Is there a limit to how much a handgun receiver/frame can be modified

[SoldierLife7]

The ATF has guidelines on how to destroy a firearm. However, I can't see where their guidelines are codified or based on statute, regulation, or case law.

As for removing material around the markings thereby removing the serial in violation of fed law/CA PC, if we're to argue that it's the same, then there must be a threshold of when an amount or location of material removed constitutes that point. That doesn't appear to be codified. I would argue that simply removing a serial number from an otherwise operable arm would be a clear violation.

Where's the law that says you cannot reconstruct/construct a destroyed firearm? And defines a destroyed firearm?

The critical elements of firearms sales/DROS is rifle/shotgun or pistol. I'd agree that converting a long gun to handgun or vice versa would not be permitted. However, people modify their guns and sometimes the frames to be things that don't resemble the original at all. Different calibers, magwell flares, removed locks/LCIs, frame serrations/stippling, aftermarket rails, holes/tapping.

I don't think there'd be any issue modifying the grip area on a typical semi- pistol to be large enough to accept a magazine and related changes to accept 357 magnum. So building a the gun into something other than the original manufacturer isn't an issue. If you modify the frame in ANY way, you've made something the manufacturer never intended, it could be something as simple as a hole and related changes to make a mag release left handed.

You mention a jury, the prosecutor would need have charges in the case. What those potential charges are is what I'm interested in.

I think removal of the markings fed/pc law can be worked around (Potential options, grind material TO markings, attach billet to an otherwise unaltered frame, don't remove enough material to be considered destroyed). I don't think there's any law that prevents constructing/reconstructing of a destroyed firearm, and there is no law to my knowledge that prevents using a frame to make something other than what the manufacturer intended a specific serial number to be (other than long gun/handgun conversions).

The ATF is pretty clear in defining what constitutes a firearm. It also defines what constitutes destroying a firearm. What you are suggesting would by definition destroy the firearm making the serial number and markings irrelevant and NOT altering a firearm(because it would no longer be a firearm).

You would actually be destroying the firearm, and then manufacturing a new one and sticking a/the serial number on the new one. You would then (as a manufacturer) have to add YOUR information as the manufacturer and would have two sets of manufacturers information on the firearm...

I will say it again, if you grind away all the material except markings, you WILL by ATF definition DESTROY the firearm.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-properly-destroy-firearms

The serial number would have nothing to do with the destroyed firearm and everything to do with the newly manufactured gun.

If you want to see more about the laws concerning what you are suggesting, I would suggest looking at the laws that reference manufacturing firearms from 80% receivers.

I understand the concept of your argument, but I do not think you have a rational standing.

[Fizz]

The ATF is pretty clear in defining what constitutes a firearm. It also defines what constitutes destroying a firearm. What you are suggesting would by definition destroy the firearm making the serial number and markings irrelevant and NOT altering a firearm(because it would no longer be a firearm).

You would actually be destroying the firearm, and then manufacturing a new one and sticking a/the serial number on the new one. You would then (as a manufacturer) have to add YOUR information as the manufacturer and would have two sets of manufacturers information on the firearm...

I will say it again, if you grind away all the material except markings, you WILL by ATF definition DESTROY the firearm.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-properly-destroy-firearms

The serial number would have nothing to do with the destroyed firearm and everything to do with the newly manufactured gun.

If you want to see more about the laws concerning what you are suggesting, I would suggest looking at the laws that reference manufacturing firearms from 80% receivers.

I understand the concept of your argument, but I do not think you have a rational standing.

ATF "Guidelines" are not law or regulation. If you'll notice, they cite NOTHING.

Unless it's codified or there's case law interpreting statute their guidelines have no bearing on whether an act is legal/illegal.

[SoldierLife7]

ATF "Guidelines" are not law or regulation. If you'll notice, they cite NOTHING.

Unless it's codified or there's case law interpreting statute their guidelines have no bearing on whether an act is legal/illegal.

[champu]

Where's the law that says you cannot reconstruct/construct a destroyed firearm? And defines a destroyed firearm?

[Cokebottle]

So a stipple job on a Glock that erases the "Glock" logo on the handle is illegal? I guess you learn something every day.

Can I deface the slide where is says Glock, model and caliber?

Those actions would not be a problem.
You can not remove, deface, or conceal the serial number plate.
That would include, as the original post described, "cut out any frame parts with a serial number and weld anything to it", which is implying the possibility of cutting away everything BUT the serial number plate and attaching it to a different frame.
It's the same as removing the VIN from a vehicle and moving it to another vehicle. It's not legal.

[Cokebottle]

Think of it like a VW bug-based sandrail. The frame is what makes it a VW for legal purposes, you can twist the frame or hack it up and it's still a VW as long as you keep the VIN portions intact. Doesn't matter if you cut up the frame and turned it into a pickup truck, you would still register, insure and title it as a 19XX VW.

Actually, you can't.
People do it all the time, but it is not legal.

[ccw-g30]

It's a bad idea.

Waiting for the OP's next "But if I..." post. The question has been asked and answered. Let it die.

[Fizz]

Waiting for the OP's next "But if I..." post. The question has been asked and answered. Let it die.

You want it to die but bump the thread. Anyway, there's a mark lack of citation here. With exception to Quiet's cites and an anecdote about MGs (that I can't find to research further), most people here seem to be arguing how they feel about it VS what the statute, regulation and case law state.

I've proffered ways around the marking removal issue and yes it's been adapted as points have been made.

Though, if you're done, I'm not sure why you'd even start.

[jimbo74]

And there isn't an anti vw lobby in CA trying to take your sandrail away......