Federal court rules that law criminalizing obliterating serial numbers on guns unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.
buck460XVR said:
I see it as not much of anything. It does not affect the fact that gun manufacturers still have to assign a serial number to a gun. I did not see where it makes it legal for you to intentionally remove the serial number from a gun. As has already been said, I see serial numbers more as a way to validate a warranty and to personally identify one's own guns, than I see them as a "confiscation" device. I also don't expect to see huge increases in the sale of Dremel tools as hordes of gun owners prepare to deface their firearms. But I'm sure there will be those out there that will, just because now they can.
Click to expand...

There is a huge 80% receiver market. If the ruling is allowed to stand, it will have great impact on Biden and his ATF's ability to regulate 80% lowers.

Then there is the fact that a few non free states and the District of Columbia requires by law that firearms that are owned and even carried outside of the home for self defense be registered. One can not carry any other firearm that they own outside of the home. In DC for just one example, the firearms you want to carry outside of the home via your carry permit must be registered and are tied to your carry permit through serial numbers. You can only tie up to 3 serials at a time to your permit. If serial numbers are no longer a requirement, then it makes enforcement of these types of laws much more difficult.

Another thing to note is that if it's legal to remove or alter serial numbers, then it will again be much, much more difficult if not almost impossible for the BATF to regulate NFA items. This is really why it's a huge deal. If serial numbers can be altered, removed, or aren't required at all, just about all registration and control schemes will become moot.

@buck460XVR, there are even more side effects and ramifications that you are not thinking about or taking into consideration. Even though you do not see the BIG picture, I suspect that the Clinton appointed Jugde does. He did this strategically as a backhanded way to put pressure on and challenge the Bruen ruling. It will make enforcement of long standing NFA laws, firearm registration AND Federally required Background check regiments, and law enforcement ability to trace and track firearms used in crimes extremely difficult.

@Aim1
 
Last edited:
dweis said:
I think the judge got it wrong. A serial # does not infringe 2A Right. Serial numbers do not prohibit anyone who can legally possess a firearm from doing so. They are like serial numbers in vehicles. Every vehicle has a serial number and anyone may own a vehicle. If you think about it, many expensive items have serial numbers: smart phones, computers, TVs and more. They are part of keeping warranty services proper and for insurance records and settlements on listed items. They prove the item existed and therefore is subject to warranties and settlements.

So unless someone can explain to me how a serial number in a firearm keeps them from legally owning the firearm, I say the judge got it wrong.
Click to expand...
A $5 Poll tax is considered an infringement on the right to vote.

How much does it cost to engrave serial numbers on guns and maintain the paperwork? Probably more than $5.
 
Styx said:
There is a huge 80% receiver market. If the ruling is allowed to stand, it will have great impact on Biden and his ATF's ability to regulate 80% lowers.
Another thing to note is that if it's legal to remove or alter serial numbers, then it will again be much, much more difficult if not almost impossible for the BATF to regulate NFA items. This is really why it's a huge deal.
Click to expand...

As I said, I did not see anything in the article that said it was now legal to remove/alter or to manufacture a firearm without a serial number. Only that is was legal to own a firearm without a serial number. As for the "huge" 80% market, "huge" is a relative term. While they surge may be "huge" for that platform, it is relatively minuscule in the overall gun market. The surge, mirrored the surge in the sale of all gun platforms and from many sources was driven by the fact that fully assembled firearms were not available at all, while "parts" to build your own were.

As you say, "if the ruling is allowed to stand". If the ATF does not once again change rulings on 80% guns, like they did in August. Much of the "surge" is now being driven by that. There are a lot of things out there affecting gun owners that are "huge". I just don't feel personally, that this ruling is one of them. Others are certainly free to feel differently.
 
Does a firearm historically need a serial number for the possessor to own or operate it? Of course not, and I think this is what the intent of this ruling is.

