General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFollowing Supreme Court's Lead, Judge Finds Right to Remove Serial Numbers From Guns
SlateNo paywall
This decision in United States v. Price by U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, a Bill Clinton appointee, may sound shocking. But it is a perfectly plausible application of the Supreme Courts June ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that case, Justice Clarence Thomas declared all gun restrictions presumptively unconstitutional if they infringe on the individual right to armed self-defense. (The Constitution says nothing about self-defense, but Thomas gleaned this right from its penumbra.) A gun restriction may only survive legal scrutiny, the justice declared, if it had an analogue in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, or 1868, when it was imposed on the states. The burden falls on the government to prove the existence of a historical analogue.
Thomas test has already wreaked havoc in the lower courts. One judge has struck down a Texas law that prohibits 18 to 20-year-olds from carrying a handgun outside the home. People under 21 are significantly more likely to commit gun homicidesbut in Bruen, Thomas announced that courts may never consider the real-world, life-saving impact of gun safety laws when gauging their constitutionality. A different Texas judge invalidated a federal law barring individuals from purchasing a handgun while theyre under indictment, even for a violent felony offense. Just last week, another judge struck down New Yorks ban on concealed carry in airports, train stations, domestic violence shelters, summer camps, the subway, and other sensitive locations. Now Goodwin, who sits in West Virginia, has joined the chorus of lower court judges who feel that Bruen obliges them to strike down longstanding, widely accepted firearm laws.
Goodwins conclusion might sound bizarre, but his analysis closely follows Thomas test.
NewHendoLib
(60,034 posts)Rhiannon12866
(206,676 posts)hlthe2b
(102,508 posts)judges.
OAITW r.2.0
(24,756 posts)In It to Win It
(8,305 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Uh ... no, they don't. The only way that would work is if you (a) committed a crime in a state that has mandatory gun registration (many don't), (b) used your own registered gun, and (c) left the gun at the scene of the crime or somewhere else where it could be easily discovered. It's a pretty implausible scenario all around.
The real reason people remove serial numbers is so that a gun that they have stolen can't be matched to the police hot-sheet of stolen guns. Chances are good that said individuals are facing other more serious charges than defacing a serial number, and in any case it would be difficult to prove who actually did the scratching-out. I suppose making possession of a gun without a serial number could be made an offense, but enforcement would be tricky due to the fact that many pre-1968 firearms have no serial numbers to begin with.
That said, it's a stupid ruling, but certainly not a very consequential one in the big picture.
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)"I suppose making possession of a gun without a serial number could be made an offense, but enforcement would be tricky due to the fact that many pre-1968 firearms have no serial numbers to begin with."
That's what the law was that was just struck down. And it specifically applied to the case where the gun should have one due to its provenance, but it's been defaced/removed.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)... the issue isn't so much the right to remove a serial number as it is the right to possess a gun from which the serial number has been removed. The headline and excerpt, then, are misleading. I must admit that I hadn't read the linked article. Actually, in that context the judge's decision makes more sense. How is a pre-1968 gun with no serial number more of a danger to society than a post-1968 gun from which the serial number has been removed?
For the sake of argument, how about a federal law requiring all guns to have serial numbers, with the option of getting a federally licensed gun dealer to inscribe one on any firearms that are legally possessed but have no number?
Hugh_Lebowski
(33,643 posts)Second one ... your hypothetical argument seems to still have the problems you outlined in your earlier post.
W/O formal registration (and one might argue record of ballistic data to pair with the serial number when registering), just having a number stamped on a gun isn't really of that much practical use.
Other than returning a stolen gun to its original owner, which I guess has some value, actually.
Turbineguy
(37,412 posts)WISDOM.
If it helps more Americans get shot.
DFW
(54,501 posts)If we didnt need it in 1791, we certainly dont need it now.
My answer was that in 1791, we didnt need an FAA to require regular inspections of jet engines. Does that mean we dont need them now, either?
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,546 posts)The "Uncle Clarence" reference:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/samuel-jackson-uncle-clarence-thomas-interracial-marriage-roe_n_62b76f85e4b04a61736b41b9