Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional

I would think this ruling would also make the argument against "Ghost Guns" moot.

Price argued that the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's June 24 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen. That ruling held that under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot restrict the right to possess firearms unless the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.

Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.

Click to expand...

Bruen could've been real simple, all infringements are unconstitutional

Diablos said:

Bruen could've been real simple, all infringements are unconstitutional

Click to expand...

i don't know if you're aware, but that's a lot like what it was. Turn the clock back to when they wrote "shall not be infringed" and see if your law passes muster (it probably doesn't).

Interesting that licensees may have to put serial numbers on (for now), but the penalty for individuals removing them, or possessing guns that have had them removed, may have gone away. also interesting that WV is in the same district we are...

Bruen is a lot broader than many people thought.

Any law regulating the 2nd amendment is an infringement on that constitutional right of all law abiding citizens.

Walkabout Dan said:

Any law regulating the 2nd amendment is an infringement on that constitutional right of all law abiding citizens.

Click to expand...

Bruen gets mighty close to "shall not be infringed."

Good news for the future of 3D printing. Even then, if everyone who ever made a gun started with serial number “1”, there would be too many guns with that number for it to mean anything.

“Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.”

Doesn’t seem like a very sound argument since most firearms in existence these days were not around in 1791 thus “putting them outside…tradition.”

Joe. said:

“Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.”

Doesn’t seem like a very sound argument since most firearms in existence these days were not around in 1791 thus “putting them outside…tradition.”

Click to expand...

that's a very out of context way of looking at it. have you considered getting a job as a policy writer for moms demand action? they're always up for "creative" interpretations
the intent of the passage is clear that is meant to say that #s were not required at ratification, and not for nearly 200 years... but you have a good point.

Joe. said:

“Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.”

Doesn’t seem like a very sound argument since most firearms in existence these days were not around in 1791 thus “putting them outside…tradition.”

Click to expand...

The argument would be that the requirement beginning in 1968 was unconstitutional.

DrScaryGuy said:

that's a very out of context way of looking at it. have you considered getting a job as a policy writer for moms demand action? they're always up for "creative" interpretations
the intent of the passage is clear that is meant to say that #s were not required at ratification, and not for nearly 200 years... but you have a good point.

Click to expand...

I’m aware of the passage’s intent, but it’s using the same logic that people against AR-style firearms use to poke holes in 2A’s protections. “They only had single-shot muskets at ratification, so high-capacity military-style rifles shouldn’t be covered by 2A,” Just saying…

JimB said:

The argument would be that the requirement beginning in 1968 was unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

OK, when did the AR-15 platform start being widely used by the civilian population? Honest question, I don’t know. I’d assume later than 1968. If so, even more outside tradition than serial number use.

Joe. said:

I’m aware of the passage’s intent, but it’s using the same logic that people against AR-style firearms use to poke holes in 2A’s protections. “They only had single-shot muskets at ratification, so high-capacity military-style rifles shouldn’t be covered by 2A,” Just saying…

Click to expand...

Your logic is flawed. At the time, single shot muskets were state of the art modern military assault weapons. The second amendment was ratified so that the people could keep and bare the state of the art military weapons to keep the government in check. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

So as time passed and weapons evolved, so did the people’s possession of those types of weapons. Therefore the people’s right to keep modern military type weapons has been the tradition since the beginning. Serial numbers and laws regarding the destruction of serial numbers is new when compared to the tradition of the American people possessing firearms.

Average Joe said:

Your logic is flawed. At the time, single shot muskets were state of the art modern military assault weapons. The second amendment was ratified so that the people could keep and bare the state of the art military weapons to keep the government in check. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

So as time passed and weapons evolved, so did the people’s possession of those types of weapons. Therefore the people’s right to keep modern military type weapons has been the tradition since the beginning. Serial numbers and laws regarding the destruction of serial numbers is new when compared to the tradition of the American people possessing firearms.

Click to expand...

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”. As much as you want to equate the two in order to solidify your interpretation of the above case, you can’t…and your logic is flawed.

Joe. said:

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”. As much as you want to equate the two in order to solidify your interpretation of the above case, you can’t…and your logic is flawed.

Click to expand...

If my logic is flawed, let’s stop all other styles and freedoms of speech that is not peaceably assembled in the public square, given verbally or paper printed, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances You know all the emails, phones, texts, tweets, Facebook, and etc. Those methods of speech and communications weren’t around when the 1st amendment was ratified. Yet the courts use my logic and apply it to the 1st, why wouldn’t they apply it to the 2nd?

Joe. said:

“Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.”

Doesn’t seem like a very sound argument since most firearms in existence these days were not around in 1791 thus “putting them outside…tradition.”

Click to expand...

Try reading the relevant Supreme Court decisions and you would not make uninformed assumptions that have already been clearly addressed by the Court.

Joe. said:

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”. As much as you want to equate the two in order to solidify your interpretation of the above case, you can’t…and your logic is flawed.

Click to expand...

But it does say "well regulated militia" which means well equipped in modern parlance.