BUT, and this is a big but, from 31 years in the LE business; guns that have ground off serial numbers are vastly more likely to be stolen, and are also much more likely to be in the hands of someone who is prohibited from possessing guns due to a history of felonious criminal activity, documented mental instability or they are underaged (and a majority of these are gang members). I have yet to meet a legitimate gun owner anywhere who has purposely ground off the serial numbers on their own guns just because.

As for the value of serialized firearms; I had a gun stolen and returned 6 years later because it still had an untouched serial number. I have also recovered several guns and they were returned to their rightful owners because the numbers were there. Had the crooks obliterated them, these guns would have been melted into rebar by now. :(

Its not the serial number on the gun thing that gets me, as many older guns didn’t come with them. Its the OK for someone to grind off a serial number on a gun and/or possess such a defaced gun that I find rather dumb. Doing that serves no legitimate purpose, and is an identifiable hallmark of a gun that is almost always illegally possessed by whoever is found with it.

I don’t think this will stand up to appeal… but then again I also thought that a suspect involved in 17 murders of fellow high schoolers after 18 months of meticulous planning, and 17 knowing and intelligent guilty pleas to those very murders, would lead to a death sentence in Florida. You just never know how a ruling will go. o_O

Stay safe.
 
buck460XVR said:
As I said, I did not see anything in the article that said it was now legal to remove/alter or to manufacture a firearm without a serial number. Only that is was legal to own a firearm without a serial number. As for the "huge" 80% market, "huge" is a relative term. While they surge may be "huge" for that platform, it is relatively minuscule in the overall gun market. The surge, mirrored the surge in the sale of all gun platforms and from many sources was driven by the fact that fully assembled firearms were not available at all, while "parts" to build your own were.

As you say, "if the ruling is allowed to stand". If the ATF does not once again change rulings on 80% guns, like they did in August. Much of the "surge" is now being driven by that. There are a lot of things out there affecting gun owners that are "huge". I just don't feel personally, that this ruling is one of them. Others are certainly free to feel differently.
Click to expand...
There was already a huge market for 80% Glock kits and lowers before they threatened to change the rules. Yes, they may have surged even more, but 80% receivers for both Glocks and AR15s were very popular prior. I suspect you aren't into them, do not own any, so you wouldn't know. You are making assumptions.

Without even getting into the weeds about whether the ruling means it's legal for one to remove the serial or not, it clearly means that if one is found in possession of a firearm with it's serial number removed is not guilty of a crime per se. Even if I go with your interpretation, it would STILL mean it would render most firearm registrations and NFA laws moot. The Federal Government could not require that firearms have serials, and it would be on them to prove (which it would be almost impossible to do in most cases) that the person in possession of a unserialized firearm is in fact the person who altered or removed the serial...

No matter how you try to down play it, there are huge ramifications. You just refuse to acknowledge them.
 
Last edited:
George Dickel said:
The only reason for serial numbers mandated by the government that I can come up with is firearm ownership registration lists.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's all for tracking, registration, and control on both the part of the federal government and firearm manufacturers. A large part of state and federal government gun control laws depend on firearms being serialized. To say that ruling saying serialization is no longer required isn't a "huge deal" is shortsighted.
 
starling said:
Could actually be an anti-gun move tactic.
Click to expand...

That must be it. Removing a law that is involved with infringing my gun rights must be an anti-gun move tactic.
starling said:
My concern here is "whats the real play/con going on".
Click to expand...

Because if the courts make a ruling in our favor, it must be an anti-gun move?

dweis said:
My point is that requiring a serial number on a firearm does not infringe the right to own one. Not having a serial # does not either. Serial numbers are required to manufacture not to own. The regulation of a product does not (to me) regulate a right.
Click to expand...

No, but saying you can't alter your own property does infringe on your right to own it. Saying you can't legally buy a gun with the serial number removed does infringe upon your right to own it.
Styx said:
No matter how you try to down play it, there are huge ramifications. You just refuse to acknowledge them.
Click to expand...

