No State Serial-Number Crime for Ghost Guns Absent a Federal Mandate: Minnesota Supreme Court Limits Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3) to Firearms Requiring Serial Numbers Under Federal Law

Introduction

In State of Minnesota v. Logan Hunter Vagle, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed whether the state crime of possessing a firearm “not identified by a serial number” (Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3)) applies to any unserialized firearm, or only to firearms that federal law requires to bear a serial number. The case arose from a traffic incident in which the defendant was found with a self-assembled Glock 19 pistol lacking a serial number—a “ghost gun” or privately made firearm (PMF). Minnesota has no independent serialization regime for firearms; federal law does not generally require private makers of non–National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms to serialize their guns.

The key issue was statutory: what does “serial number” mean in § 609.667(3)? The State argued the term is broad and unqualified; the defense argued it must be read in the context of federal law. The Court sided with the defense, holding that § 609.667(3) criminalizes possession of an unserialized firearm only when federal law requires serialization of that firearm.

The decision reverses the court of appeals, rejects a sweeping application of § 609.667(3) to all unserialized guns, and returns the matter to the district court for further proceedings on an unrelated permit-to-carry count. Chief Justice Hudson dissented, joined by Justice Procaccini. Justice Gaïtas took no part.

Summary of the Opinion

Holding: Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3) applies only when federal law requires a firearm to have a serial number. If federal law imposes no serialization requirement for the firearm possessed, § 609.667(3) is not violated.
Application: The defendant’s self-assembled Glock 19 (a non-NFA PMF acquired and assembled in 2021) was not required by federal law to bear a serial number. The charge under § 609.667(3) therefore fails as a matter of law.
Method: The Court resolved the case via statutory interpretation and declined to reach the alternative constitutional vagueness arguments (constitutional avoidance).
Disposition: Reversed and remanded (the permit-to-carry count was unaffected and remains for further proceedings).

Background and Procedural Posture

After a rollover crash, a trooper found an AR-style magazine and, during a search, a 9mm Glock 19 pistol with no serial number. The State charged Vagle with (1) possession of a firearm not identified by a serial number, Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3), and (2) carrying a pistol without a permit, Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1a. The district court dismissed the serial-number count, sua sponte deeming § 609.667 unconstitutional as applied. The State appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding § 609.667(3) applies to any firearm lacking a serial number. The Supreme Court granted review.

Because the State brought a pretrial appeal, it had to show “critical impact” and error. The Court noted that the dismissal critically impacted prosecution and reached the merits. The Court also granted Vagle’s motion to strike a late-raised constitutional argument (raised only in a footnote in the State’s responsive brief, without an opportunity for reply in this pretrial posture).

Statutory and Federal Framework

Minn. Stat. § 609.667 sets out three firearm-serialization crimes:

(1) Altering or removing “the serial number or other identification of a firearm;”
(2) Receiving/possessing a firearm whose “serial number or other identification” has been altered or removed; and
(3) Receiving/possessing a firearm “that is not identified by a serial number.”

The statute defines “serial number or other identification” by explicit reference to 26 U.S.C. § 5842 (the NFA marking requirement). Notably, clause (3) uses only “serial number” (no “other identification”) and contains no explicit cross-reference.

Federal law provides two relevant serialization regimes:

NFA (26 U.S.C. § 5842): “Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm” (i.e., NFA firearms such as machineguns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”) must mark the firearm with a serial number and other information. NFA firearms are registered in the NFRTR (26 U.S.C. § 5841).
Gun Control Act (GCA) (18 U.S.C. § 923(i)): Licensed manufacturers and importers must mark each firearm they make or import with a serial number. Nonlicensees who privately make non-NFA firearms are not required by the GCA to serialize those guns. Under 27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(2), however, federal firearms licensees (FFLs) who acquire a PMF must serialize it.

In 2022, ATF promulgated rules covering weapon parts kits commonly used to assemble PMFs; in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld those rules (Bondi v. VanDerStok), but they primarily impose obligations on licensees, not private individuals who make non-NFA PMFs for personal use.

Legal Reasoning

1) Text and Context: “Serial number” means the federal serialization obligation

The Court concludes that the term “serial number” in § 609.667(3) carries a specialized, technical meaning informed by the broader federal firearms-serialization scheme that Minnesota referenced and paralleled when the statute was enacted in 1994. Because Minnesota has no independent serial-number program, an ordinary-language reading (“any number used for identification”) would be unmoored from any actual identification infrastructure and would allow anyone to avoid criminality by simply marking a random, non-traceable number on a firearm.

Placing the term in context, the Court reasons that “serial number” in clause (3) refers to the federal serialization that creates a meaningful tracing function. That reading aligns with the statute’s structure and purpose—enabling identification and traceability of firearms—while avoiding absurd or impractical outcomes (e.g., prosecution-proof compliance via a felt-tip marker).

