Interesting outcome of the Bruen case - we'll se if it is challenged and if it gets to SCOTUS
This would have impact on the P80 "ghost" gunregs quite clearly
This would have impact on the P80 "ghost" gunregs quite clearly
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS November Giveaway ***Sarsilmaz SAR9***
*** Federal District Court finds 922k Possession of Firearms with Obliterated Serial UNCONSTITUTIONAL ***
- Thread starter 67ray
- Start date
eboos
NES Member
Hard to argue with that opinion.
The only real debate is whether or not a felon who served their sentence should have their rights fully restored. If “too dangerous” then why are they released? Any sentence should sufficiently address this.
The only real debate is whether or not a felon who served their sentence should have their rights fully restored. If “too dangerous” then why are they released? Any sentence should sufficiently address this.
Good!!
Hammers, buckets, fireplace pokers, baseball bats, pipes, swimming pools, 2x4's, knives, screwdrivers, sickles, books of matches, gasoline cans, rope, plastic bags, etc. don't require serial numbers.
Neither did guns until 1968 when the feds wanted to push their agenda of disarming the population. How did we survive for so long without serial numbered guns?
The "public safety" facade has long been exposed. The only people that government is concerned with protecting is their own, they couldn't give two fvcks whether you or I live or die on a daily basis.
Hammers, buckets, fireplace pokers, baseball bats, pipes, swimming pools, 2x4's, knives, screwdrivers, sickles, books of matches, gasoline cans, rope, plastic bags, etc. don't require serial numbers.
Neither did guns until 1968 when the feds wanted to push their agenda of disarming the population. How did we survive for so long without serial numbered guns?
The "public safety" facade has long been exposed. The only people that government is concerned with protecting is their own, they couldn't give two fvcks whether you or I live or die on a daily basis.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 19,699
- Likes
- 23,938
Interesting I thought serial numbers were like everything else a way for the manufacturers to track stuff.
People need to pay attention to this factual statement. The government's only concern at this point is self preservation.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 19,699
- Likes
- 23,938
Everything else in the world has a serial number for that reason lol
different societal makeup. not that serialization helped.
they were, and nothing stops manufacturers from serializing their product.
The full blown Fed regulation came by way of GCA68, although there were previous requirements to serialize SOME weapons.
What this decision does in that district, subject to appeal, is make it legal to possess a gun with an altered SN or to remove it all together if the owner so chooses.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
And on the micro stamping nonsense.
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 2,946
- Likes
- 4,546
This... someone willing to murder someone with a gun will do it with a knife, sword, arrow, rock, hammer, 5 hours of non-stop Hillary footage... etc
MaverickNH
NES Member
I didn’t know that possession of a firearm without a SN or with an obliterated SN was only made illegal in 1990. Yeah, that judge is pissed the Government didn’t bother to do the research.
Serial numbers do provide that to manufacturers, but it is not a compulsory feature on their product, it is done for their own benefit, Whereas GOVERNMENT IS FORCING the serializing of guns FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE and to the detriment of the public's privacy.
pastera
NES Member
No he's pissed because Bruen forced him to declare for 2a freedom.
Notice he did zero historical investigation on felons in possession instead on scotus' statement that restrictions on felons were 'presumptively' constitutional.
He didn't even think about what they meant by that statement - In Heller, McDonald and Bruen the plaintiffs were all non-felons so there was no need to explore historical restrictions on felons leading to a presumptive constitutionality until that question was directly raised to the court.
Exactly.....serialization has done nothing to improve society's behavior. All it has done is create a convenient method for government to track what people own.......and its not for the public's convenience.
Dadstoys
NES Member
No they don't care at all .
These are the people that wouldn't waste their Starbucks coffee to put you out if you were on fire.
Sofistocat
NES Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2020
- Messages
- 117
- Likes
- 168
The right kind of virtue signaling for what NJ just did?
I disagree, he justified the prohibition against Felons possessing a gun based upon Heller
From the opinion
"I next consider whether the Government has established that Section 922(g)(1)
is consistent with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation. As has
every other district court to address the question in the wake of
Bruen, I conclude that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional.
Justice Thomas opens Bruen by expressly reaffirming the holdings of the
Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment cases, which defined the right to bear
arms as belonging to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.”
"McDonald v. Chicago,
we recognized that the Second and Fourteenth
Amendments protect the right of an ordinary,
law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense."
pastera
NES Member
Again - Every case at the bar involved "law abiding" citizens. The court was answering the very narrow question before it.
The dicta within Heller on non-law abiding citizens only states that prohibitions are presumptively constitutional
SCOTUS has not addressed the issue of 922(g)(1) therefore lower courts can investigate the historical treatment of non-law abiding people and firearms. But this judge simply defaulted to felons are prohibited even though SCOTUS has not actually stated that.
Maxrobot
NES Member
In the ruling -
"The plain text of the Second Amendment does not include “a qualification that Second Amendment rights belong only to individuals who have not violated any laws.”
"The plain text of the Second Amendment does not include “a qualification that Second Amendment rights belong only to individuals who have not violated any laws.”
Last edited:
Lank
NES Member
Exactly and forensics is more advanced than ever. There at most should only be lot #'s on guns for QC purposes