Please refrain from arguing from a position of ignorance and educate yourself.


There is a small publication that you should also read that will help you understand it based on the founders' own words. Check out The Second Amendment by David Barton. You can buy one from Bond Villain Bezos for six bucks.

Joe. said:

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

“Arms” is a very broad term and I believe it was worded that way intentionally.

Nowhere in Amendment II will you find the words “legitimate sporting purpose”, “arms that can be carried/wielded by a single individual”, “permit”, “tax” or “form”.

The only prohibition to be found in the amendment is in the last four words and it is not meant to restrict the people, but the government. The other rights listed in the BOR come without regulation…you can speak freely or worship as you choose, independent of special permission from the government, so why is it that government believes it has the authority to gut the RTKBA with restrictions, regulations or prohibitions?

Fact is, government has no authority to do so. Have they? Yes and it is a crime against the Constitution and the people.

Some valid points, others I’m not in agreement on. Appreciate the civil dialogue, however. Good evening.

Studentofthegun said:

But it does say "well regulated militia" which means well equipped in modern parlance.

Please refrain from arguing from a position of ignorance and educate yourself.

What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.

reason.com

There is a small publication that you should also read that will help you understand it based on the founders' own words. Check out The Second Amendment by David Barton. You can buy one from Bond Villain Bezos for six bucks.

Click to expand...

If you want to interpret the amendment with additional qualifiers to suit your purposes, that’s your prerogative. But I’ve read and listened to a number of interpretations from “both sides” of the topic that are plausible, but since no living person was in the room at the time, nor is there explanation handed down from person to person, it’s impossible to know for certain what the drafters’ intent was.

Joe. said:

If you want to interpret the amendment with additional qualifiers to suit your purposes, that’s your prerogative. But I’ve read and listened to a number of interpretations from “both sides” of the topic that are plausible, but since no living person was in the room at the time, nor is there explanation handed down from person to person, it’s impossible to know for certain what the drafters’ intent was.

Click to expand...

There’s “no explanation handed down from person to person?”

Well, a long time ago people invented paper and ink. It allowed them to write down their thoughts and hand it down from person to person.

The Federalist Papers are not a collection of Facebook posts. In case you were wondering.

We have tons of writings and correspondence from the founders. Some of those were letters. Some of those were make into things called “books”.

Check one out sometime. They are pretty cool.

Also remember that there were something like 17 amendments drafted by Madison, that only 12 were passed by congress and only 10 ratified by 3/4ths of the states. They were each vigorously debated, and those debates created an ample record of not just what Madison meant when he drafted them, but what federal and state legislators believed they meant when they passed them.

What they meant was arms, weapons. So is the AR15 a weapon, I think we can agree that it is. Can the government restrict possession of an AR15 based on it having or not having a serial number? Little harder question, but I think we would agree that an AR15 without a serial number is still a weapon, so still protected, so no the government can’t restrict posession.

Interesting ruling from the federal court on guns that have had serial numbers removed.

www.reuters.com/legal/ban-guns-with-serial-numbers-removed-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-2022-10-13/

And a link to the actual decision.

www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/content/memorandum-opinion-and-order-27

and that illogical thinking is why the court should have just broken it down barney style

Joe. said:

...it’s impossible to know for certain what the drafters’ intent was.

Click to expand...

Flagged as possible nomination for some kind of Award. 🚩

Perhaps a "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Almost As Stupid As Hillary Award.

Joe. said:

OK, when did the AR-15 platform start being widely used by the civilian population? Honest question, I don’t know. I’d assume later than 1968. If so, even more outside tradition than serial number use.

Click to expand...

Joe. said:

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”. As much as you want to equate the two in order to solidify your interpretation of the above case, you can’t…and your logic is flawed.

Click to expand...

So which is it you are arguing? Or are you arguing both to be obtuse?

Is it modern arms are outside tradition with a narrow focus on arms at the time of the 2A ratification? Or that the broader arms are the definition thereby encompassing everything used as an offensive or defensive arm? The bulk of your arguments tend to lean towards the first and not the second. Until you need to pivot to the second to get a dig in.

BTW, the militia tended to have better, or at least more technologically advanced weaponry than the standing army did. That's what helped win King's Mountain and Cowpens and what wreaked havoc on the British leadership in other battles.

In the end it's pointless here. The ruling is about requiring serial numbers on those arms for tracking them. Not the arms themselves. The arms are constitutionally protected. The serial numbers are not. So sayeth the courts. For now anyway.

There was a huge disconnect between what the FF envisioned, and what actually happened. I am as pro-2A as it gets, just wanting to show none of the arguments in this thread are particularly new in light of the tension between 2A and all the gun control laws that were abundant as the ink was drying.

Several states were big on gun registration precisely because the state had to know who could be called up to serve.

Regardless of those laws or these contemporary laws, I am all for what the 2A says it is.

Walkabout Dan said:

Any law regulating the 2nd amendment is an infringement on that constitutional right of all law abiding citizens.

Click to expand...

