Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge
- Thread starter Muley Gil
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
The article states that ser#'s were first required by the enactment of the GGA68.
That is incorrect with respect to Handguns mfg in the USA.
Looks like they are using Wikipedia for their sources. Seemed to have worked for Randy Price the accused.
Price is a convicted Felon, so he still faces possession of a firearm by a felon.
That is incorrect with respect to Handguns mfg in the USA.
Looks like they are using Wikipedia for their sources. Seemed to have worked for Randy Price the accused.
Price is a convicted Felon, so he still faces possession of a firearm by a felon.
OP
When were SNs REQUIRED by Federal law?
I believe 1934 NFA for handguns and machine guns and 1968 GFA for long guns.
Doesn't seem to be a good decision for law abiding gun owners. I suspect it will be overturned.
I believe the GCA68 required unique serial numbers across a manufacturer’s complete product line, where before serial numbers were unique within a given model. So, for example, if you are researching a Colt serial number you often find several different models with the same number.
Long guns ser# 'requirement' done by their mfg'r goes back to at least to the
FFA38 (Fed Firearms Act 1938),,if not the NFA '34.
FFA38 has language that states Removal, alteration, obliteration of a mfg'rs applied ser# is a felony,,ect.
The same language was rolled over into GCA68 when it took the place of the 1938 law.
I don't know that FFA38 specifys which firearms catagorys would be ser#'d upon mfgr (CF Rifles and all Handguns),,and which were optional (Shotguns and rf Long guns).
The GCA68 does however specificly demand that the last 2 classifications now join the cf Rifles and all Handguns in being ser#'d at the time of mfg.
All imports shall be ser#'d as well.
This simple gathering together of all classifications of firearms and making them all required to be ser#'d at the time of mfg has led to the misconception that it was at the time of the passing of GCA68 that all classes were FIRST required to be numbered.
When actually it was only the shotguns & rf long guns that were in that group.
The CF rifles and all handguns had already long been required to be ser#'d.
Certainly centerfire rifles were required to be ser#'d prior to the enactment of GCA68.
There are several instances prior to GCA68 where US gun mfg's got into hot water with the IRS (the pre-BATF Fed Firearms Enforcement Division at the time) over NOT ser#'g center fire production long guns being produced.
Marlin is probably the prime example often brought up.
Their centerfire Levermatics, the first 5000+ out the door unser#'d in 1964/65.
Savage also was wrist slapped for the same type of conduct. I believe it was over the Model 219 break open single shot rifle.
GCA68 ser# requirements added that a date or date code was somehow included in the ser#.
The 1986 Crime Act added another requirement that the ser# include an Alpha character(?) identifier to show the specific model of the firearm. This to separate Different models of same caliber.....Lots of S&W 38's around.
FFA38 (Fed Firearms Act 1938),,if not the NFA '34.
FFA38 has language that states Removal, alteration, obliteration of a mfg'rs applied ser# is a felony,,ect.
The same language was rolled over into GCA68 when it took the place of the 1938 law.
I don't know that FFA38 specifys which firearms catagorys would be ser#'d upon mfgr (CF Rifles and all Handguns),,and which were optional (Shotguns and rf Long guns).
The GCA68 does however specificly demand that the last 2 classifications now join the cf Rifles and all Handguns in being ser#'d at the time of mfg.
All imports shall be ser#'d as well.
This simple gathering together of all classifications of firearms and making them all required to be ser#'d at the time of mfg has led to the misconception that it was at the time of the passing of GCA68 that all classes were FIRST required to be numbered.
When actually it was only the shotguns & rf long guns that were in that group.
The CF rifles and all handguns had already long been required to be ser#'d.
Certainly centerfire rifles were required to be ser#'d prior to the enactment of GCA68.
There are several instances prior to GCA68 where US gun mfg's got into hot water with the IRS (the pre-BATF Fed Firearms Enforcement Division at the time) over NOT ser#'g center fire production long guns being produced.
Marlin is probably the prime example often brought up.
Their centerfire Levermatics, the first 5000+ out the door unser#'d in 1964/65.
Savage also was wrist slapped for the same type of conduct. I believe it was over the Model 219 break open single shot rifle.
GCA68 ser# requirements added that a date or date code was somehow included in the ser#.
The 1986 Crime Act added another requirement that the ser# include an Alpha character(?) identifier to show the specific model of the firearm. This to separate Different models of same caliber.....Lots of S&W 38's around.
Last edited:
DWalt
Member
I have owned numerous old .22 rifles and shotguns without SNs. Some of those I stamped a 4-digit number on just as an ID measure. I am wondering if someone in authority might eventually consider all of those old .22s and shotguns which never had factory SNs to be illegal.
heeter3
Member
I've got a colteer single shot.22LR rifle from the 1950s that has no serial number on it.