Styx said:
No matter how you try to down play it, there are huge ramifications. You just refuse to acknowledge them.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would have to agree that this ruling is fairly inconsequential at the current time for the rest of the country as it is not binding. This was only done in a district court and really is only relevant to the district court and the courts under this one. It needs to be upheld in a higher court for there to be general applicability of the ruling and so until that happens, it isn't like the law is no longer universally valid. It isn't as if the cops won't be enforcing the law, making arrests, or continuing to destroy 'illegal' firearms with serial numbers that have been removed. Until local, state, and federal police are no longer enforcing said law, this thread is about as much impact as this ruling is going to have on me.

In other words, whether or not this ruling has "huge ramifications" has yet to be determined.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf
 
230RN said:
Ohhhhh-kay. I guess about four or five years ago Md. repealed that law because it didn't solve any crimes and was too expensive to implement for the supposed benefits. I kept the cases anyway.
Click to expand...

Someone as cynical as me would have reloaded that brass a couple times. Fire it out of something else, then put it back in the box.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Actually, I would have to agree that this ruling is fairly inconsequential at the current time for the rest of the country as it is not binding. This was only done in a district court and really is only relevant to the district court and the courts under this one. It needs to be upheld in a higher court for there to be general applicability of the ruling and so until that happens, it isn't like the law is no longer universally valid. It isn't as if the cops won't be enforcing the law, making arrests, or continuing to destroy 'illegal' firearms with serial numbers that have been removed. Until local, state, and federal police are no longer enforcing said law, this thread is about as much impact as this ruling is going to have on me.

In other words, whether or not this ruling has "huge ramifications" has yet to be determined.
Click to expand...
I agree that it means nothing at the current time. That is a given and goes without saying. I also do not see it being upheld. My post and my discussion with @buck460XVR was about what the ramifications, if any, would be if the ruling is upheld and becomes the law of the land so to speak.
 
Riomouse911 said:
Its the OK for someone to grind off a serial number on a gun and/or possess such a defaced gun that I find rather dumb. Doing that serves no legitimate purpose, and is an identifiable hallmark of a gun that is almost always illegally possessed by whoever is found with it.
Click to expand...

It's not about "legitimate purposes" anymore; now, it's about "text and tradition." The argument that removing serial numbers serves no legitimate purpose (I agree, BTW.) is analogous to "No one needs 100 rounds for hunting."
 
Bruen affecting serial numbers or ghost guns is a trivial side effect if the total carry bans in force in NYS and upcoming in NJ and CA are not stopped. Those type of laws will spread across the country based on party control of the legislatures and governors' offices. If Scotus takes its usual glacial pace and ambiguous, loophole laden decision making - a few Bruen positive decisions in already friendly states will be so great.
 
Whenever I hear people say the a court has missed the point or doesn't understand, I wonder if the commentator has read the entire opinion or is working off information that has been obtained from MSM or others. I read the 20 page opinion. It was clear to me that the court was attempting to abide by the mandates of Bruen even though it was a dramatic change in how courts had reviewed the laws previously. That is precisely what the court should do.

The judge is human and a product of the culture in which he was raised. He is entitled to opinions of his own crafted by his experience and disposition, but must apply the law whether he agrees with it or not. I have concluded that this judge worked hard to reach the required result rather than one he might have preferred or been more comfortable with. What happens now is up to other courts, but the district court took its obligation seriously and that is appreciated.
 
rust collector said:
Whenever I hear people say the a court has missed the point or doesn't understand, I wonder if the commentator has read the entire opinion or is working off information that has been obtained from MSM or others. I read the 20 page opinion. It was clear to me that the court was attempting to abide by the mandates of Bruen even though it was a dramatic change in how courts had reviewed the laws previously. That is precisely what the court should do.

The judge is human and a product of the culture in which he was raised. He is entitled to opinions of his own crafted by his experience and disposition, but must apply the law whether he agrees with it or not. I have concluded that this judge worked hard to reach the required result rather than one he might have preferred or been more comfortable with. What happens now is up to other courts, but the district court took its obligation seriously and that is appreciated.
Click to expand...


Do you think his ruling will stand?
 
Aim1 said:
Do you think his ruling will stand?
Click to expand...
You didn't ask me lol, but my opinion is it all depends on what judge and court it gets appealed to next. I do not see SCOTUS taking up the case to make the final decision on the matter either way.

