Non serialized firearms are not "Arms" under the 2A(??)

[Yarome]

Uh boy....

A district court judge in Colorado has made a ruling that non serialized firearms are considered dangerous and unusual (not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes) so the 922k statute (prohibiting possession of a non serialized or obliterated serial number firearm) that was recently ruled as unconstitutional is not in fact unconstitutional in this case since non serialized firearms are not "arms" under the 2A protection.

I kid you not! From the court ruling:

"...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amandment's guarantee."

"In sum, the Court holds that the kinds of firearms 922(k) prohibits are not "Arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and as a consequence Defendant's constitutional challenge to this statutory provision fails."

"Because the Court finds that 922(k) does not impact arms covered by the Second Amendment, it need not take up the separate issue of whether it is in accord with country's history and tradition of regulated firearms."

The full ruling if anyone's interested: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224-0.pdf

Granted the defendant in the case is a sleezeball and deserves to be nailed to the wall, but the judges logic and understanding of the law is deeply troubling.

Even if non serialized firearms were "not" protected, that still doesn't make 922k any more constitutional since the statute was created in the 70's(?) with no historical tradition requiring firearms to be serialized. The statute itself has no provision addressing 2A protected vs. non 2A protected firearms and would be null and void in whole.

That's kind of like saying an assault weapon ban that was thrown out for being unconstitutional is still valid and good law as it applies against NFA items. Isn't it??

His ruling fails, backward, forwards or any which way you look at it.

Read More

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Uh boy....

A district court judge in Colorado has made a ruling that non serialized firearms are considered dangerous and unusual (not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes) so the 922k statute (prohibiting possession of a non serialized or obliterated serial number firearm) that was recently ruled as unconstitutional is not in fact unconstitutional in this case since non serialized firearms are not "arms" under the 2A protection.

I kid you not! From the court ruling:

"...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amandment's guarantee."

"In sum, the Court holds that the kinds of firearms 922(k) prohibits are not "Arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and as a consequence Defendant's constitutional challenge to this statutory provision fails."

"Because the Court finds that 922(k) does not impact arms covered by the Second Amendment, it need not take up the separate issue of whether it is in accord with country's history and tradition of regulated firearms."

The full ruling if anyone's interested: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_22-cr-00224-0.pdf

Granted the defendant in the case is a sleezeball and deserves to be nailed to the wall, but the judges logic and understanding of the law is deeply troubling.

Even if non serialized firearms were "not" protected, that still doesn't make 922k any more constitutional since the statute was created in the 70's(?) with no historical tradition requiring firearms to be serialized. The statute itself has no provision addressing 2A protected vs. non 2A protected firearms and would be null and void in whole.

That's kind of like saying an assault weapon ban that was thrown out for being unconstitutional is still valid and good law as it applies against NFA items. Isn't it??

His ruling fails, backward, forwards or any which way you look at it.

He may be right that they are not common use, I don't know. But that's only the first step. If they aren't common use then gov has the burden of proof to show that there is a history and tradition of similar laws in the 1791 era. There are a whole hell of a lot of judges in this country that really don't know the first thing about 2A laws (Fe immergut in OR and pompous bubblegum Easterby in Illinois).

 

[CamoDeafie]

Who was it that said that "2A means whatever a black robed lawyer or a group of said black robed lawyers say it means"?

 

[Yarome]

Who was it that said that "2A means whatever a black robed lawyer or a group of said black robed lawyers say it means"?

It doesn't, but you have to wonder if that is going to be the new tactic of the left... arguing that so called "ghost guns" are not "firearms" protected by the 2A.

 

[CamoDeafie]

It doesn't, but you have to wonder if that is going to be the new tactic of the left... arguing that so called "ghost guns" are not "firearms" protected by the 2A.

Most likely.

Again. A lot of Judges, Congress people, State officials, local officials, voters... seem to think the 2A really says this

"A well regulated military being necessary for the security of the State/Govt; the right of the State/Govt to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"

And yes, they are clearly "interpreting" things in such a way that it favors the Government

 

[Yarome]

He may be right that they are not common use, I don't know. But that's only the first step. If they aren't common use then gov has the burden of proof to show that there is a history and tradition of similar laws in the 1791 era. There are a whole hell of a lot of judges in this country that really don't know the first thing about 2A laws (Fe immergut in OR and pompous bubblegum Easterby in Illinois).