I 2 have several 22 rifles that never had a serial number.
As many times as we see someone come along innocently asking questions about a gun that has had the serial number removed I am not against this.
I bet the number of crimes solved solely by using a guns serial number is pretty small.
I want my guns to have serial numbers as it helps prove they are mine.
As many times as we see someone come along innocently asking questions about a gun that has had the serial number removed I am not against this.
I bet the number of crimes solved solely by using a guns serial number is pretty small.
I want my guns to have serial numbers as it helps prove they are mine.
Yeah, I don't see this case being upheld by higher courts. Serial numbers are required by federal law and although they could be used as a form of registration, they certainly provide a benefit in proof of ownership and if a firearm is returned to the factory for service, much like the VIN on a motor vehicle.
Interesting indeed!
I had typed up a lengthly reply about our Constitution and how it's been ignored for far too long, but I decided to delete it.
Suffice to say that our Constitution isn't a loophole. It can be changed, but the process isn't easy by design.
I had typed up a lengthly reply about our Constitution and how it's been ignored for far too long, but I decided to delete it.
Suffice to say that our Constitution isn't a loophole. It can be changed, but the process isn't easy by design.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 1,048
Car ownership is not Constitutionally protected. Apples and oranges.
Defacing (removing) a S/N is different than not having one. The ATF always "permitted" home built firearms with no S/N requirement unless it was sold (post 1968). Adding a S/N (California and others) to home made firearms not to be sold is a new and not traditional requirement. Ghost guns is a new definition meant to scare and restrict. And now the slippery slope of 80% is now a firearm and must be S/N'd and purchased as a firearm. I'm sure we won't see 79% lowers because ATF won't define that.
The 2nd is always under attack. I'm happy any time we get any victory.
Defacing (removing) a S/N is different than not having one. The ATF always "permitted" home built firearms with no S/N requirement unless it was sold (post 1968). Adding a S/N (California and others) to home made firearms not to be sold is a new and not traditional requirement. Ghost guns is a new definition meant to scare and restrict. And now the slippery slope of 80% is now a firearm and must be S/N'd and purchased as a firearm. I'm sure we won't see 79% lowers because ATF won't define that.
The 2nd is always under attack. I'm happy any time we get any victory.
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,774
- Reaction score
- 5,021
Serial numbers should be voluntary, by the manufacturer, not mandated by a psychopathic government. There, that was easy. Don't want an un-serialized gun? Don't buy one. Criminals don't care.
racoonbeast
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2014
- Messages
- 188
- Reaction score
- 394
You got that right. I don't need a bunch of idiots who could not even spell the word "gun", or worse yet, trying to disarm me, having the power to tell me what is proper and improper when it comes to guns. I am okay with keeping them away from felons and having a minimum age to purchase, but that is where it stops for me.
Paul in Nevada
Member
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 870
- Reaction score
- 1,019
None of those arguments supersede the Constitutionality of the issue.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2021
- Messages
- 587
- Reaction score
- 1,048
Not looking for an argument or talking about defaced firearms, but a nuance missed by some people is the supremacy clause. States can make laws which are more restrictive than federal law, but not less restrictive, EXCEPT when the more restrictive state law violates a constitutional right.
So IF the Braun decision referencing "historical tradition of firearm regulation" applies to home made firearms and those firearms did not require serial numbers under the definition of "historical tradition..." (because it's been that way forever) then California passing a law that home made firearms have to have serial numbers applied violates your constitutional rights, according to the Braun decision. At least one could make a valid argument.
Cali is anticipating a ton of lawsuits over their anti 2nd laws, which is why the are passing (or have passed) that if the plaintiff on any 2nd amendment lawsuit against the state fails in any of it's arguments, they have to pay court fees and damages to the state. Clearly this violates the 1st Amendment, but that's another story.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but my wife and daughter are, so take pity on me.
So IF the Braun decision referencing "historical tradition of firearm regulation" applies to home made firearms and those firearms did not require serial numbers under the definition of "historical tradition..." (because it's been that way forever) then California passing a law that home made firearms have to have serial numbers applied violates your constitutional rights, according to the Braun decision. At least one could make a valid argument.
Cali is anticipating a ton of lawsuits over their anti 2nd laws, which is why the are passing (or have passed) that if the plaintiff on any 2nd amendment lawsuit against the state fails in any of it's arguments, they have to pay court fees and damages to the state. Clearly this violates the 1st Amendment, but that's another story.
No, I'm not a lawyer, but my wife and daughter are, so take pity on me.
All Arms Laws that restrict the People are on their face Un-Constitutional
