Oddly enough this got Zero exposure from our side, yet MSN covered it.
Folks, we're winning, and not a peep from right media? :glare:
I could have searched deeper, but it should have been on the front page.
Following Supreme Court's Lead, Judge Finds Right to Remove Serial Numbers From Guns
For decades, federal law has forbidden gun owners from scratching out the serial numbers that manufacturers are legally required to place on firearms. The reason is obvious: These serial numbers help state and federal law enforcement trace guns that are used in crimes and identify suspected shooters. Indeed, the only apparent reason anyone would remove a serial number is to avoid becoming a suspect after their gun is used illegally.
On Wednesday, however, a federal judge ruled that the law prohibiting alteration of serial numbers violates the Second Amendment. Why? Because serial numbers were virtually nonexistent when the amendment was ratified in 1791, so the government has no power to mandate them today.
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 Court's 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 homicides—but 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 they're under indictment, even for a violent felony offense. Just last week, another judge struck down New York's 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.
Goodwin's conclusion might sound bizarre, but his analysis closely follows Thomas' test. First, he asked whether the federal ban on possession of a gun with an "obliterated" serial number infringes on the right to self-defense. He found that it does, presenting the hypothetical example of a father who buys a gun, removes the serial number, dies, and leaves it to her daughter. Both father and daughter's ownership of the firearm would be a federal crime. And that, Goodwin wrote, "is the definition of an infringement on one's right to possess a firearm."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/following-supreme-court-s-lead-judge-finds-right-to-remove-serial-numbers-from-guns/ar-AA12W0Gm
QuoteThomas announced that courts may never consider the real-world, life-saving impact of gun safety laws when gauging their constitutionality.
That standard right there will make libs heads explode. To the libs that is the whole reason the court exists, to make up laws for the good of the nation.
Strange decision
What are they looking to trade?
I don't believe it's a good thing. I feel messing with serial numbers should be super-duper illegal, and any inner-city thug caught with an altered fire-arm should get manditory extra time in prison. Law abiding citizens don't alter their firearms serial number, because it is a legally bought firearm.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 25, 2022, 05:45:06 PMI don't believe it's a good thing. I feel messing with serial numbers should be super-duper illegal, and any inner-city thug caught with an altered fire-arm should get manditory extra time in prison. Law abiding citizens don't alter their firearms serial number, because it is a legally bought firearm.
Yeah, double edge sword. But it does protect firearms makers who make ghost guns.
If anything, it looks like the court is headed towards reversing all gun laws, including sawed off shot guns and machine gun laws, all of which are unconstitutional.
After all, every law against owning any kind of fire arm is a direct violation of the Second.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 25, 2022, 05:45:06 PMI don't believe it's a good thing. I feel messing with serial numbers should be super-duper illegal, and any inner-city thug caught with an altered fire-arm should get manditory extra time in prison. Law abiding citizens don't alter their firearms serial number, because it is a legally bought firearm.
Well with 3D printing on the rise I dont see how serial numbers can keep being useful.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 25, 2022, 05:45:06 PMI don't believe it's a good thing. I feel messing with serial numbers should be super-duper illegal, and any inner-city thug caught with an altered fire-arm should get manditory extra time in prison. Law abiding citizens don't alter their firearms serial number, because it is a legally bought firearm.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. Who makes the laws? At some point there will be no "legally bought firearms". A real law abiding citizen should be expected to adhere to the constitution not what some mock panel of bought off politicians proclaim.
Quote from: yrunvs on November 26, 2022, 04:42:46 AMI'm afraid you're missing the point. Who makes the laws? At some point there will be no "legally bought firearms". A real law abiding citizen should be expected to adhere to the constitution not what some mock panel of bought off politicians proclaim.
I'm afraid you're missing the point. Couple of points actually, it is the SCOTUS that determines if a law is constitutional not the politicians. Yeah, I know some of the politicians are slow learners and may pass another law similar but it too will make its way up the ladder and be found unconstitutional too. Point two, we are a republic, even if the U.S. congress passes a law banning guns, most states will not abide by it until it makes its way to the court, even then based on the ruling they still will probably not enforce it. The U.S. relies heavily on city, county, and state law enforcement to enforce their laws, when that support is not there the law is useless. Don't forget,
MOST OF THE U.S HAS A MUCH DIFFERENT VIEW ON GUNS THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD. We do not see guns as the problem, we see criminals as the problem. Don't let the politicians and the media fool you.