If 200k stun guns are considered "common use"... the common use test would drown in all the 80% receivers and frames currently possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Ghost guns, ooh scary:

 

[CamoDeafie]

If 200k stun guns are considered "common use"... the common use test would drown in all the 80% receivers and frames currently possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That's only the opinion of Scalia. Caetano did not become a SCOTUS decision; it was basically GVR'd with Scalia's Opinion and the State of Massachusetts dropped all charges thereby making it moot

It has not been used as a doctrine/measure since then for any other arms/"arms".

 

[Yarome]

That's only the opinion of Scalia. Caetano did not become a SCOTUS decision; it was basically GVR'd with Scalia's Opinion and the State of Massachusetts dropped all charges thereby making it moot

It has not been used as a doctrine/measure since then for any other arms/"arms".

Yeah. I realize it's not completely null and void. But the judge seemed to acknowledge it's constitutionality is questionable since he was keen to point out that it did in fact apply since the "arms" in question were not protected by the 2A. Maybe kind of implying that he considered it might not if the arms in question where in fact protected(??)

A lot of reading between the lines.. I know. It's just curious how he "qualified" it's application in this case with a supposed non 2A protected firearm.

 

[Unka-Boo]

Man....I dont even have a law degree and can call BS on that...

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"...the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The court also finds that firearms with an obliterated serial number---like the one Defendant is accused of possessing---are dangerous and unusual weapons and, therefore, not within the scope of the Second Amandment's guarantee."

Your thread says NON serialized, but what he had was an UNserialized firearm and there is a big difference. I have to say I agree, firearms with the serial numbers ground of are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That being said I think he's going butt heads with this one

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded in June.

www.reuters.com

 

[Unka-Boo]

Your thread says NON serialized, but what he had was an UNserialized firearm and there is a big difference. I have to say I agree, firearms with the serial numbers ground of are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That being said I think he's going butt heads with this one

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded in June.

www.reuters.com

I agree with that sentiment, but, how does simply removing a number suddenly make something "dangerous and unusual"?
Say use the "common use" number...was it 200k?...I'd lay odds there are more than that many guns out there with defaced #s. On top of the fact that they weren't required until the '68GCA, soooo would the Bruen test come into play?
Then there is the "it's just silly"...put two identical guns side by side, one with numbers, one without, and lemme know which one is more dangerous.

 

[Hueco]

the court concluded that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not within the class of firearms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes

That's fine. My 80%'s never had serial numbers to begin with.

Can't obliterate what was never there.

 

[Mikej]

That's fine. My 80%'s never had serial numbers to begin with.

Can't obliterate what was never there.

...And many other guns that never got serial numbers. Not obliterated.

 

[Yarome]

Your thread says NON serialized, but what he had was an UNserialized firearm and there is a big difference. I have to say I agree, firearms with the serial numbers ground of are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

That being said I think he's going butt heads with this one

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded in June.

www.reuters.com

I don't necessarily agree. Never had one or had one and it was removed... the end result is the same. A firearm with no identifying serial number. It's just as easy to apply the judges opinion to so called "ghost guns" as it is... what they ALSO call "ghost guns"... firearms with serial numbers removed.

If they are going to lump them together under the same "ghost gun" classification then it would reason that "never serialized" or "removed serialization" are for all intents and purposed the same.

Splitting them only serves to argue that "some" non/un serialized are protected and some are not. That just doesn't fly. A firearm is a firearm is a firearm.

 

[Member 34319]

Are they trying to go after parts kits?

Or is this another attempt at 80%s?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are they trying to go after parts kits?

Or is this another attempt at 80%s?

Yes.

 

[Member 34319]

Are importers even able to get parts kits for things with all the sanctions we seem to have on all the countries out there?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Are importers even able to get parts kits for things with all the sanctions we seem to have on all the countries out there?

Maybe.

 

[Member 34319]

Maybe.

I haven't seen any. Seems like the foreign AK market isn't there? American AKs are all the rage these days, gosh that sounds weird to say.

Unless they are going after all parts being imported, that would make sense. Remove the ability to get inexpensive parts could hurt some companies. Not that I'm really knowledgeable of what companies might be importing parts for use on US made receivers, if that's even a thing. I don't really know the rules and regs on gun manufacturing to what % needs to be American made to qualify as American made.

The more I learn about things "made" in the states the more I'm disappointed to learn that a ton of the product was made elsewhere and essentially "assembled" in the states.