Federal Court rules law against making serialized gun unconstitutional

[Kharn]

Feds filed their opening brief at the 4th Circuit.

Available here

Section 922(k) is consistent with historical statutes
regulating commerce in firearms and gunpowder and
requiring the inspection and marking of gun barrels.
Section 922(k) is consistent with a variety of historical laws regulating
firearms and gunpowder. Well before serial numbers became common,
colonial and state legislatures regulated firearms and the firearms trade. See
Teixeira v. Cnty. of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 685 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc)
(“[C]olonial governments substantially controlled the firearms trade.”). For
example, Connecticut banned residents from selling firearms outside the
colony. Id. Virginia provided that people were at “liberty to sell armes and
ammunition to any of his majesties loyall subjects inhabiting this colony.” Id. at
685 n.18 (emphasis added; quotation marks omitted). And at least six colonies
made it a crime (with severe penalties) to sell or provide firearms or
ammunition to Native Americans. Id. at 685 (citing 17th-century laws from
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia); see also 6 Statutes at
Large of Pennsylvania from 1682 to 1801 at 319-320 (1899) (1763 law); Laws
and Ordinances of New Netherland, 1638-1674 (1868) at 18-19 (1639
ordinance), 47 (1645 ordinance), 278 (1656 ordinance). Although not an exact
analogy to § 922(k), these laws show that colonial legislatures were concerned
about the movement of firearms between private parties and the dangers of
firearms falling into the wrong hands.

Section 922(k) is also “comparably justified.” The historical regulations
on commerce in firearms were designed to keep firearms out of the hands of
those who might be dangerous, such as (in the view of legislators at the time)
Native Americans. And the laws requiring marking of gun barrels and
gunpowder were designed to protect citizens from explosions and to allow
unsafe barrels or powder to be traced to the inspector who first affixed the
markings.

I hope everyone has their favorite overpriced Boy Scout popcorn close at hand...

 

[fabsroman]

Feds filed their opening brief at the 4th Circuit.

Available here




I hope everyone has their favorite overpriced Boy Scout popcorn close at hand...

If the ghost gun law in Maryland gets smacked down, I'll make my first one in celebration. Was going to make one and then Dumais introduced the bill. Figured it would eventually pass. Never, did I think we would get something as reasonable as Bruen.

 

[Boats]

Feds filed their opening brief at the 4th Circuit.

Available here




I hope everyone has their favorite overpriced Boy Scout popcorn close at hand...

Right?

They forgot to mention escaped slaves and Mexicans in addition to Native Americans. Literally using racism to defend tyranny.

Furthermore, if I remember right, the proofing of gunpowder was to make sure it was powerful enough and not weak powder that a shyster had mixed filler material into. Literally the opposite of what they are saying. Because colonial Americans werent idiots, they knew gunpowder was dangerous. Oh and also taxes.

 

[Inigoes]

Feds filed their opening brief at the 4th Circuit.

Available here




I hope everyone has their favorite overpriced Boy Scout popcorn close at hand...

It's good to see that the court is placing firearm prohibitions against people, and not objects.

 

[SWO Daddy]

Yes, if you can afford it, you should be allowed to own it. The thing is, if you do something stupid with it, they should come down on you like the hammer of God. The Second Amendment is all encompassing but it's also an awesome responsibility. You can have whatever you want but YOU WILL PAY DEARLY if you do something malicious or stupid. Murder someone, you die. Accidentally shoot someone, a hefty prison sentence and no more toys for you because you proved that you can't handle it. It's called common sense and an understanding of one's civic responsibility. You can't legislate that. A friend of mine understands this and makes good use of his 2nd Amendment rights:











To my knowledge, he owns the only T72 in private hands in the United States:

Jealous of that Chieftain.

 

[KIBarrister]

Feds filed their opening brief at the 4th Circuit.

Available here




I hope everyone has their favorite overpriced Boy Scout popcorn close at hand...

Oh, the irony, it BURNS!

1) These asshats are quoting pre-constitution regulations under his majesty's rule (the SAME FVCKING REGULATIONS THAT LEAD TO THE WAR OF INSURRECTION as those limey ba$tards call the Revolutionary War);

2) Proofing laws originate in Europe where they remain a thing. It is a law intended to make sure the bullet kills the target and not the trigger-puller. Yes, I support quality control in firearms manufacture;

3) They are quoting a prima facia racist law banning the sale of weapons to "the injuns." YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

We are in clown world. I just can't. I laughed until I cried when I read that - and it is taking me forever just to type this because I can't contain the laughter!

 

[Kharn]

Oh, the irony, it BURNS!

1) These asshats are quoting pre-constitution regulations under his majesty's rule (the SAME FVCKING REGULATIONS THAT LEAD TO THE WAR OF INSURRECTION as those limey ba$tards call the Revolutionary War);

2) Proofing laws originate in Europe where they remain a thing. It is a law intended to make sure the bullet kills the target and not the trigger-puller. Yes, I support quality control in firearms manufacture;

3) They are quoting a prima facia racist law banning the sale of weapons to "the injuns." YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

We are in clown world. I just can't. I laughed until I cried when I read that - and it is taking me forever just to type this because I can't contain the laughter!

In another case I read earlier this week, the defendant used laws pertaining to slaves, Native Americans, and Catholics. I was waiting for Irish and Chinese examples but they never came. They must have run out of pages.

 

[IronEye]

As long as there are no Methodists.

 

[wpage]

2nd Amendment was written as a prevent against tyrants. At the time King George and his taxes. As we analyze the situation today.

The world is ever full of tyrants and taxes. So the need for the constitution and its 2nd amendment is ever present.

This federal court ruling shows there are still some that understand the wisdom. Lord help the ignorant.

 

[357Max]

In the appeal these ass-hats seem to acknowledge that requiring serial numbers be added to privatly made firearms would not fly.

 

[Kharn]

More common? Might they just be... in common use?

 

[pcfixer]

More common? Might they just be... in common use?

firearms in common use or typically possessed for lawful purposes are not “unusual.”
Which arms are in common use is established by what Americans acquire in a free market,
not by whatever arms are left over after the government bans the arms that the people would have preferred.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/02/04/democrats_pushing_gun_registry_as_precursor_to_gun_ban_147139.html#!

​

​

Federal law explicitly prohibits the creation of a federal firearm registry, but the Biden administration is making one anyway.

EDIT: This all makes no difference when VanDerStock v Garland final in this case invalidated the Rule of ATF. Right?

IV. CONCLUSION Individual Plaintiffs Jennifer VanDerStok and Michael G. Andren have shown that they are entitled to expanded relief under the current preliminary injunction. Tactical Machining, LLC has made the same showing. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion in part, DENIES the motion in part, and ORDERS that Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, and employees are enjoined from implementing or enforcing against (1) Individual Plaintiffs, Jennifer VanDerStok, and Michael G. Andren, and (2) Tactical Machining, LLC and its “customers,” Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 89 Filed 10/01/22 Page 21 of 22 PageID 1162 22 defined above, the provisions in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and 478.12 that this Court has determined are likely unlawful. This Court waives the security requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1996)

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1664676764/VanDerStok_v_Garland_Order_on_Scope_of_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf?1664676764