2) Reading the three clauses together

The Court offers two harmonious ways to reconcile the differences among clauses (1), (2), and (3):

Clause (1) and (2) focus on NFA firearms by using the defined phrase “serial number or other identification” expressly tied to 26 U.S.C. § 5842. Clause (3) broadly covers firearms that must have serial numbers under either the NFA or the GCA—i.e., firearms for which federal law imposes a serialization duty—if such a firearm is not identified by a serial number at all.
Alternatively, the Legislature included “other identification” (city, state, maker’s name, model, caliber) for clauses (1) and (2) because that phrase needs the NFA cross-reference to have content, whereas clause (3) addresses absence of a “serial number” only (not other markings) and still refers to the federal serialization concept.

Under either view, clause (3) is not a free-standing state serialization mandate untethered to federal law; it applies only where federal law requires the firearm to bear a serial number in the first place.

3) Legislative history confirms a federal tether

Committee testimony in 1994—by the bill’s House author and a Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agent—indicated the bill’s purpose was to give Minnesota prosecutors state-law tools to enforce federal serial-number rules and not to criminalize transfers of pre-1968 unserialized guns. That history supports the conclusion that § 609.667(3) was meant to track federal requirements, not to impose a broader Minnesota-only mandate.

4) Practical consequences and reliance

The Court underscores the real-world consequences of the State’s reading: many lawful Minnesota owners possess pre-1968 long guns without serial numbers; the State itself has auctioned such firearms. A statutory construction that criminalizes widespread, longstanding conduct without clear legislative instruction is disfavored, particularly in the criminal context (see Staples v. United States). The Court also rejects reliance on prosecutorial discretion as a safety valve.

5) Constitutional avoidance

Because the case is resolved on statutory grounds, the Court does not reach the as-applied vagueness challenge to § 609.667(3).

The Dissent

Chief Justice Hudson reads § 609.667(3) as unambiguous. In her view:

The interpretive clause defines “serial number or other identification” (used in clauses (1) and (2)) by reference to federal law, but clause (3) uses only “serial number” and thus should receive its ordinary meaning: any number used to identify an item.
Dictionary definitions suffice; “serial number” is a common, nontechnical term and should not be given a specialized meaning.
Even without a central registry, serial numbers aid law enforcement—e.g., when licensees or subsequent possessors record the number. The Attorney General’s rulemaking record recognizes that even voluntary serial numbers can assist tracing.
Because the statute is clear, legislative history should not be consulted; the majority’s policy worries are for the Legislature, not the courts.
The majority’s approach leaves NFA-related edge cases in uncertainty (e.g., unserviceable NFA firearms or certain antiques/curios), and it risks placing law-abiding owners in difficult compliance terrain.

Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Significance

State v. Bee (Minn. 2025): Standard de novo review; apply the plain meaning when the text is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation. The Court uses Bee to frame its textual analysis.
State v. Bradley (Minn. 2024): Technical-meaning canon (Minn. Stat. § 645.08(1)). The Court analogizes: like “degree” in criminal statutes, “serial number” here carries a technical meaning within a specialized statutory context.
State v. Scovel (Minn. 2018): Courts may set aside dictionary definitions that do not fit statutory context. Supports the majority’s rejection of a purely generic definition of “serial number.”
State v. Thompson (Minn. 2020): Context can permit overlapping terms within one statute. Supports the majority’s harmonization of clauses (1)-(3).
Wocelka v. State (Minn. 2024): If more than one reasonable interpretation exists, courts may consult non-textual clues (like legislative history). The majority uses this as a fallback.
In re Senty-Haugen (Minn. 1998): Constitutional avoidance; decide cases on nonconstitutional grounds where possible. Explains why the Court stops after statutory interpretation.
State v. Serbus (Minn. 2021): “Consequences of interpretation” canon; supports caution about sweeping constructions that criminalize widespread conduct. Also cited on “critical impact” for state appeals.
Staples v. United States (U.S. 1994): In the criminal context, courts avoid reading statutes to criminalize common conduct or discard mens rea without clear congressional direction; invoked by the Court to counsel caution.
United States v. Biswell (U.S. 1972): Federal firearms regulation’s significance; backdrop showing the technical federal scheme Minnesota paralleled in 1994.
United States v. Stevens (U.S. 2010), Olson v. One 1999 Lexus (Minn. 2019): Courts should not uphold statutes based on promises of careful enforcement; prosecutorial discretion is no substitute for clear law.
Bondi v. VanDerStok (U.S. 2025): Upholds ATF’s 2022 rules requiring serialization in certain contexts for weapon parts kits and PMFs, largely affecting licensees. Shows the contemporary federal regulatory environment the state Court considered.
State v. Barrett (Minn. 2005), State v. Myhre (Minn. 2016), Minn. R. Crim. P. 28.04 and 29.04: Appellate posture and procedural rules (critical impact; cross-petition and grounds a respondent may argue). Relevant to the Court’s treatment of the motion to strike and scope of issues on review.

Impact and Practical Implications

A. What prosecutors must now prove under § 609.667(3)

After Vagle, a charge under § 609.667(3) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that:

The defendant received or possessed a “firearm,” and
That firearm was “not identified by a serial number,” and
Federal law required that firearm to bear a serial number.

