Live data from Hacker News

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

reuters.com

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#51
For anyone not in the US.

1. Having a gun without serial numbers isn't doing the current owner any favors, it's doing one for the previous owner (who in this case sold it illegally to a felon). If anything it's detrimental to the current owner as it's going to raise eyebrows during an interaction with a LEO.

2. If you have a gun without serial numbers, etched off or otherwise, it's still illegal to transfer that firearm to a new owner.

I'm not a law or a gun expert so take all that with a big grain of salt.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. How do…

The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government-which the opening words of the 1st Amendment - “Congress shall make no law…”-make very clear. Its authors modelled it on similar Bills of Rights in state constitutions - they believed that protecting the rights of citizens against infringement by the state and local governments was the job of state constitutions (to be enforced by state supreme cour…

PS I'm currently listening to the scotus Bruen case and early in the oral arguments Justice Thomas mentioned the 14th Amendment and now I have understand the context and reference.

Double thanks

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#53
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my understanding is the exact opposite. how odd. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well regulated means well armed. Militia means citizen army, and the people means the people. It is hard to come to a different understanding of the amendment without redefining these terms. My understanding is that those fa…

> Well regulated means well armed How do you figure this? Is there judicial precedent for this particular interpretation?

See The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment[1].

[1]: https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.ht...

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#54
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said "a good guy".

The constitution assumes the government will be run by bad people. Hence all the limits it imposed on government.

The founders of the US, among them some authors of that Constitution, would disagree.

George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.”

Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.”

James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.”

Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.”

Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.”

John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual happiness and societal governance.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#55
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that ba…

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation

Not in the way that NRA nor gun rights activists think nor claim.

1. The Founding Fathers were devoted to the militia.[1]

2. The amendment’s primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army.[1]

3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms.[1]

4. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.[1]

Anyone wishing for a return to an original meaning of the Second Amendment — where no one was a professional soldier, but everyone would be required to participate in the militia — would find themselves far from the political mainstream.[1]

If you want to make an argument about founding documents and classical interpretation, that's fine, but then we're going to be required to adopt the Framers' intent (which is undeniable as summarized above when examining the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses), and ignore and remove any subsequently introduced individual right to bear arms,[2] and gun owners will be required to join the National Guard. I am all for it.

And I'm not sure why in this ruling "tradition" is given so much weight. There was no tradition of personal rights to arms until well, well after the turn of the 20th Century, so the NRA was very late to invent this tradition.[2] If 1968 is not old enough for tradition, then how is it that 1950 is? Is the 13th Amendment in jeopardy of being a violation of the somehow new legal supremacy of tradition?

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/...

[2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-...

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled sho…

> You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. That is a lot of words for committing an ad hominem. > It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179, not whatever 21st century gun contro…

[deleted]

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#57
post #31
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the Bruen opinion - it's well-written and actually pretty clear that recent (really, meaning the last two centuries) gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Any restrictions have to be ones that would have been commonly in place when the Constitution originated, so generally, no later than 1791. It's likely (and a really good thing for liberty and Constitutional rights in general) that Bruen will invalidate both…

I can accept that Bruen's arguments have a certain internal logic. What I don't understand is how we have decided weigh the "right" of having guns vs the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, the latter is what the government is for , and everything else -- even and especially the bill of rights -- is an implementation decision designed too further those…

> Declaration of Independence

A document penned before the United States Constitution which has zero legal authority - a letter to King George III.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that ba…

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. The irony here is that this court strikes down a clause of the Gun Control Act 1968 on the grounds that it is "not consistent with the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'" – and yet the very Supreme Court precedents it is applying in doing so are t…

> There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome

Except a number of the Federalist papers..

Post reply on HN