Irony. The same people who believe the constitution allows the 2A to be regulated out of existence, also believe that any regulation or limit on abortion, a made up thing, is an unconstitutional infringement.

chiefjason said:

BTW, the militia tended to have better, or at least more technologically advanced weaponry than the standing army did. That's what helped win King's Mountain and Cowpens and what wreaked havoc on the British leadership in other battles.

Click to expand...

and this…

Hypothetically, does this mean we may be looking at a future where one could dremel off all thier serials?

Dale Gribble said:

Fact is, government has no authority to do so. Have they? Yes and it is a crime against the Constitution and the people.

Click to expand...

Serial number issue is small potatoes compared to what the Mid-Atlantic People's republics pull off in denying people's rights. Those locations have also made it clear that they have no intention of complying with the ruling. In other words, there are two ways to influence, reason and force, and the tyrants have taken reason off the table while demonstrating their willingness to use force. The only difference now is that the court decision cements that which we already knew: that their use of force is illegitimate and gun laws are a violation. Use of force, including deadly force, against those entities is thereby justifiable.

Dale Gribble said:

Fact is, government has no authority to do so. Have they? Yes and it is a crime against the Constitution and the people.

Click to expand...

That's the age old de facto vs. de jure problem.
They have force...therefore they don't care about authority until our side resists with sufficient force to make them bow.
In the end this is not about authority...it is about political will.
They have it, and we don't.

Joe. said:

Yeaaah, the amendment says nothing about “state of the art military weapons” 🤣, but simply “arms”. As much as you want to equate the two in order to solidify your interpretation of the above case, you can’t…and your logic is flawed.

Click to expand...

Joe. said:

“Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.”

Doesn’t seem like a very sound argument since most firearms in existence these days were not around in 1791 thus “putting them outside…tradition.”

Click to expand...

Congratulations, you troll so hard and illogically that you’re the first person to make my ignore list in the 6yr this forum has existed.
Frankly, I wish the rest would do the same.

Rowsdower said:

Hypothetically, does this mean we may be looking at a future where one could dremel off all thier serials?

Click to expand...

This is the big question coming out if this ruling.

Another question would be, if this was the case, and people en masse removed their serial numbers from their guns, how many people would still be arrested for this now unconstitutional law in the next year? 1, 1000, 10,000?

Joe. said:

but since no living person was in the room at the time, nor is there explanation handed down from person to person, it’s impossible to know for certain what the drafters’ intent was.

Click to expand...

Either a lame troll attempt, or top 5 most uninformed and ignorant statements to date ever, on the this forum.
I can't make up my mind.

Starkherz199 said:

This is the big question coming out if this ruling.

Another question would be, if this was the case, and people en masse removed their serial numbers from their guns, how many people would still be arrested for this now unconstitutional law in the next year? 1, 1000, 10,000?

Click to expand...

My question is... if the federal judge struck down the SN rule, but it really only applies to this district. If we remove the serial numbers here and travel with the gun to another district, are we protected because we did it in a district where it was legal? i.e. does the whole state-line argument disappear in that instance?

Joe. said:

I’m aware of the passage’s intent, but it’s using the same logic that people against AR-style firearms use to poke holes in 2A’s protections. “They only had single-shot muskets at ratification, so high-capacity military-style rifles shouldn’t be covered by 2A,” Just saying…

Click to expand...

But this is patently false.

They had all kinds of not single shot weapons in the 18th century.

Puckle guns.

The Girandoni Air Rifle (1779) that was a .46 caliber, semi automatic rifle with a 20-21 round magazine.

All you’re “Just saying” is ill informed nonsense that is not supported by fact.

DrScaryGuy said:

My question is... if the federal judge struck down the SN rule, but it really only applies to this district. If we remove the serial numbers here and travel with the gun to another district, are we protected because we did it in a district where it was legal? i.e. does the whole state-line argument disappear in that instance?

Click to expand...

The short answer is NO.

Page 4 of the ruling cites the law:

18 U.S.C. § 922(k) states, in pertinent part,
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport . . . in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess . . . any firearm which has had the importer’s or manufacturer’s serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Click to expand...

First, even if you lived in the Southern District of West Virginia and removed firearms serial numbers, you would be in a world of trouble if the judge's ruling was reversed.

Second, note that the law makes it illegal to transport or possess a firearm without a serial number; even though the law may not currently be enforceable in the Southern District of West Virginia, it most certainly is enforceable in other Districts of the 4th Circuit, as well as all other Circuit Courts of Appeal.

SPM said:

But this is patently false.

They had all kinds of not single shot weapons in the 18th century.

Puckle guns.

The Girandoni Air Rifle (1779) that was a .46 caliber, semi automatic rifle with a 20-21 round magazine.

All you’re “Just saying” is ill informed nonsense that is not supported by fact.

Click to expand...

Don't be so anxious to tell someone that they're wrong that you don't actually read the entire post. I didn't say that was *MY* argument, rather that it's the argument made by the staunch anti-2A crowd. But thank you for those two examples of multi-round guns-- interesting technology for those times.