quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
There is a down side to this.
If that becomes the law of the land you can forget EVER getting any stolen guns returned to the rightful owner.

I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful servitude...

It may alleviate considerable angst to understand what this case is actually about.

I cannot find it now, but there was a recent video by a member of the Supreme Court bar (correct title?) who commented on the case. He pointed out that the requirement for firearms to be manufactured with serial numbers is a commerce thing that Congress can legally regulate. This is about possession of guns with obliterated numbers or, presumably, those not manufactured in commerce such as completion of the 80% models by the owner for personal use and not for sale. I.e., it is not likely to change the requirement for guns originally manufactured for sale.

The lawyer also pointed out that the ruling did not address the “prohibited person” in possession of a gun issue. He noted that the case relied on looking at what the original practices were in effect when the Second Amendment was ratified, and he didn’t cite details, but said that there were certain prohibitions against “dangerous” persons even then. I believe that he therefore thinks a prohibited person ban would pass Constitutional muster.

Added: Another thing that may keep us from descending into serial numberless chaos is that they were not required by law on firearms until 1968. Before that, however, it was the usual manufacturing practice extending back into the 19th century for all but the cheapest guns. Wyatt Earp’s guns all probably had serial numbers, but they weren’t mandated by Federal law.

Added part deux.
Found the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-ZF4eqtKbQ&t=944s

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,