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

[CamoDeafie]

It doesn't make much difference if they're gonna keep releasing violent criminals onto the streets while focusing on locking up otherwise law-abiding citizens for lawfully owning and possessing what was officially legal in the past that's now "illegal" I do not think they (the govt and law enforcement) are wanting to focus on pre-1968 firearms used in crimes they're focusing on "interpreting" the 2A so that "arms" can mean whatever they deem legal

 

[RX-79G]

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?

Nope. That's like saying you could sell heroine as long as it was heroine you bought before it was illegal. The law does not draw a line between guns manufactured prior to 1968 or not, it just says that if it had a serial number it must still have a serial number.

(k)
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport, ship, or receive, 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 or receive 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.

This is pretty clear, and it means that if it had a serial number, it can't be possessed if it was sold across state lines or through a Federal Firearms Dealer.

The exception that I know of is that a serial number can be moved on a firearm. If a repair or something is going to damage the serial number location, that same serial number can be engraved somewhere else on the frame/receiver. This is not considered changing or removing the serial number.

 

[wired]

Nope. That's like saying you could sell heroine as long as it was heroine you bought before it was illegal. The law does not draw a line between guns manufactured prior to 1968 or not, it just says that if it had a serial number it must still have a serial number.


This is pretty clear, and it means that if it had a serial number, it can't be possessed if it was sold across state lines or through a Federal Firearms Dealer.

The exception that I know of is that a serial number can be moved on a firearm. If a repair or something is going to damage the serial number location, that same serial number can be engraved somewhere else on the frame/receiver. This is not considered changing or removing the serial number.

You cannot move the serial number. Everything else can be relocated. Not the serial number.

 

[RX-79G]

You cannot move the serial number. Everything else can be relocated. Not the serial number.

This used to be common. You probably don't want to mess with it today, but there are plenty of old guns with re-located serial numbers. Like on S&W revolvers that had the square butt reshaped to round.

Can you legally relocate a firearm's serial number...

www.1911forum.com

So it is either no longer legal to do now, or you need ATF permission for a "marking variance". But the point is that if you have an old gun with the serial number in an odd place, it is still legal to transfer. Don't do it yourself because I said so, just know that a relocated serial number is a still a serial number and you aren't in possession of a gun that violates 922(k).

 

[wired]

This used to be common. You probably don't want to mess with it today, but there are plenty of old guns with re-located serial numbers. Like on S&W revolvers that had the square butt reshaped to round.

Can you legally relocate a firearm's serial number...

www.1911forum.com

So it is either no longer legal to do now, or you need ATF permission for a "marking variance". But the point is that if you have an old gun with the serial number in an odd place, it is still legal to transfer. Don't do it yourself because I said so, just know that a relocated serial number is a still a serial number and you aren't in possession of a gun that violates 922(k).

Yeah , what do I know

 

[Flopsweat]

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 remember those. I used to mostly use a specific (probably metal) Maxell tape, for cassettes and for an ill-fated reel to reel as well. Had an 8-track player too, but not a recorder. I had a lot of vinyl too, sadly long gone.

 

[Tony617]

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!

6 unopened TDK cassette tapes. My tape deck is a dual one so I used to make copies of tapes back in the day.

 

[bcp]

From:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

Manufacturers have to put on a serial number, but if it is removed:



Then see the definition of a firearm,




and prohibited acts.




Looks like the prohibited acts only apply to the "firearms" defined previously.

Bruce

 

[Yarome]

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

Just because a judge in one case used a flawed tactic to circumvent the 2A in one particular case doesn't mean that any other judge in any other case might try to use the same "logic" to do the same... is your opinion. I get that.

You're right. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. Now.... if you're genuinely interested in participating in that conversation... instead of just being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.... share your opinion on why that can't/won't happen.

"That's just crazy talk" isn't very constructive.

I may be crazy, but it seems we see it all the time. IE., One judge adopting from Bruen "such as defensive purposes" to mean "for defensive purposes" . Or taking "dangerous and unusual" interpreted as "dangerous or unusual". One judge does it and then we start seeing others doing the same and ruling accordingly. It doesn't seem like that big of a stretch that anti's will adopt any tool in their toolbox that they think they can get away with.

But that's just me, I guess(?)

 

[Flopsweat]

... It doesn't seem like that big of a stretch that anti's will adopt any tool in their toolbox that they think they can get away with. ...

It's not like they haven't been doing it for centuries.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Just because a judge in one case used a flawed tactic to circumvent the 2A in one particular case doesn't mean that any other judge in any other case might try to use the same "logic" to do the same... is your opinion. I get that.

You're right. You're absolutely entitled to your opinion. Now.... if you're genuinely interested in participating in that conversation... instead of just being confrontational for the sake of confrontation.... share your opinion on why that can't/won't happen.

