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

[saxon]

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.

except that the point of the case was a gun that had a serial number that was obliterated,
and that if one removes the serial number it is no longer covered under the 2A because it is not a common practice and is also
unlawful to remove a serial number.

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 is plain and simple "can you use a gun to defend ones self ?" yes
"can one use a gun that had the serial number removed to defend ones self?" yes but
the gun it's self is in violation of the LAW and you can not keep it.
the case is really that simple, has nothing to do with guns you make at home for your self that have no serial number.




the thread tittle should be fixed from

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

to

serialized firearms that have the serial number obliterated are not "Arms" under the 2A period

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

And Heroine has a law removing all use period including ownership.

Only if you have less than 1 gram and that is still a Class E citation

2021 Oregon Revised Statutes :: Volume : 04 - Criminal Procedure, Crimes :: Chapter 153 - Violations and Fines :: Section 153.062 - Class E violation proceedings.

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

 

[Yarome]

except that the point of the case was a gun that had a serial number that was obliterated,
and that if one removes the serial number it is no longer covered under the 2A because it is not a common practice and is also
unlawful to remove a serial number.

it is plain and simple "can you use a gun to defend ones self ?" yes
"can one use a gun that had the serial number removed to defend ones self?" yes but
the gun it's self is in violation of the LAW and you can not keep it.
the case is really that simple, has nothing to do with guns you make at home for your self that have no serial number.

The second part of your post pretty much spells it out correctly and contradicts the first part.

That IS what the judge is trying to say. Creating a wholly new class of firearm that is excluded from 2A protection, however, his premise is flawed. The firearm is still a class of firearm protected under the 2A. Obliterating an existing serial number is a criminal violation of Title 18... not a constitutional violation.

I don't wanna give the judge any ideas, but he could have just said was that it is protected, but those rights may be forfeit by act of law. IOW, violating a criminal statute... and be done with it.

Instead he tried creating a new class of firearm to fail the common use test and remove it from under the 2A's umbrella... more along the lines of an NFA item. There was no need to get all creative and overcomplicate it under a false premise, IMHO.

It has to make you wonder if there was possibly some purpose in doing that. Possibly testing and opening a new avenue of challenge against 2A protections(??) I dunno, but it's still BS.

 

[Flopsweat]

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

Got it. So this was just blowing smoke then

So expressing a different opinion is being "confrontational for the sake of confrontation"

and you truly are little more than a troll.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

and you truly are little more than a troll.

No, it was a serious question, I haven't posted ANYTHING just for the sake of being "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" and if someone felt I had posted something "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" I would think they would quote it and not make up something I never said.

 

[Flopsweat]

No, it was a serious question, I haven't posted ANYTHING just for the sake of being "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" and if someone felt I had posted something "confrontational for the sake of confrontation" I would think they would quote it and not make up something I never said.

Except for the ones that are "totally intended to come across that way"?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Except for the ones that are "totally intended to come across that way"?

The exception that proves the rule

 

[Flopsweat]

The exception that proves the rule

Oh, you're exceptional all right.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Oh, you're exceptional all right.
View attachment 1421685

So are you making a point relevant to the thread or just trying to be confrontational for the sake of confrontation?

 

[Flopsweat]

So are you making a point relevant to the thread or just trying to be confrontational for the sake of confrontation?

It's rather a bit simpler than all that. I'm responding to a post.

And where else would I do it? Who would bother with a thread specifically discussing your personal, let's say, foibles?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

And where else would I do it? Who would bother with a thread specifically discussing your personal, let's say, foibles

Search me, but that looks like what this is turning into, I guess it's like the lawyers say:

If the law is on your side, pound on the law
If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts
If you don't have the facts or law on your side, pound out some ad hominem attacks on Vinnie

 

[Flopsweat]

Search me, but that looks like what this is turning into, I guess it's like the lawyers say:

If the law is on your side, pound on the law
If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts
If you don't have the facts or law on your side, pound out some ad hominem attacks on Vinnie

I think you just love to argue. I'm certain you'll reply to this post. I'm not certain it will be of any value.

 

[RX-79G]

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.

You are incorrect. 922(k) means you can't own (possess) a gun with an obliterated serial number. That has nothing to do with magazines or 80% receivers.

 

[RX-79G]

That IS what the judge is trying to say. Creating a wholly new class of firearm that is excluded from 2A protection, however, his premise is flawed. The firearm is still a class of firearm protected under the 2A

This is a flawed premise. Guns can be in multiple classes. They aren't exclusive.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

This is a flawed premise. Guns can be in multiple classes. They aren't exclusive.

So polyarmorous?

 

[RX-79G]

"Class", in this context, juat means "when viewed collectively". That's all.

 

[saxon]

The second part of your post pretty much spells it out correctly and contradicts the first part.