Quote from: Possum on November 26, 2022, 06:28:30 AMI'm afraid you're missing the point. Couple of points actually, it is the SCOTUS that determines if a law is constitutional not the politicians. Yeah, I know some of the politicians are slow learners and may pass another law similar but it too will make its way up the ladder and be found unconstitutional too. Point two, we are a republic, even if the U.S. congress passes a law banning guns, most states will not abide by it until it makes its way to the court, even then based on the ruling they still will probably not enforce it. The U.S. relies heavily on city, county, and state law enforcement to enforce their laws, when that support is not there the law is useless. Don't forget, MOST OF THE U.S HAS A MUCH DIFFERENT VIEW ON GUNS THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD. We do not see guns as the problem, we see criminals as the problem. Don't let the politicians and the media fool you.
The thing that bugs me is, the Bill of Rights was created to keep the govt at a safe distance, yet they trampled on our Second by out lawing certain implements. This opened the door for all Rights to be trampled.
This entire thing should have never made it to a court in the first place.
This could explain why this issue has arisen. SCOTUS is in the process of undoing illegal laws it passed in the first place.
I'm only speculating, because otherwise, this make little sense.
Quote from: Solar on November 26, 2022, 06:38:54 AMThe thing that bugs me is, the Bill of Rights was created to keep the govt at a safe distance, yet they trampled on our Second by out lawing certain implements. This opened the door for all Rights to be trampled.
This entire thing should have never made it to a court in the first place.
This could explain why this issue has arisen. SCOTUS is in the process of undoing illegal laws it passed in the first place.
I'm only speculating, because otherwise, this make little sense.
Thank God for the 14th, without it we could name several states that would ban all firearms. The next law I would like to see go before the SC is the unlawful taxing on certain firearms and accessories. Those taxes were not put there to increase revenue, they were put there as a way to ban the firearm.
Quote from: Possum on November 26, 2022, 06:28:30 AMI'm afraid you're missing the point. Couple of points actually, it is the SCOTUS that determines if a law is constitutional not the politicians. Yeah, I know some of the politicians are slow learners and may pass another law similar but it too will make its way up the ladder and be found unconstitutional too. Point two, we are a republic, even if the U.S. congress passes a law banning guns, most states will not abide by it until it makes its way to the court, even then based on the ruling they still will probably not enforce it. The U.S. relies heavily on city, county, and state law enforcement to enforce their laws, when that support is not there the law is useless. Don't forget, MOST OF THE U.S HAS A MUCH DIFFERENT VIEW ON GUNS THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD. We do not see guns as the problem, we see criminals as the problem. Don't let the politicians and the media fool you.
You are assuming judges are not bought off politicians.
Quote from: yrunvs on November 26, 2022, 07:58:06 AMYou are assuming judges are not bought off politicians.
You're going to have to fill me in on where that has happened. What I do see is where a president such as Biden will nominate someone because they are extreme liberal already as in the case of Jackson who probably has never read the constitution. If you take the time to examine what happened with the federal judges right before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision you will see that the left had mobs protesting at the judges homes, death threats, family harassment, and yet the judges held firm in their decision. So, if anyone is assuming here, I would have to say it is you assuming that they can be bought off.
Quote from: Possum on November 26, 2022, 09:36:31 AMYou're going to have to fill me in on where that has happened. What I do see is where a president such as Biden will nominate someone because they are extreme liberal already as in the case of Jackson who probably has never read the constitution. If you take the time to examine what happened with the federal judges right before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision you will see that the left had mobs protesting at the judges homes, death threats, family harassment, and yet the judges held firm in their decision. So, if anyone is assuming here, I would have to say it is you assuming that they can be bought off.
Don't use the word "liberal", when "leftist" is the correct term.
Quote from: Possum on November 26, 2022, 09:36:31 AMYou're going to have to fill me in on where that has happened. What I do see is where a president such as Biden will nominate someone because they are extreme liberal already as in the case of Jackson who probably has never read the constitution. If you take the time to examine what happened with the federal judges right before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision you will see that the left had mobs protesting at the judges homes, death threats, family harassment, and yet the judges held firm in their decision. So, if anyone is assuming here, I would have to say it is you assuming that they can be bought off.
Speachless. :sad:
Easy for the crooks to love.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on November 26, 2022, 10:17:56 AMDon't use the word "liberal", when "leftist" is the correct term.
They're now synonymous with one another.