A few weeks ago, I noted that Gun Control Act of 1968 restrictions were in serious trouble, post-BRUEN.
Unconstitutional GCA restrictions are beginning to drop like flies, now that the Supreme Court has put the lower courts on notice that the intermediate scrutiny game doesn’t play anymore.
[…]
“What makes the Second Amendment right second class this time? Where’s the general historical tradition for that, since it never existed prior to 1968?”
Chalk up another one.
Judge Rules Federal Ban on Guns With Removed Serial Numbers Is Unconstitutional
A judge has ruled that a federal law banning guns that have had their serial numbers removed is unconstitutional.
[…]
Serial numbers were first required by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 to allow guns to be traced. They were adopted in an effort to prevent illegal gun sales.
[…]
Goodwin, a nominee of President Bill Clinton, found in his decision that the federal ban on guns with removed serial numbers is not consistent with the United States’ “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”He noted that a firearm without a serial number was not considered more dangerous compared to other firearms in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted. At the time, “serial numbers were not required, or even in common use,” he said, adding that the serial numbers “arose only with the advent of the mass production of firearms,” putting it outside of the “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The GCA only required firearms commercially manufactured after 1968 — nearly two centuries after the founding of the country — to be serialized. The requirement was not retroactively applied to existing firearms, and still does not apply to privately manufactured firearms. That’s hardly a general historical tradition, as Judge Goodwin (a Clinton appointee, no less) correctly noted.
Not that the requirement was even effective at preventing “illegal gun sales” or thefts. A thief wouldn’t care, and defacing a serial number simply exposed him — prior to this ruling — to another piled on charge. A person knowingly making an illegal sale simply ignores the requirement to not deface, preventing its trace back to him.
Of course, with a national “time to crime” of 8.80 years on traced guns, even an unlawful seller of a serialized gun is pretty safe.
The government still has Price on a felon in possession charge, so some might think the prosecutors would just be happy with putting him away for years on that, and not waste time fighting the defaced serial number issue. Victim-disarming control freaks can rest assured that they will challenge this. They can’t afford not to do so.
First, the feds never want to lose a charging tool. Piling on charges is too useful in plea bargaining.
Second, and possibly more importantly, this ruling mucks with the current “ghost gun” narrative.
The term “ghost gun” has been used to vilify privately manufactured firearms (PMF). But showing just how commonly they are used in crime has been tricky. The observant should have noticed that when PMF ban-bunnies start talking about the evils of home builds, they rapidly shift to “unserialized” or “defaced” when it comes to actual numbers. At that point, they’ve established in the minds of the ignorant that “ghost guns” are home-made, but the scary numbers really include PMFs, defaced commercial arms, and pre-1986 firearms that never had or required serial numbers. Conflation is a favorite tool of victim-disarmers (see “assault rifle” v. “assault weapon“).
This ruling, left standing, endangers six pages worth of current federal “ghost gun” legislation. Not too mention future attempts to criminalize historical, lawful activity. The feds can’t have that.
Click here to donate via PayPal. (More Tip Jar Options) |
I am certainly no expert on gun law, but at first glance, this appears to be a much more important ruling than the gun grabbers would like to let on. Without a serial number, how could they prove just when that machine gun receiver was actually made? 1986, or 1987?
Of course, there are other things that could be affected by this, that have yet to come to light. Perhaps the whole 1968 GCA could be tossed. Bruen, the gift that keeps on giving?
Under FOPA, a machinegun had to be registered, not manufactured, by the deadline to be grandfathered. I don’t see this as an immediate help there.
Of course I knew it had to be to easy to be true.
Now that the SCOTUS has given us Bruen, one can only wonder if at some future date, if the Republicans get all three branches of government like they had for 2 years under Trump, will they do anything about the 2nd amendment then? I know that I was more than a bit disgusted, Paul Ryan was no friend of gun owners, but as I live in Michigan, our state Senators are almost always Democrats.
I continue to write to them, but on the 2nd amendment, from Sen. Stabenow, I always get the form letter, how she grew up with guns in the house, had a dad and brothers that hunt, and if a bill comes before her dealing with the 2nd amendment, she will keep my thoughts in mind.
My other senator, Gary Peters, often will write back, or at least one of his aides will write back, with enough knowledge that I know that they at least read my letter, but they basically tell me the same, they will keep my thoughts in mind. And about half the time, they will sort of hint about how they always could use support from their constituents, and I think that if we were face to face, they would hold out their hand.
John James ran against both of them, and I actually gave money to his campaign, something that I usually do not do. But we know that digging out an entrenched incumbent is just about impossible, and they have set things up to keep it that way. The heck of it is, both sides like the status quo, even if they are not in office. Because they know that their time will come, and they want to keep their job once they get it.
I know that a lot of politicians enter the office with good intentions, and the best hearts and a desire to make changes. I also know that they find out in a hurry that if they want to make changes, the chance of getting any decent committee assignments are less than slim. And the likelihood of ever getting any real power or respect are even less, and their time in D.C. will be like losing their virginity-short and sweet.
To stay in congress and to become what is considered an effective legislator, they have to learn to play the game, how to raise funds, not just for themselves, but for the party, and how to make backroom deals, as if they are mobsters. It is a dirty business, and the hell of it is, we can see it, but there is no real way that we can stop it. We see the graft and corruption, that goes along with any financial bill that is passed in the house or senate, the pork that often is more than the actual meat of the bill. And the only one who screams is usually Rand Paul. While others make fun of him, for being such a complainer, or a fuss budget, or what ever the term that they would like to use. Basically they think that he is just looking for publicity, over what is just how things are done. And how congresscritters get rich, while earning less than 200K per year.