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

[solv3nt]

Hence... the absolute lunacy in the judges "learned" opinion. A serial number does not change the characterists of the firearm. It does not make it more lethal, convert it into something else or affect how it operates in any way.

What he's basically doing is trying to bastardize the common use test. Firearms without serial numbers are not commonly owned so the 2A doesn't apply. Well... neither are pink hello kitty painted AR's. So???? You going to go tell @solv3nt his rifle is illegal and must be surrendered to the alphabets??

Good luck with that.

What rifle? All of my rifles were lost in a boating accident.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The DF obviously has NO IDEA how many completed 80% lowers are out there…….

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The ruling was about obliterated serial numbers

80% lowers for the most part never had a SN, and last I heard outside of quantum physics, you can't get rid of something that never existed

ob·lit·er·ate
verb
past tense: obliterated; past participle: obliterated

1. destroy utterly; wipe out.
   "the memory was so painful that he obliterated it from his mind"
2. cause to become invisible or indistinct; blotout.
   

 

[CamoDeafie]

The argument is basically saying that obliterated serial number guns ARE a class of firearm. There don't seem to be any formal classes of firearms defined by law (cowboy gun, sniper rifle, hunting rifle), so saying that a grouping of guns is defined by how they have been modified is no less valid.

Except... Heller did in fact talk about semiautomatic handguns. The NFA also talks about classes of firearms by their physical characteristics, not by the presence nor absence of serial numbers.

Firearms outside the NFA were not required to have unique Serial numbers until 1968, and even the ATF have said homemade guns are exempt unless being sold or made/manufactured for business in which there'd be a FFL manufacturer license requirement along with SN stamping/engraving requirements

Firearms whose serials were removed, are no less a class of Firearms than those that never had serials in the first place. Again, it is the act of removing serials that turns an otherwise legal firearm into something that may or may not be illegal, depending on the firearm. A lower whose serial has been obliterated? Maybe illegal, but the upper half is legal on its own. A Glock? Well that's a different class, even though it may or may not have a defaced serial.

Because there are different types of Firearms whose serials have been removed; it is, IMO, asinine to assign them as a whole class with only the destruction of serials being the deciding factor.

Yes most are handguns, but how many are revolvers and how many are semiautomatic, how many also illegally modified to be FA; IE Glock switched? (Full auto)

 

[RX-79G]

Except... Heller did in fact talk about semiautomatic handguns. The NFA also talks about classes of firearms by their physical characteristics, not by the presence nor absence of serial numbers.

Sure. But these are not discreet categories. A gun can be a semiauto, a rifle, a curio and an obliterated serial number gun. The categories are mostly not written down, but can be regarded as such if there are enough of them to be a legal concern.

Firearms whose serials were removed, are no less a class of Firearms than those that never had serials in the first place. Again, it is the act of removing serials that turns an otherwise legal firearm into something that may or may not be illegal, depending on the firearm. A lower whose serial has been obliterated? Maybe illegal, but the upper half is legal on its own. A Glock? Well that's a different class, even though it may or may not have a defaced serial.

I don't understand this. All sorts of gun parts are serialized, but the only one that 922(k) applies to is the legal receiver. That is "the firearm". You can buy parts that were attached to illegal firearms receivers - it happens all the time.


This whole "class" thing is just a way of talking about a grouping by some characteristic. An "illegal gun" is something you can't own, regardless of why it is illegal. This thread is hairsplitting about word choice, not an honest admission that ground off serial numbers turn a legal gun into legal junk because the law says not to do that to a gun.


It isn't like guns are rare. Get a different one that isn't illegal.

 

[Yarome]

The ruling was about obliterated serial numbers

I think what you 2 seem to be missing is the discussion on the potential implications of such a wild haired ruling. His ground breaking new way around the common use test could in fact be adopted by others. In a demented way... I can see how the anti-gunners could make perfect sense out it.

If you can call a firearm with an obliterated serial number not in common use, it's hardly a leap to say "unserialized".... because an "obliterated" is now in fact "unserialized".... or as some like to call it "untraceable... and then apply the same logic. That's all that was said.

For those that seem to be unaware... it's quite common around here to discuss the potential broader implications and impacts court case ruling might have on the 2A community. I know.... WEIRD... hu!!

 

[Yarome]

 

[RX-79G]

I think what you 2 seem to be missing is the discussion on the potential implications of such a wild haired ruling. His ground breaking new way around the common use test could in fact be adopted by others. In a demented way... I can see how the anti-gunners could make perfect sense out it.

If you can call a firearm with an obliterated serial number not in common use, it's hardly a leap to say "unserialized".... because an "obliterated" is now in fact "unserialized".... or as some like to call it "untraceable... and then apply the same logic. That's all that was said.

