearm without a serial number—when none was required under federal law—cannot stand.”
