What Do I Do With This One?

[Tyke8319]

No other marks. There is a an area on the frame that looks to have been polished where I suspect the original maker's name was.

Funny thing, the work wasn't fancy at all. It was just block letters like the original Colts. It looks like the guy was trying to make it look like a Colt rather than taking some liberties as a part of fancy engravings. I didn't know the guy and can't guess his motives. Maybe he just liked Colts...

It was so well done I thought it might have actually been a Colt but the SN doesn't show up in the Colt database and the work was almost too good. Sharp edges, that kind of thing.

During the Nam era the Filipinos were notorious for all sorts of changes and modifications and and making "knock-offs" of existing firearms. Could be one of those.
You might get some hint by any markings on internal parts. Check under the scales (grips) for markings.

[Nardo1895]

You might get some hint by any markings on internal parts. Check under the scales (grips) for markings.

I don't currently have possession but I will disassemble and check. Does any of that affect its legal status? I want to do the right thing but would hate to turn over a firearm it that wasn't necessary.

[Tyke8319]

Federal law requires that all (as of the 1968 Gun Control Act) firearms have a unique serial number. If you cannot find one on that pistol...there may be a problem. And that, you'd have to discuss with ATF. Might want to do that ahead of time so you know what your options are.

[Tyke8319]

Federal law requires that all (as of the 1968 Gun Control Act) firearms have a unique serial number. If you cannot find one on that pistol...there may be a problem. And that, you'd have to discuss with ATF. Might want to do that ahead of time so you know what your options are.

I should have said...manufactured after that date...

The law goes into more depth than that and it would be good to make yourself aware of its contents.

[Nardo1895]

The firearm has a serial number which I believe to be original. Its the manufacturer name that I believe was changed.

I am pretty sure its post 1968 but not sure that matters since it has a SN.

[GunEnthusiast1]

CA has some terrible laws. This is already illegal under general trademark laws. There's no need for the state to butt into these matters except to the extent necessary for some compelling state interest.

Assuming the law (23900 and what follows) went into effect after the late husband had already altered the marks, it's just a misdemeanor (section 23920) for possession by the widow (unless she disposes of it according to section 23925). Penal Code 23900 doesn't apply due to the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

edit: Actually, she's probably not even liable for the misdemeanor because the liability in section 23920 requires the person to have "knowledge of any change ... [to have] in possession... [the firearm]." Does she even know her late husband altered the maker's name? If she doesn't know (doesn't have "knowledge of any change") then the liability doesn't exist.

[Tyke8319]

CA has some terrible laws. This is already illegal under general trademark laws. There's no need for the state to butt into these matters except to the extent necessary for some compelling state interest.

Assuming the law (23900 and what follows) went into effect after the late husband had already altered the marks, it's just a misdemeanor (section 23920) for possession by the widow (unless she disposes of it according to section 23925). Penal Code 23900 doesn't apply due to the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

edit: Actually, she's probably not even liable for the misdemeanor because the liability in section 23920 requires the person to have "knowledge of any change ... [to have] in possession... [the firearm]." Does she even know her late husband altered the maker's name? If she doesn't know (doesn't have "knowledge of any change") then the liability doesn't exist.

And now the OP has "received" it and has "knowledge" and "constructive possession"...

[GunEnthusiast1]

"constructive possession"...

This is actual possession (the firearms are physically in the OP's custody). "Constructive possession" is a sort of legal fiction where you could be deemed to legally "possess" something despite not having physical possession of the items. Edit: agreeing with you that OP could possibly be committing a misdemeanor according to the law.

This is a ****ty law that is completely unconstitutional because it violates the "Takings" Clause. The firearms were legal one day, and then illegal the next day. The law forces a forfeiture of the firearms without any compensation to the widow.

Confiscating firearms because someone marked up the firearm? That's ridiculous.

Just as a reminder, the "large capacity magazines" (i.e., normal capacity magazines in any free state), was also deemed a "taking" by Judge Benitez.

[71MUSTY]

During the Nam era the Filipinos were notorious for all sorts of changes and modifications and and making "knock-offs" of existing firearms. Could be one of those.
You might get some hint by any markings on internal parts. Check under the scales (grips) for markings.

I watched a video where a Pilipino made a 1911 knock off from a block of Aluminum all by hand. Apparently he has been making them for years.

Found it

[GunEnthusiast1]

...