News report

4

44 AMP

Staff
(Reuters) -A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional,...
Click to expand...

I am of two minds about this, first, I am pleased by any reduction of the BS parts of gun control laws, but I am concerned about the point used here.

What worries me is that "general" reporting not pointing out valid portions of arguments will fuel a strong backlash and effective end the possibility of rational relief from the "bad" parts of the law.

As I see it, the govt is within its bounds requiring serial numbers (and grandfathering guns made before that was a requirement). I feel that the govt is also within its lawful authority making defacement or removal of serial numbers a crime.

What I have never agreed with, and feel should be changed is the part that says mere possession of a gun with a removed number is a criminal offense, and the gun is contraband and must be surrendered to the state. I'd even be ok with the defaced gun being surrendered, so long as the possessor wasn't charged with illegal possession, IF that person was NOT the person who defaced the serial number.

Law abiding citizens do sometimes come into possession of defaced firearms through entirely legal means, and I feel, in those cases, those people should not be charged with criminal possession.

Thoughts?
 
Z

zukiphile

New member
I find no fault with the reasoning or the result.

Where the government has the power to require that an arm I purchased have a serial number, it has imposed in a few ways. My ownership is attenuated if I am not allowed to shorten the barrel or otherwise modify it. (I've seen a S&W revolver in which the serial number engraved across the butt was partly obliterated by installation of a lanyard loop.)

If the purpose of the 1968 GCA in this respect was to prevent illegal gun sales, i.e. to disqualified individuals, just having a serial number on the thing I wasn't supposed to have my hands on didn't prevent me from getting it, making it extra double criminal to illegally possess or transport an item with the number removed doesn't do anything more than provide a prosecutor an additional charge. It's the "no seatbelt" ticket you get with a speeding ticket.

I'm sure that having numbers and chemical markers in all sorts of things would make prosecution of all sorts of things easier. The government shouldn't make its job my problem.


The Corporate Transparency Act is going to become effective soon. It requires federal reporting by small business entities designed to limit civil liability. Even minority owners will be required to report state DL, passport and SS numbers. When I was a lad, I opened a savings account with my name and address. Now banks are quite a bit nosier.

I've never been personally inconvenienced by the serial number on a firearm or vehicle, but having a number tied to everything seems like the modern version of papieren bitte.

If the federal government can't do that with arms because that 1968 innovation lacked an historical basis, I will be pleased.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
If this ruling isn't overturned on appeal, it's going to make life awfully difficult for those states that have enacted "ghost gun" laws that require serial numbers on unfinished frames and receivers, and require that said unfinished frames and receivers be transferred through FFLs -- just as if they were already firearms.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
Here's the decision. Basically, any semblance of "intermediate" scrutiny or ends/means analysis is out the window.

Taking those instructions together, the crux of the historical inquiry is to determine the understanding of the right at the time it was enshrined in the Constitution. Any modern regulation that does not comport with the historical understanding of the right is to be deemed unconstitutional, regardless of how desirable or important that regulation may be in our modern society
Click to expand...
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Malicious compliance on the part of the judge?
Click to expand...

This (sad) thought had not occurred to me, until you brought it up, but the more I look at this, the more plausible it becomes.

Now I am wondering if some judges will be declaring everything else not written down and approved in 1791 as "unconstitutional".

This could very well be the tactic of taking the argument to ridiculous extreme in order to make their point. One sees this often when discussing citizen's right to arms, with the opposing side jumping immediately to nuclear weapons...

guess we'll see what their true intent turns out to be...
 
M

Metal god

New member
As I see it, the govt is within its bounds requiring serial numbers (and grandfathering guns made before that was a requirement).
Click to expand...

I completely disagree as written . My understanding is that when a citizen makes there own firearm for personal use there is no need or requirement for a serial number and why would there be ? If so... then what ? Ok I put 12345 on my home built firearm and what exactly does that do for anything . Are we saying we have to place a serial # on a home built firearm and then be required to register said firearm with a government agency ? If not then why put numbers on it in the first place ?

