Bruen yields its first reckless, irresponsible, and wrongheaded judgment

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

 

[1srelluc]

More freedom to come.

 

[MarathonMike]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

This is minutia that concerns you? Our country is under attack and it's either Trump Trump Trump, gun control or fantasy abortion bans.

 

[theHawk]

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

You lefties have never been successful in disarming the gang ridden shit holes you have been in control of for the last 40 years.

Who scares you more? A gang of thugs that commit robberies and murders all the time, or some white Republican with an AR-15?

 

[Concerned American]

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms;

Is this firearm, with the serial number removed, no longer a firearm? If you agree that it is still a firearm and you wish to make it illegal to keep and bear, then that would be unconstitutional. What about home made firearms that have no serial number? Try again. Now if you want to make a law that prohibits the removal of the serial number--that is a different story. You cannot prohibit the keeping and bearing of firearms based solely on not having a serial number.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

A serial number doesn't do anything, aside from give the gun a unique marking. The law requiring a serial number serves no purpose other than that.

The only reason for the government ordering it is to eventually create a registry, to eventually start confiscations.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You lefties have never been successful in disarming the gang ridden shit holes you have been in control of for the last 40 years.

Who scares you more? A gang of thugs that commit robberies and murders all the time, or some white Republican with an AR-15?

The white Republican with the AR, because as long he's armed, he can't be controlled.

 

[progressive hunter]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

the premise of the OP is a lie,, saying you cant have a gun with no numbers means it infringes on your rights,,

 

[Oddball]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

 

[petro]

Historical tradition of gun regulation?

So why does my grandfathers old .22 Marlin that I now possess have exactly no serial numbers when it was produced almost a hundred years ago?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those interested and with an open mine – not those with a mind encased in the concrete of rightwing dogma – the link below contains an excellent analysis of the faults and failings of the ‘historical tradition’ test:

“The opinion’s requirement that courts only look to history in deciding Second Amendment cases is likely to have a monumental impact in lower courts and on various state laws. And the way the Court in this opinion assessed history, distinguishing away all potentially relevant analogues, I think should rightly worry those who fear that a historical test just masks value judgements and judicial discretion that is at least—for whatever else can be said of it—more transparent in the two-part framework. Bruen calls for historical method, but truncates it and chops it apart. On Bruen’s account, Heller can falsify history—making traditions, laws, and cases irrelevant to the analysis—but cannot itself be falsified. That’s an odd way to employ history.”

Bruen, Analogies, and the Quest for Goldilocks History | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[petro]

1968.
Hardly what I call historical regarding an Amendment that was ingrained into our Constitution, that didn't require government knowledge of transfers.

 

[westwall]

‘(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.’

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional: federal judge

By Brendan Pierson (Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June. U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in...

www.rawstory.com

The law concerning the removal of serial numbers from firearms has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms per se: it neither regulates nor prohibits the possession of a particular type of firearm or class of firearms; it neither regulates nor prohibits specific individuals from possessing a particular type of firearm or class of firearms.

Consequently, prohibiting the removal of serial numbers from firearms in no manner violates the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense.

Indeed, the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" as a ‘test’ is reckless and irresponsible, as wrong as it is ridiculous.

Until the 1950's there were many firearms manufactured without serial numbers.

What is the purpose of a serial number?

REGISTRATION!

DUMBASS!

 

[Oddball]

For those interested and with an open mine – not those with a mind encased in the concrete of rightwing dogma – the link below contains an excellent analysis of the faults and failings of the ‘historical tradition’ test:

“The opinion’s requirement that courts only look to history in deciding Second Amendment cases is likely to have a monumental impact in lower courts and on various state laws. And the way the Court in this opinion assessed history, distinguishing away all potentially relevant analogues, I think should rightly worry those who fear that a historical test just masks value judgements and judicial discretion that is at least—for whatever else can be said of it—more transparent in the two-part framework. Bruen calls for historical method, but truncates it and chops it apart. On Bruen’s account, Heller can falsify history—making traditions, laws, and cases irrelevant to the analysis—but cannot itself be falsified. That’s an odd way to employ history.”