Too bad this isn't in the legal section. I'd like to here lawyer opinions on what the next steps are if appealed, what court would be hearing it, and how far this has to go up the chain before the ruling is nationwide. Then again, if it was in the legal section, the thread would most likely have been closed already.

It's nice to see the antigunnerson on their heals playing defense for the first time. It's usually the progun citizens and organizations who are reacting to what the antigunners are doing instead of the other way around.
 
Last edited:
When I first read Bruen, I did not appreciate how quickly and how broadly its "text and tradition" standard would change 2A jurisprudence. This ruling is just one example of the utterly profound shift in the law that Bruen is driving. We are going to see many more in the future, I believe.
 
Styx said:
It will make enforcement of long standing NFA laws, firearm registration AND Federally required Background check regiments, and law enforcement ability to trace and track firearms used in crimes extremely difficult.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many crimes are actually solved --I mean actually solved, no BS-- by serial number tracing.

As far as regulating which of your "three" firearms you can carry, what the heck difference does it make? You are permitted to carry a device which projects a deadly object at a high speed at a malefactor for defense purposes, so what cotton-pickin' difference does the serial number make?

At sum, at root, at fundamentals, this case, among any other "small" cases, expands consciousness of the meaning of the word "infringed."

Do I have to repeat that again and again, over and over, redundantly?

That's the Big Deal here.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
230RN said:
I wonder how many crimes are actually solved --I mean actually solved -- by serial number tracing.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People just love to use that as some sort of reason to infringe on rights, when in reality, it doesn’t help solve very many crimes at all, and who cares if it did? There are plenty of things we could do to prevent or solve crimes. All we have to do is give up our rights so we can live safely in a gilded cage.
 
I'm not sure it will change anything in terms of solving cases. Serial numbers aren't going away--manufacturers are still required to put them on--the ruling doesn't affect that.

People who don't care about serial numbers will leave them in place, as before, which means guns will be able to be reverse-traced as before.

People who damage/deface serial numbers will do so as before and either forensics will be able to recover the serial number for reverse-tracing, as before, or won't be able to recover them in which case reverse-tracing won't be possible, as before.

I just don't think there are criminals out there who want to remove/deface/alter a serial number and are not doing it because it's a crime. If they are wanting to remove the serial number it's almost certainly to cover up a serious crime that has already been committed or is about to be committed which is pretty good evidence that the person in question isn't someone who is deterred by laws.

There might be law-abiding folks out there who want to remove serial numbers for one reason or another and are stopping because of the law against it--but really the only thing that removing serial numbers will do in that case is make it hard for them to recover their guns if they are stolen.

The main thing I see this affecting is it won't be possible to prosecute someone found with a gun that has a defaced/altered/removed serial number.

The only other possible negative outcome is unscrupulous people might try to alter serial numbers on guns to enhance collector value--and I could see how maybe some folks like that might be deterred by a law with a serious penalty against altering a serial number while the prospect of committing fraud might not be a big deal to them.
 
230RN said:
I wonder how many crimes are actually solved --I mean actually solved, no BS-- by serial number tracing.

As far as regulating which of your "three" firearms you can carry, what the heck difference does it make? You are permitted to carry a device which projects a deadly object at a high speed at a malefactor for defense purposes, so what cotton-pickin' difference does the serial number make?

At sum, at root, at fundamentals, this case, among any other "small" cases, expands consciousness of the meaning of the word "infringed."

Do I have to repeat that again and again, redundantly?

That's the Big Deal here.

Terry, 230RN
Click to expand...
What difference does being forced to register a firearm and being limited to carrying only 3 out of all the firearms one might own makes? Not being about to carry a new firearm even though you already have a carry permit until it's taken down the police department and registed to your carry permit is not make a big deal? If one only has one firearm listed on their permit that was lost, stolen, sold, malfunctioning, or sent in under warranty, they can not carry any other until they get down to the police precinct during business hours with the firearm secured in a container so they can to tie a new serial to their carry permit.... If the ruling stands, laws like this will be hard and unconstitutional to enact in the states that ready have them and in any state in the future that may think about enacting such laws.