"That's just crazy talk" isn't very constructive.

I may be crazy, but it seems we see it all the time. IE., One judge adopting from Bruen "such as defensive purposes" to mean "for defensive purposes" . Or taking "dangerous and unusual" interpreted as "dangerous or unusual". One judge does it and then we start seeing others doing the same and ruling accordingly. It doesn't seem like that big of a stretch that anti's will adopt any tool in their toolbox that they think they can get away with.

But that's just me, I guess(?)

So expressing a different opinion is being "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" so I guess the only allowable way to participating in the conversation is to agree with your point of view?

And for the record, I don't believe I have ever said ""That's just crazy talk" and respectfully object to the gaslighting mischaracterization of my position, unless you can point to a post where I DID say that



And one more thing, if you go back to my first post you will see that I included a link to a case that had a different take

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

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...

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[Flopsweat]

So expressing a different opinion is being "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" so I guess the only allowable way to participating in the conversation is to agree with your point of view?

And for the record, I don't believe I have ever said ""That's just crazy talk" and respectfully object to the gaslighting mischaracterization of my position, unless you can point to a post where I DID say that



And one more thing, if you go back to my first post you will see that I included a link to a case that had a different take

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

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...

www.northwestfirearms.com

The fact that you disagree has noting to do with it. It's how you express it that is the issue. You often come across as condescending or confrontational.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You often come across as condescending or confrontational.

Please point that out the next time you see it, I'm curious which post come across that way

Because some of them are probably totally intended to come across that way, just want to make sure I'm hitting my markers

 

[Yarome]

"....no matter how fanciful...."

And for the record, I don't believe I have ever said ""That's just crazy talk" and respectfully object to the gaslighting mischaracterization of my position, unless you can point to a post where I DID say that

Not that it's in my job description.....

Oxford Dictionary:
fan·ci·ful
adjective
- existing only in the imagination or fancy.

Merriam-Webster:
fanciful
adjective
fan·ci·ful ˈfan(t)-si-fəl
- marked by fancy or unrestrained imagination rather than by reason and experience


I paraphrased.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Not that it's in my job description.....

It's "not your job" to stand behind things you say? Dang! that sounds like a sweet job!

Hey @Flopsweat just to let you know, that one was intentional!

 

[DunRanull]

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

Yes, there are a lot of older firearms in circulation that were never serialised... This I know for a fact from back in the day.. 1934 when certain (not all) firearms had to be registered ergo needing serial #'s

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yes, there are a lot of older firearms in circulation that were never serialised... This I know for a fact from back in the day.. 1934 when certain (not all) firearms had to be registered ergo needing serial #'s

I've had a bunch of them, never had an issue with a transfer

 

[Yarome]

It's "not your job" to stand behind things you say? Dang! that sounds like a sweet job!

Hey @Flopsweat just to let you know, that one was intentional!

It's not my job to prove you said what you said or provide definitions of the words you choose to use. As if... "If you don't prove it, it never happened"(???) Denial, shift the responsibility, belittle and condescend... good game plan!

Let's just gloss over the fact that you asked me to quote when you said/implied that, and I did. Don't acknowledge... attack!

Sack up! Own your words instead of trying to make others responsible for the things you say. Novel concept, I know!




Unfortunately, that was the last of your allocated infringement on my time for the day. Rant on and Enjoy!

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

It's not my job to prove you said what you said or provide definitions of the words you choose to use. As if... "If you don't prove it, it never happened"(???) Denial, shift the responsibility, belittle and condescend... good game plan!

Lolz, let me show you what you SHOULD have said and what would have been an accurate response to what I said

It's should my job to prove you said what you I said you said . . . .

See, If you said that I said something, than it's your responsibility to show that I actually said what you said I said and NOT my responsibility to show that I didn't say what you said I said, and you didn't show where I said "That's just crazy talk", you quoted something else that you decided to misquote as me saying "That's just crazy talk"

Given that, this just burns with irony

Own your words instead of trying to make others responsible for the things you say.

 

[OneArgus]

Nope. That's like saying you could sell heroine as long as it was heroine you bought before it was illegal. The law does not draw a line between guns manufactured prior to 1968 or not, it just says that if it had a serial number it must still have a serial number

Actually, it is not always black and white. As many laws are retroactive and exclusive.
Such as the BS magazine law in Oregon. Possession not sale is allowed.
In Oregon possession of needles are illegal. Yet possession also under the law is legal, in Portland.

And Heroine has a law removing all use period including ownership.
Where I can own a firearm without a serial, and not be required to put one on.
Hence those that may have not been produced without one. Would be legal to possess.
Hope that clarifies the thought process.