Manufacturing firearms for sale is a different story IMO .

This goes back to several other arguments on placing a burden on the citizen for a crime that has not been committed . yes / no ?
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Manufacturing firearms for sale is a different story IMO .
Click to expand...

Manufacturing for sale is what I was referring to.

As I understand it, FEDERAL law is still currently ok with you not putting a serial number on a gun that you make, for your own personal use. They recommend you do, but its not a requirement.

HOWEVER, if you later sell that gun, then a serial number IS required, along with some other information.

Serial numbers on commercial guns became required by the 1968 GCA. Gunmakers had been putting serial numbers on SOME guns for over a century, at that time, but not on ALL guns. Many budget guns (mostly .22 rifles and shotguns, though not exclusively) did not have serial numbers until after the 68 law.
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
OK, have just finished the decision provided by Tom Servo's link (thank you, Tom), and find the decision rational, and well argued though with a specific scope and from the point of view of a judge (of course) concerned with following proper legal procedures and processes as required by recent Supreme Court rulings.

Essentially he ruled on two points brought in the case before him, which was a felon in possession of a firearm which had the serial number removed/defaced.

There were two charges, felon in possession, and possession of a firearm which had the serial number removed/defaced.

He ruled the first charge sustained and the second he dismissed as unconstitutional, stating that under the "Bruen" ruling, the govt did not prove their case through lack of providing sufficient evidence to show the law prohibiting possession was constitutional.

He also made a point of how, under the new ruling, he, as a judge is no longer allowed to consider the benefit to public safety and the govt interest unless supporting historical evidence is provided.

seems like he wasn't happy with what he was "forced" to rule....but I might be wrong about that... :rolleyes:
 
P

Paul B.

New member
I have a Husqvarna Mauser in 30-06. It has a serial number on the barrel. If I remove the barrel and replace it with, say a barrel with a 7x57 chamber, no crime has been committed. I've always wondered about Husqvarna"s reasoning on numbering the barrel but not the receiver????

I have several FN Mauser rifles mostly J.C. Higgins M50s, yet one has no serial number and is a genuine Sears rifle using that FN action.

Interesting thought. Couldn't that judge's decision go a long way toward arguments dismantling the NFA34, GCA68 and FOPA86?

I know, wishful thinking. :rolleyes:
Paul B.
 
Last edited:
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Paul B said:
Interesting thought. Couldn't that judge's decision go a long way toward arguments dismantling the NFA34, GCA68 and FOPA86?
Click to expand...
Probably not very far at all.

I'm not a lawyer, so if this is wrong I hope one of the actual attorneys on the forum will correct me. This was a decision by a single, federal, district court judge. That's the lowest level of the federal courts. Decisions don't become binding precedent unless issued by a circuit court of appeals. Even then, a decision is only binding within that circuit. It not a national precedent unless it comes from the Supreme Court.

A district court decision such as this can be cited as a "persuasive authority," but it's up to the judge trying your case whether or not he finds your "persuasive authority" to be persuasive.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/persuasive_authority
 
S

Skans

Active member
Do baseball bats or swords require serial numbered parts? I am not for ANY more government laws concerning guns. Every time a gun law is passed, gun owners who commit no crimes at all get screwed.
 
D

DaleA

New member
And, even worse, the people who do commit crimes, aren't [punished]
Click to expand...

Especially not in the Twin Cities. I posted this once before but it still riles me up so much I'm posting it again.

A twenty year old guy uses a handgun and fires three rounds into a car with people in it and is sentenced to:
FOUR MONTHS
and that's four months house arrest or work release---this person is NOT 'off the streets'.

Ramsey County Judge Joy D. Bartscher handed down that sentence in June 2022.

You can read about it here:
https://www.kare11.com/article/news...rison/89-58b1c68c-c1f3-4bc8-9a6f-f483367bd493

or here:

https://theminnesotasun.com/2022/06...hot-at-car-with-kids-inside-gets-four-months/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top