This third element is the new, decisive limitation. It will typically be met in two situations:

NFA firearms made, imported, or possessed in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5842 (e.g., a privately made short-barreled rifle without markings); and
Potentially, non-NFA firearms required to be serialized under the GCA at manufacture or import but that in fact never received a serial number (rare in practice; more commonly, such guns had serial numbers that were later obliterated—making clause (2), not clause (3), applicable).

B. Ghost guns in Minnesota

Privately made, non-NFA firearms: Simple possession of an unserialized PMF is not a crime under § 609.667(3), unless some separate federal requirement applies (e.g., the PMF is itself an NFA firearm).
FFLs and PMFs: Federal rules require an FFL who acquires a PMF to serialize it within a defined period. That licensee obligation does not itself criminalize a private possessor under § 609.667(3).

C. Pre-1968 long guns (non-NFA)

These firearms often lack serial numbers and were never required to have them. Vagle confirms that mere possession of such firearms is not criminalized by § 609.667(3).

D. Clause (2) remains fully operative

Nothing in Vagle narrows § 609.667(2): it remains a felony to receive or possess a firearm whose serial number (or other identification for NFA firearms) “has been obliterated, removed, changed, or altered.” That covers GCA-serialized guns with defaced markings and NFA firearms with altered statutory markings.

E. Charging alternatives

Other Minnesota offenses may still apply depending on facts—e.g., being a prohibited person (Minn. Stat. § 624.713), carrying without a permit (Minn. Stat. § 624.714), possessing machine guns or short-barreled long guns (Minn. Stat. § 609.67), or receiving stolen property.
Federal crimes remain available in appropriate cases (e.g., possession of an unregistered NFA firearm, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)).

F. Legislative path forward

The Court flags that many states enacted independent serialization regimes that directly address ghost guns (e.g., California, Connecticut, Colorado). Minnesota considered, but did not enact, a ghost-gun bill in 2023. Vagle places the policy choice squarely with the Legislature: if Minnesota wishes to require serialization of non-NFA PMFs (or frames/receivers), it can adopt an explicit state regime.

G. Retroactivity and pending cases

As a decision of statutory interpretation, Vagle applies to pending and future cases. Defendants with pending § 609.667(3) charges involving non-NFA PMFs or pre-1968 firearms may seek dismissal based on Vagle.
Past convictions might be subject to collateral review depending on posture and timelines; courts will assess those issues under Minnesota postconviction standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ghost gun / PMF: A firearm privately made (often from kits or unfinished frames/receivers) that lacks a manufacturer’s serial number.
NFA firearm: A limited class including machineguns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons.” These must be marked by “anyone making” them, and registered in the NFRTR.
GCA firearms: A broader category including most common pistols and long guns. Licensed manufacturers/importers must serialize firearms they produce/import. Private individuals who make non-NFA firearms for personal use are not federally required to serialize them.
“Serial number or other identification”: The NFA’s required set of markings—serial number plus maker/importer/ location, model, and caliber/gauge. Minnesota’s statute incorporates this set for clauses (1) and (2).
Clause (3)’s “serial number”: Post-Vagle, this means a serial number that federal law requires a given firearm to bear. Absent that federal requirement, Minnesota’s § 609.667(3) does not criminalize possession of an unserialized firearm.
“Critical impact” (State pretrial appeals): The State may bring a pretrial appeal only if the order significantly impairs its ability to prosecute and the order was erroneous. Dismissal of a count ordinarily satisfies “critical impact.”
Constitutional avoidance: Courts avoid deciding constitutional questions when a case can be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds, such as statutory interpretation.

Why the Court’s Approach Matters

Clarity for owners: Lawful possession of pre-1968 non-NFA firearms and non-NFA PMFs without serial numbers is not criminalized by § 609.667(3).
Clarity for law enforcement and prosecutors: When charging clause (3), the State must prove the firearm fell within a federal serialization requirement. For NFA firearms, this is straightforward; for non-NFA firearms, the path is narrower or overlaps with clause (2) (obliteration).
Respect for legislative primacy: The Court underscores that statewide ghost-gun policy is the Legislature’s prerogative. The Court’s role is to interpret—not expand—the statute enacted.
Consistency with reliance interests: The reading avoids unexpectedly criminalizing longstanding, widespread conduct, including state practices (e.g., DNR auctions of unserialized pre-1968 firearms).

Key Takeaways

New rule of law: “Serial number” in Minn. Stat. § 609.667(3) refers to federal serialization requirements; the statute does not impose an independent state serialization duty for all firearms.
Ghost guns: Mere possession of a non-NFA PMF lacking a serial number is not chargeable under § 609.667(3) unless federal law requires that PMF to be serialized (e.g., because it is an NFA firearm).
Obliteration remains a crime: If a serialized firearm’s markings are removed or altered, § 609.667(2) applies regardless of whether the firearm is an NFA gun.
Legislative invitation: If Minnesota wishes to regulate PMFs more broadly, it must enact a state serialization framework.