For those that seem to be unaware... it's quite common around here to discuss the potential broader implications and impacts court case ruling might have on the 2A community. I know.... WEIRD... hu!!

I know it is popular to speculate wildly about the implications of stuff, but as pointed out earlier, the milions and millions of 80% receivers sold disprove that it is unusual to have guns made without serial numbers. And this case is about a very particular type of non-serialized gun - ones that are defined by 922(k).

So if you want to extrapolate, you could decide to freak out about all the gun parts that currently don't have serial numbers and if they will suddenly be illegal.


But let's get real here. Nothing like that has ever happened. How paranoid do you want to be about silly little stuff? There is a much greater chance of a national ban on semi autos than 922(k) being used for something it clearly isn't about.


And keep in mind that the language a judge uses to make a decision does not become a law. It's just a concept, not the verbiage of a statute. Other courts may refer to the legal concept, but they still have to explain the rationale, not just cite a phrase.

 

[saxon]

key takeaway is "obliterated"
On the record before it, the Court concludes 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 Amendment's guarantee

 

[Yarome]

key takeaway is "obliterated"
On the record before it, the Court concludes 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 Amendment's guarantee

Except... the common use test is based on types of firearms commonly possessed... not on a specific cosmetic differentiating it into another class within the same class of those that are commonly owned and protected.

As others previously stated. The firearm is protected under the 2A. Obliterating the serial number falls under a criminal act.

The plaintiff was challenging it under the 2A so that's what the judge dreamed up to rule against his 2A claim. Plain and simple, IMHO.

 

[RX-79G]

Except... the common use test is based on types of firearms commonly possessed... not on a specific cosmetic differentiating it into another class within the same class of those that are commonly owned and protected.

As others previously stated. The firearm is protected under the 2A. Obliterating the serial number falls under a criminal act.

The plaintiff was challenging it under the 2A so that's what the judge dreamed up to rule against his 2A claim. Plain and simple, IMHO.

It isn't cosmetic. Guns under GCA are defined by the ability to be traded interstate via an identifiable number.

 

[Stomper]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

That's racist!!





Just kidding




Actually, I basically only read the first post, which mentioned obliterated and "unserialized", but I still stand by my statement the the DF judge has no idea how many 80%ers are out there. On the topic of the legal case in question, the judge wound up doing the right thing ('cuz the guy IS a douche) but (IMHO) with faulty reasoning.

My "hypothetical" argument (I actually hate playing the "what if" game) against the judge's MENTALITY and logic…. (precursor) it has already been ruled that any weapon that can be "man carried" and used for defensive AND offensive purposes are "arms", which also extends to knives, clubs, pepper-spray, throwing stars, chains, sharp sticks, steel toed boots, brass knuckles, whips, swords, sling-shots, rocks, machine bolts, duct tape, etc, etc, etc….. and covered by the 2A.

Say you had a custom made knife (or any other weapon mentioned above)… made from a limited run (yes, even duct tape) that was serialized for "authenticity" and (for whatever reason) you have the serial number removed because it looks ugly where it is (or you just don't want it to have a serial number), the 2A doesn't apply to it?

Is not a firearm (or duct tape) that you own your property? Are you not free to do to it what you will? Government can regulate COMMERCE because they issue licenses (the king's permission slip) to conduct commercial activity, and regulate (ie tax and dictate) the licensees in the general terms of their operations, but dictating one's private possessions that are no longer in the "commerce chain" is another thing altogether.


All that being said, I'm not necessarily for obliterating serial numbers from MY firearms, because…. reasons that are all my own.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Say you had a custom made knife (or any other weapon mentioned above)… made from a limited run (yes, even duct tape) that was serialized for "authenticity" and (for whatever reason) you have the serial number removed (because it looks ugly where it is), the 2A doesn't apply to it?

Was there a law passed maybe back around 1968 or so requiring knives or duct tape to have SN's? No? well, if there is no law requiring them to have SN I don't know how you could be charged with breaking a law that doesn't exist

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

For those that seem to be unaware... it's quite common around here to discuss the potential broader implications and impacts court case ruling might have on the 2A community. I know.... WEIRD... hu!!

Well aware of that Apparently what I wasn't aware of was that those discussions required a "safe space" free from differing opinions and that everyone was, if not required, at least expected to go along with the 'potential broader implications' no matter how fanciful like nice little sheepeople

 

[Stomper]

Was there a law passed maybe back around 1968 or so requiring knives or duct tape to have SN's? No? well, if there is no law requiring them to have SN I don't know how you could be charged with breaking a law that doesn't exist

As we have seen (especially lately), legislators seem to think they can make laws on just about EVERYTHING, even on what people are allowed to think. Just because something is "law", doesn't mean it's right or constitutional (take segregation, or bans on "mixed-racial" marriages for example).