That IS what the judge is trying to say. Creating a wholly new class of firearm that is excluded from 2A protection, however, his premise is flawed. The firearm is still a class of firearm protected under the 2A. Obliterating an existing serial number is a criminal violation of Title 18... not a constitutional violation.

I don't wanna give the judge any ideas, but he could have just said was that it is protected, but those rights may be forfeit by act of law. IOW, violating a criminal statute... and be done with it.

Instead he tried creating a new class of firearm to fail the common use test and remove it from under the 2A's umbrella... more along the lines of an NFA item. There was no need to get all creative and overcomplicate it under a false premise, IMHO.

It has to make you wonder if there was possibly some purpose in doing that. Possibly testing and opening a new avenue of challenge against 2A protections(??) I dunno, but it's still BS.

except as stated

B. Section 922(k) United States Code, Title 18, Section 922(k) provides: 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.


again why it is not a violation of 2a


and again why it is not talking about gun that have never had a serial number.....


title of thread is still misleading

 

[saxon]

also why title is misleading, and case LAW

Judge rules federal law banning guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional

A federal judge blocked a federal law on Wednesday that prohibits the possession of a firearm with an “altered, obliterated or removed” serial number in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling…

thehill.com

from a lawyer
While it is not illegal under the GCA to print and make a gun in one's home, there is a catch: Because the Undetectable Firearms Act makes illegal any firearm that cannot be detected by a metal detector, every firearm must contain some amount of metal. But most 3D-printed guns are made of plastic. This means that a plastic 3D-printed firearm must have a metal plate inserted into the printed body. Such a requirement is difficult to enforce, however, because these firearms bear no serial number and are not registered unless required by state law. The opportunities to inspect these firearms and enforce the metal rule are practically nil.

Are Ghost Guns and 3D-Printed Guns Legal?

As long as they are intended for personal use and have a detectable metal component, homemade guns are exempt from federal regulation. In 2013, a federal House Bill that was intended to ban unfinished receivers used to create assault weapons failed to pass (H.R. 2910).


also

Are Home Guns Required to Have Additional Identifying Marks?

Federal law does not require a homemade gun to have an identifying marker (such as a serial number), as long as it remains in the possession of the original maker. However, if the gun is subsequently sold or otherwise transferred, it should be marked prior to its disposition. The ATF suggests that all homemade firearms be marked with a serial number as a safeguard in the event the firearm is lost or stolen, but this marking is required if the gun is otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10733

etc etc



also if it was going after just plain ol un serialized guns then all guns pre 1968 would be un protected by the 2a correct?

 

[Yarome]

except as stated

B. Section 922(k) United States Code, Title 18, Section 922(k) provides: 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.


again why it is not a violation of 2a


and again why it is not talking about gun that have never had a serial number.....

You're right. And you're mostly just restating what was said earlier. I mostly agreed with you before too... and acknowledged that. Not to be repetitive.... an obliterated serial number is a criminal violation of Title 18, Section 922(k). It then, by act of law, makes it a firearm in criminal violation of the law.

Rhetorically... Is Title 18 (enacted in 1970) contained within or a provision of the 2nd amendment? Is there any prohibition or qualifier in the 2A that would classify that particular class of firearm, in and of itself, as an exemption to protection by the 2A?

Is 922(k) consistent with the text, history and tradition of the United States as outlined by Bruen? Granted... that's another question for another day, but the point being is that it is currently "good law" and ownership is not invalided by the 2A in so much as it is by act of law... which the constitution does allow for.

"Violation of the 2A" would mean that the firearm in question actually violated a provision of the 2A... wouldn't it. The end result may be the same (illegal to possess), but that doesn't make every law that would rule his possession illegal as all equal and one and the same.

IE., If he was a felon in possession, he would be violating the felon in possession criminal law, prohibited and charged, but that doesn't make that firearm a 2A violation either. Or... possessing an "AW" that violates a states AWB might be similar too.

Would the legal argument then be that an illegal AW is not in common use by law abiding citizens within that state... so it's not protected by the 2A.... or is it still a protected firearm under the 2A, but simply illegal to possess under the color of law in that state(?)


*I'll grant that the thread title might be a bit misleading, but if you were not aware... thread titles are not editable indefinitely and SCREAMING about it doesn't change that.

Part of that was simply a play on "is this our future"? (Hence the (??) marks) If removing a serial number (now "unserialized") can be classed as "dangerous and unusual" and not protected by the 2A... it's not a reach to see the same argument being used in the anti-2A's fight to ban so called "ghost guns"... or rather... PMF's. Enter... the pathway to universal background checks and registry(?)

 

[solv3nt]

"Class", in this context, juat means "when viewed collectively". That's all.

Not the caste system?