I haven't even brought up the fact that there are a pothera of documented cases, in states that require registration, of firearms being confiscated under red flag laws. In those states they know exactly what you have and what to take because of serial numbers.

[EDIT] Maybe I read your post wrong. If you are saying that firearm traces, firearm registration, etc are pointless and an infringement, I agree. All those laws are affecting law abiding citizens more so than helping solve crimes or keep firearms out of the hands of criminals.
 
Last edited:
Not really sure how I feel about this. I can see how this might be a "bump and spike" play at the legality and legitimacy of firearms without a serial number. Firearms privately made or before 1968 aka "ghost guns." But felon in possession of a firearm and obliterating a serial number charges are often the frosting on a cake charges to keep felons in prison when they commit firearm crimes. If courts start making rulings that those laws are unconstitutional, we would have more felons wandering around, not less.
 
Buzznrose said:
Also, homemade firearms do not require a SN today as long as it’s not sold.
Click to expand...

Serial numbers are still not required when an individual sells a homemade firearm. The recent rule changes on receivers and firearms only effects FFL holders. Personally manufactured firearms (PMF) still do not require a serial number for individuals that build them.

Serial numbers are only required when a FFL holder takes them in AND logs them into their Acquisition and Disposition Books AKA A&D books or bound books. Even though a gunsmith must have a FFL, if said smith does NOT keep the PMF over night, then it does not get put into their A&D books nor does it require them to engrave a serial number.

And for those calling any firearm made prior to the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968 "ghost guns, that is wrong. Serial numbers were NOT required on firearm prior to the GCA of 68. These are NOT ghost guns and the new rule changes on firearms and receivers even states that the new rule change does NOT effect firearms made before the enactment of the GCA of 68

Back when I had my FFL, I would mark my A&D book as NONE or NA in the serial number box for all firearms that did not require a serial number. The same is true now for firearms made prior to the 68 GCA even with the rule changes.
 
I read what I could find on the ruling. A serial number allows me to prove ownership by adding something identifiable. Once it’s mine, I should be able to do what I want with it. Destroying identifiable information is silly. But it’s still mine to deface.
 
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. On the one hand it’s a boon to the 80% and home builder market. On the other hand it sucks that criminals can make it more difficult to reunite a stolen gun with the legitimate owner without fear of penalty.

Forget about asking why they want to make it a crime to make a gun without a serial number. Ask yourself why is it illegal to possess a previously serialized gun with an obliterated serial. To me there’s a real functional difference between possessing a ‘ghost gun’ that never had a serial number and possessing one with a serial that’s been removed.

I’m trying to figure out a reason the legitimate owner of a gun would want to remove the serial number and I’m not really finding a strong one. If you want an untraceable gun then buy one in a private sale or make a ghost gun. If you buy a serialized gun from an FFL there’s a record of the make and model even if you remove the serial. If you bought it private party that serial isn’t tied to you anyway.

dh1633pm said:
Once it’s mine, I should be able to do what I want with it. Destroying identifiable information is silly. But it’s still mine to deface.
Click to expand...

As a believer in property rights I agree, but I honestly can’t come up with a reason why someone would want to,
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Supplemental Brief in Delaware Court states that Bruen doesn't protect Ghost Guns.
Replies
3
Views
264
Zerodefect
Z
A
BREAKING: The Supreme Court LEAVES IN PLACE an appeals-court ruling that allows New York to keep....
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Proposed 'ghost gun' rule could reshape battle against homemade guns: Experts
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
4K
Pat Riot
Pat Riot
A
  • Locked
An OK judge rules that the law banning marijuana users from possesing guns is unconstitutional
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
3K
rust collector
R
A
  • Locked
FPC VICTORY: Federal Judge Blocks Delaware Ban on Self-Built Firearm Possession, Home Manufacturing
Replies
5
Views
388
230RN
230RN
Back
Top