Bruen, Analogies, and the Quest for Goldilocks History | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘In summary, the Court declared that its “long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry” failed to support the state’s position. A few “outliers” here and a few “outliers” there were not enough to support New York. Justice Thomas concluded the opinion with a nod to the “second class” theme that he’s been raising repeatedly since Heller. The Court won’t, he said, apply a whole different set of rules to the Second Amendment by allowing officials to have discretion over its exercise. But, of course, the Court did in fact impose a whole different set of rules in requiring states to come up with historical analogues to justify regulation and eschewing the type of means-end scrutiny the justices routinely applies in First Amendment cases and other areas of constitutional law.’ ibid

Conservatives are at least consistent at being inconsistent.

 

[westwall]

‘In summary, the Court declared that its “long journey through the Anglo-American history of public carry” failed to support the state’s position. A few “outliers” here and a few “outliers” there were not enough to support New York. Justice Thomas concluded the opinion with a nod to the “second class” theme that he’s been raising repeatedly since Heller. The Court won’t, he said, apply a whole different set of rules to the Second Amendment by allowing officials to have discretion over its exercise. But, of course, the Court did in fact impose a whole different set of rules in requiring states to come up with historical analogues to justify regulation and eschewing the type of means-end scrutiny the justices routinely applies in First Amendment cases and other areas of constitutional law.’ ibid

Conservatives are at least consistent at being inconsistent.

And you are consistent in being a ignorant boob. The 2nd is VERY SIMPLE.

The government CAN'T do shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“For now, I want to highlight a few aspects of the opinion that stood out to me. One is that this opinion reads like a full-on Justice Thomas opinion that supercharges the Second Amendment right in the way he has been calling for in dissents from denials of cert for years. I’m a little surprised to see he got all five other Republican-appointed justices to sign on in full. That wasn’t as surprising for the result of invalidating the New York law, but was surprising to me for the approach of rejecting the two-part framework and fully adopting the history-only method.

Another thing that stood out is that the majority does not repeat the assurances from both Heller and McDonald that there are a set of laws that are presumptively constitutional, like laws prohibiting certain people from possessing guns or regulations on the commercial sale of arms. (A concurrence does, but the majority opinion—made a majority only by the two justices on that concurrence—doesn’t). That’s a glaring omission to me, and just reaffirms further that Justice Kennedy’s absence made all the difference here.” ibid

Indeed.

In essence, Bruen is a judicial mess – sloppy, inconsistent, dishonest, and intellectually lazy.

The opinion is conservative political dogma hidden behind the façade of Constitutional law.

 

[Oddball]

“For now, I want to highlight a few aspects of the opinion that stood out to me. One is that this opinion reads like a full-on Justice Thomas opinion that supercharges the Second Amendment right in the way he has been calling for in dissents from denials of cert for years. I’m a little surprised to see he got all five other Republican-appointed justices to sign on in full. That wasn’t as surprising for the result of invalidating the New York law, but was surprising to me for the approach of rejecting the two-part framework and fully adopting the history-only method.

Another thing that stood out is that the majority does not repeat the assurances from both Heller and McDonald that there are a set of laws that are presumptively constitutional, like laws prohibiting certain people from possessing guns or regulations on the commercial sale of arms. (A concurrence does, but the majority opinion—made a majority only by the two justices on that concurrence—doesn’t). That’s a glaring omission to me, and just reaffirms further that Justice Kennedy’s absence made all the difference here.” ibid

Indeed.

In essence, Bruen is a judicial mess – sloppy, inconsistent, dishonest, and intellectually lazy.

The opinion is conservative political dogma hidden behind the façade of Constitutional law.

 

[Rogue AI]

This is minutia that concerns you? Our country is under attack and it's either Trump Trump Trump, gun control or fantasy abortion bans.

Don't forget the constant promotion of faggotry.

The judge is clearly correct. Unless someone can demonstrate that serial numbers were common in the time of the Founders. Either way, serial numbers were never originally intended for government use.

 

[Leo123]

I think this already has a serial number........From Stanley.