That's analogous to breaking a law that says you must (or must NOT) wear ugly green plaid pants with a white belt and white shoes every other Wednesday.

The reason I threw "duct tape" in there was to illustrate that a privately owned firearm is just that… private property, just like something as seemingly innocuous as a roll of duct tape (unless it's in my hands… LOL)

Getting to your point about obeying the serialization law, the gun WAS serialized during its time in the commerce chain, but once it's someone's private property I argue that it's a different matter, until (or if) it re-enters the commercial commerce (redundancy for those in Rio Linda) system, which would never happen (in my case), because I only buy guns and never sell them.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Getting to your point about obeying the serialization law, the gun WAS serialized during its time in the commerce chain, but once it's someone's private property I argue that it's a different matter, until (or if) it re-enters the commercial commerce (redundancy for those in Rio Linda) system, which would never happen (in my case), because I only buy guns and never sell them.

I think that is a fair and interesting point, sort of a Schrodinger's Serial Number question
It also deals with how difficult it is becoming to deal with 21st century issues with 20th (or even 19th!) century laws. 50 years ago it would have been near impossible for an average Joe to remove a SN or manufactures markings and than at a later date but them back in a way that was undetectable, but these days it would be difficult but not totally out of reach to do it. For the sake of this discussion I think *most* of us would agree that removing a SN expressly for the intent of using the firearm in a crime is a bad thing, but what if you are doing something like a Steampunk build or maybe trying to create an 'authentic' Cowboy Action build and the font is wrong or in the wrong place?
Kind of reminds me of the record industries "You wouldn't download a car, would you?" campaign

 

[Stomper]

I think that is a fair and interesting point, sort of a Schrodinger's Serial Number question
It also deals with how difficult it is becoming to deal with 21st century issues with 20th (or even 19th!) century laws. 50 years ago it would have been near impossible for an average Joe to remove a SN or manufactures markings and than at a later date but them back in a way that was undetectable, but these days it would be difficult but not totally out of reach to do it. For the sake of this discussion I think *most* of us would agree that removing a SN expressly for the intent of using the firearm in a crime is a bad thing, but what if you are doing something like a Steampunk build or maybe trying to create an 'authentic' Cowboy Action build and the font is wrong or in the wrong place?
Kind of reminds me of the record industries "You wouldn't download a car, would you?" campaign

The music industry NEVER EVEN saw the 3D printer coming…. LOL

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

The music industry NEVER EVEN saw the 3D printer coming…. LOL

True story! I'm a bit better than halfway through the Metallica song files

 

[Stomper]

True story! I'm a bit better than halfway through the Metallica song files

View attachment 1421309

Put an AI micro-chip in that and you'll be asking…. "Is it live, or is it Memorex"?


Flashback- Memorex and TDK were my preferred cassette tape brands for recording back in the day….


Damn…. the things I remember, when most days I can barely remember what I did yesterday… LOL!

 

[OneArgus]

So if the Prior to 1968, serial numbers on firearms were not a legal requirement, but the 1968 Gun Control Act established the requirement for all guns to have a unique serial number across the manufacturer's product line. Says nothing about past firearms. I have a couple pre-68 hunting rifles ( before boat accident )
So if I removed the serial number from them, by law seems it would be allowed to be removed since it was not required? Its like requiring seatbelts on a car that had none, then require they have them?

There are semi- and full firearms made prior to 68. So would all those have the ability to be removed? Since not required?
But so called Ghost Guns, have seldom been used in crimes, overall meaning. The majority are stolen not altered.
So if this is the case. Other then politics. Having a firearm with or without doesn't matter.
Goes beyond my paygrade how these laws all intertwine and make a maze to own one now days.
But also if its true as well OSP only keeps record 10 years on purchase and transfers? Then again how would a serial hold
weight in the way proposed.

I am not saying there is not a place for them, I am saying. Seems having a better system to track stolen firearms would be
better time spent. Rather then demonizing something that has little relevance to crimes. Most criminals steal, use, dispose.
So removing a serial seems moot.
I am not a expert, just sharing some random thoughts passing through what is left of brain cells, and find this discussion interesting.

 

[solv3nt]

Put an AI micro-chip in that and you'll be asking…. "Is it live, or is it Memorex"?


Flashback- Memorex and TDK were my preferred cassette tape brands for recording back in the day….


Damn…. the things I remember, when most days I can barely remember what I did yesterday… LOL!

I think I saw a cassette at a museum once.