In a previous article on AmmoLand, the West Virginia case was described where the federal ban on possession of a firearm which has had the serial number removed, was found to be unconstitutional. The case is USA v Randy Price.
Serial numbers were never designed as a means of confiscating firearms. They have been subverted for that purpose.
Demanding that firearms have serial numbers, and that they be kept so firearms can be linked to particular individuals, is key to setting up a system for gun confiscation. Those who wish for an unarmed population understand this. They have marshaled vast resources to keep the federal ban on possession of firearms which have had the serial number removed.
The Biden administration has appealed the district court ruling to the Fourth Circuit. The defendant is represented by an attorney appointed by the court. It is unclear what defense of the district court ruling will be heard by the Fourth Circuit.
Amicus briefs have been filed to reverse the district court ruling by:
- Everytown for Gun Safety
- Brady and March For Our Lives
- The District of Columbia joined by 20 state attorney generals.
The amicus briefs may be viewed on the PACER system.
In the District Court opinion, no attention was paid to the direct and clear threat requiring firearms to have serial numbers and the prohibition on the possession of firearms where the serial number has been removed, to maintaining an armed population.
A ban on firearms which have had serial numbers removed, is a direct seizure of power over the ownership of arms, which the Second Amendment is designed to protect against.
The federal law makes confiscation of guns from the population much easier. The serial number law makes gun registration possible. Gun registration is gun confiscation. House to house searches are not necessary when a particular firearm can be linked to a particular person. This is the reason those who want a disarmed population are pulling out the stops to keep this law, although it is a clear infringement of the Right to Keep arms, protected by the Second Amendment.
Several European countries require serial numbers on all major gun parts, such as on barrels, slides, and frames. This is seen on Glock pistols.
A court appointed attorney has relatively limited resources. No amicus briefs have been filed, as of the December 22, 2022, by any of the organizations which are dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
The foremost argument by those fighting to keep the ban is the claim that firearms with the serial number removed are not in common use for legitimate purposes.
This is sophistry of the first order. The removal of a serial number does not change the function of a firearm at all. A .38 revolver with or without a serial number is still a .38 revolver. Revolvers are a type of firearm in common use. It is a change in legal nomenclature, which was required by the federal government in the first place. The argument is circular. It states firearms may be banned if the federal government defines them as contraband.
The argument could as easily be made that pink guns are not in common use, therefore they can be banned. The banning of colored guns has been proposed.
California uses its handgun roster to ban guns based on non-functional criteria. If a model is offered in a different color, it has to be tested in that color, an expensive and time consuming process. The California handgun roster is being challenged in court.
There is no historical precedent for a ban on firearms which have had the serial number removed. It is recent law, enacted in 1990. It has almost no effect on crime.
The secondary argument in the amicus brief is the claim that tracing guns is an effective crime fighting tool. It is not, and never has been. Showing numbers of people which have been prosecuted for possessing a firearm with the serial number removed, does not show any ability to stop crime; it only shows prosecutions of victimless crimes.
Firearms tracing is a failed system, designed to move to a universal firearms registration system. Showing the ban on possession of firearms with the serial number removed to be unconstitutional renders the decades long project to enact universal firearms registration futile.
Opinion: Organizations in support of rights protected by the Second Amendment may not wish to invest scarce resources in a case with a less than stellar defendant. It may be worth the effort to get the argument on the record that the ability of the government to ban the possession of firearms which have had a serial number removed, is an infringement on Second Amendment rights.
It illegitimately transfers power to the government from the people.
©2022 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment