So now that guns can have their serial numbers removed...

So now that guns can have their serial numbers removed...

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    noice

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    oh boy i cant wait to ruin the finish on my gun just so i can thwart the government in my head despite living my life crime-free

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well if the finish of already ruined :/

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        grinding off the serial number is just asking for trouble. the likelihood of some cop seeing it and going full probably cause is WAY more likely than having an unmarked gun benefitting you in some way.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I know reddit normies like you only ever care about convenience but that is the price one pays, temporarily, until it is commonplace.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the government executing you for scratching off a number means you SHOULDN'T have unmarked guns
          Anon, I understand what your trying to say, but thats really fucking retarded.
          Also

          I know reddit normies like you only ever care about convenience but that is the price one pays, temporarily, until it is commonplace.

          we have to fight for every right we have so that our sons and daughters can enjoy the ones we got persecuted for.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What the fuck? Yes you should be able to scratch of a number from your own property. Who cares about reasons and benefits, its your property.
          >inb4 crime infested city dwellers
          I don't give a shit about you. Your failure is not my problem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >removing serials
            I mean, sure you can, but you will get fucking reamed for it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            isn't there some law about removing the serial number from household appliances like washing machines?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would a cop see it? Twice I have been detained for over an hour for refusing to consent to a search while stopped for a traffic misdemenor and denied police the right to finger fuck my weapon. In the 2nd case I went to court and beat a seatbelt charge by questioning same highway patrol for an hour in pro se about his action during that stop. That serial number is mostly to catalog gun ownership for door kicking in the future. Nice work Justice Thomas. That will teach the left about what happens when you electronically lynch a SCOTUS nominee.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        whats the point, honestly?
        build a 80% kit if you really want to

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There is no point other than you can fucking do it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            i suppose. god bless

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >living my life crime-free
      not possible. you are guilty of something, perhaps many things, if they want you to be guilty.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      i think the main benefactors are going to be criminals who do this already. normal people won't be scratching off their numbers. criminals will so they can't be tagged for stolen firearms if caught.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >i think the main benefactors are going to be criminals
        You realize "criminal" is just the word the government assigns those to people they dislike?
        If criminals benefit then good, the government's enemies need to be stronger.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          he's talking about gun thieves you moron

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he's talking about gun thieves you moron
            You mean those traditionally law abiding gun thieves who would never scrub a serial number from a firearm because it's against the law?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anything that gets the ATF mad is a good thing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      According to the FBI/ATF/Libs if you're conservative there is no such thing as innocent; only degrees of guilt.
      Remember this when you think about the fact that at government behest, credit card companies willingly record every firearm or firearm related purchase and turn that over to the alphabet bios as a defacto registration scheme, or at the very least, have a nice and easy enemies list.
      The tyrants are scared. They know that the feces is about to hit the spinning air displacement unit and they're making a list.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This, they know full well that civilization is heading for a collapse again, like a full global collapse. They also know that they can no longer stop it, the buck has been passed too many times and now it's simply too late to stop the snowball that's been building up mass and speed as it rolls down the hill towards us.
        They're currently torn between riding out the last days of civilization before the next dark age hits and then holing up in a bunker or on a private island or wherever when it finally falls, or they're still desperately trying to hold onto what they have with an iron fisted grip, the same way a man whose been disemboweled futilely attempts to shove his intestines back inside of him as if it will save his life.
        Everyone should be preparing for this. Ammo, food, medicine, stockpile all that shit.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Hammer meet nail
          I'm going to need to get a link to subscribe to your newsletter because you can't post this enough. There is a 10,000 pound gorilla sitting in the corner of the room, everyone knows it, and some are trying to ignore the fucking thing, or at least act like it isn't there, but we all know.
          >The worst part of the collapse is the waiting for it!
          Make sure you have a good water supply, Anon.
          I have been prepping for a good part of my life and have a rather comfortable bunker out on my land that started as a tornado shelter (it *IS* rural Oklahoma after all) but quickly turned into a genuine bunker. Yeah, it was $30k but it is admittedly pretty sweet. They used sealed cargo containers and buried them 10 feet down and even drilled a well with an electronic and hand pump, LED lighting, and a generator.
          >The irony?
          Is that the guy who was doing mine had just gotten done doing a massive one for some hedge fund manager up in the panhandle. The guy did like 10 containers in stacks two high with stairs installed. The hedge fundie was, apparently 100% positive there is going to be a collapse, potential war, etc and intended to keep living in style, and the guy who was helping me put mine down said that the fundie "Seemed to know something I didn't."

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There were a few times I can think of it's come up. One of my cousins had to put a ton of paperwork through to the atf to get a new serial number on a 1911 a guy inherited from his grandfather, who scratched the original off after he brought it home from the war. Or the time a gunsmith rewelded a frame and got arrested for the original serial being damaged.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >living crime free
      >under nanny state full of commies

      Get a load of this guy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      According to the FBI/ATF/Libs if you're conservative there is no such thing as innocent; only degrees of guilt.
      Remember this when you think about the fact that at government behest, credit card companies willingly record every firearm or firearm related purchase and turn that over to the alphabet bios as a defacto registration scheme, or at the very least, have a nice and easy enemies list.
      The tyrants are scared. They know that the feces is about to hit the spinning air displacement unit and they're making a list.

      This, they know full well that civilization is heading for a collapse again, like a full global collapse. They also know that they can no longer stop it, the buck has been passed too many times and now it's simply too late to stop the snowball that's been building up mass and speed as it rolls down the hill towards us.
      They're currently torn between riding out the last days of civilization before the next dark age hits and then holing up in a bunker or on a private island or wherever when it finally falls, or they're still desperately trying to hold onto what they have with an iron fisted grip, the same way a man whose been disemboweled futilely attempts to shove his intestines back inside of him as if it will save his life.
      Everyone should be preparing for this. Ammo, food, medicine, stockpile all that shit.

      Rittenhouse was a warning that half the country believes self-defense is illegal. There is no such thing as a lawful use of your gun. If somebody tries to murder you and you have to defend yourself, the left considers you a murderer.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >as long as you're White
        the "he looked at me wrong" defense is still widely accepted by leftists from groids

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >self-defense is illegal

        self defense when you willingly go to a riot with a gun

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If you know people are being violent and breaking the law in a location you have to let them kill you.
          lmao

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          3 ANTIFA pedo gays got smoked, seeth

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      soon there'll be firearms brands where the serial number is printed on an easily removeable sprue of some sort that you just snap off with your fingers when you get into the parking lot

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        As the law stands with this ruling, manufacturers still have the same marking requirements, so no.
        And make sure you like that gun first, since you're still unable to sell a gun with an altered serial number.

        So from what I'm getting is. It literally only unbans the possession of guns with no serial numbers, but you can still get in trouble for modifying the serial numbers? Or am I dumb and confused.

        >It literally only unbans the possession of guns with no serial numbers
        With altered or obliterated serial numbers, yes. Guns that never had a serial number (homemade, or pre-GCA) were not banned, and so are not affected.
        >you can still get in trouble for modifying the serial numbers?
        Check your state laws, since some states absolutely do forbid that.
        Federally, I'm unaware of a law against altering it, since the ban on possession already covered it. But assuming I'm right, I would expect a bipartisan "fix" for that soon.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >homemade
          redpill me on homemade guns. What's the legality there? Am I really able to just make my own gun?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            As long as they obey all the various federal and local laws, and you aren't a prohibited person like a convicted felon then yes. You can go to the hardware store and buy pipe to make a legal length shotgun tonight or order about $400 worth of parts to make a glock clone with a drill. And you don't need to put a serial number on it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Federally, yes, you really are.
            A manufacturing FFL is required to "engage in the business" of manufacturing firearms for sale, so don't do that, but making guns for your own use is completely legal. FFLs have a whole slate of regulations (marking firearms, keeping records, etc.); these don't apply to non-licensees making guns for their own use.
            NFA (registration for machineguns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns, and the like) still applies whether you're an FFL or not.
            And of course, if you're prohibited from possessing firearms (felony, misdemeanor domestic assault, involuntarily committed by a court, etc.), obviously you can't make a firearm without violating that prohibition.

            A few states have laws that infringe to varying degrees, whether specifically (older "zip-gun" laws as well as recent "ghost gun" shit) or generally (AWBs), so check your state laws, but in most states if you're good federally, you're good.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you are not a criminal, your gun does not need a serial number. Does your toster have one?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Actually yes, all appliances have serial numbers you underaged drinker.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't really like "X wasn't around in 1776" as a component in gun-related case law.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      There was alot of stuff around back then

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not "X wasn't around in 1776," it's "X is not consistent with the societal and legal traditions in force or created around 1776." Ideally we wouldn't have to quibble about legalese, but it's not a bad position to be in.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >if we didn't have legal traditions around this issue in the 18th century we can't have them in the 21st century

        This is a deeply retarded way to run a country and you all know it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >People and their rights are totally different than a couple hundred years ago
          People never change, rights never change.
          Cope, seethe
          Go make another slide thread.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is a deeply retarded way to run a country and you all know it

          No its not, Since the internet wasn't around when the first amendment was written does that mean that we shouldn't be allowed the first amendment online?

          Or should it be applied to the common forms of communication?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            this argument was sound a decade ago but we've reached a place where abolishing the first amendment because "it wasn't written with disinformation in mind" is a mainstream """liberal"""" position

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I just don't like racism.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                get fucked porch monkey

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Constitution explicitly provides a way to change it. It's difficult, requiring supermajority support, but that's a feature, not a bug.
          We've used this process often, at times when we had a broad societal agreement of what needed changing*, so it's clearly not impossible. If you want to redo the 2A, go for it, but you have a lot of convincing to do, and I suggest that calling the whole process "retarded" is a poor way to start.

          * Or times when the Civil War gave half the states leverage to coerce agreement from the other half, but whatever.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            We haven't passed an amendment in 30 years, so for all the zoom zooms know, it's just been the way it was forever.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              we're never passing an amendment again

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I wouldn't mind term limits on Congress.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NFA I'm coming to kill you
                In the courtroom?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Except a good amendment isn't supposed to be this static thing that doesn't ever get updated or reinterpreted. It's supposed to be something that can be rethought as the world changes - so you can keep the concept alive forever. Our interpretations have changed, but that's because the WORLD has changed too.
            Hell, the 2nd went through this EXACT process. Until recently, it was this podunk amendment that was specifically about forming militias, there with the 3rd as a vestige of an earlier time. It was only when black people started publicly bearing arms in the 60s, and gun legislation was put in place to stop them, that it was reinterpreted into the 'SHALL' you people keep jerking off to.
            What an amendment means, what is allowed by it, and how it is applied changes over time. This change should happen slowly, but it should happen. The idea that we should keep our interpretations of them strictly in the era when they were written turns our Constitution into a useless anachronism that can't meaningfully guide policy decisions in our modern age.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              fuck off with your living document shit. the ammendment process exists so people can add or remove things if there's enough support for it, not so 9 gays in robes can just decide that words mean different things now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The purposes of an amendment is to change the principles of our nation, not to clarify principles that have already been stated. The latter is for the US Code and Supreme Court to flesh out.
                Stuff like 'we won't treat people like chattel anymore' or 'women can vote too I guess' or 'the thing that was never supposed to be elected by the people is now going to be elected by the people' get amendments. Stuff like '2nd Amendment means SHALL instead of militias' or '5th amendment applies to felons registering firearms' or '1st Amendment applies to campaign donations' gets interpreted.
                The reason it's so difficult to pass an amendment is because interpretation is supposed to do most of the work in updating the Constitution. Amendments aren't merely updates - they're changes in the trajectory of the nation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                judicial review isn't even in the constitution. the founding fathers intended for things to be changed by people voting on them, not by "reinterpretation." this isn't up for debate, it's in their fucking writings.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Amendments aren't merely updates
                That’s exactly what they are you fucking retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Stuff like '2nd Amendment means SHALL instead of militias' o
                No you lying moron. It's always meant shall. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It's incredibly clear and direct. The "militia" stuff is the recent revisionism. The phrase about a militia doesn't even make sense on a standalone basis. Shall not does make sense on it's own

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >What an amendment means, what is allowed by it, and how it is applied changes over time.
              there's two processes for amending the constitution that are specified in the constitution, but you are saying that the people who wrote the constitution just put that whole section in as a joke and that when you want to change the constitution the way they really intended it to happen is you're just supposed to wave your hands and say "lol they didn't really mean that"? sounds pretty sus to me.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Jesus Christ you shitlibs and your dumb "living document" crap. You invent random rights and call infringement of that unconstitutional. (Abortion, not that I am pro or anti. Just that it isn't anywhere in the constitution)
              >Static
              >Does this standard apply to other enshrined rights?
              How about the 3rd amendment then? I'll pick an arbitrary right that I know you don't care about... yet. Let's say Russia nukes Ukraine. We respond and nuke them back. They nuke all our military bases. El presidente decrees that because it is too dangerous to group up our military people on bases, but still need them for defense, that they will pick places and every family there will have to house a military member in their home. Not the choice, HAVE to.
              The logic you're using would be the same as if just because you're not against the government doing it THIS time, it is fine, but if I disagree with the reason, then they can't.
              Because you fuckwit libs are all warhawks these days, you're all for it, right?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not invention. It's clarification. Invention does need an amendment.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Incorrect. The Founding Fathers realized that laws are not static/immutable in all aspects as that had been the standard throughout their entire life. By this time the legal system that had guided their whole life was based around laws and interpretations thereof. That is why we have the judiciary branch to analyze the historical context, literal context, and current legal interpretation of the law using a system of evidence and precedence. Evidence is the core of your argument, the "facts" as it were. Precedence is the cement that shows your facts aren't shit and have background to support. The Founders had many early cases deciding how rights apply and the limitations that they encounter (check the very first free speech cases brought before the court). That being said over 200 years of precedent has determine the following regarding the 2A. Commercial sales may require a background check, sales may be limited from certain individuals given strict legal consequence of a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse, and certain "types" of guns may be regulated (though this ruling is weal and will likely fall before this incarnation of the court). They have also found the 2A is a fundamental right for all citizens excluding those with legal blockers, and that the term militia applies to all citizens. Additionally we are very close to a ruling that should have been clarified centuries ago that proves that all aspects of a firearm are 2A protected (ammo, mags, etc). Now all that being said. The Amendment itself is ironclad. The policy implications around it are not. But it is clear by the Fathers text and terminology, that they found gun laws as mostly incompatible with the Republic at the time. Which is why you see almost 0 gun laws passed until Westward expansion and stabilization of the East Coast to settled. And even then not until 1930 that the Fed makes any real gun law change

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The reason the 2nd is worded like it is entirely stems from the founding fathers wanting an army without paying for one, or having a standing army (also fear of slave revolts). This was a fucking mistake as shown in 1812, where militia performed fucking terribly.

                The intent behind the second amendment is vastly different than the conception often held by its most ardent supporters. No, it was not to defend liberty by being able to overthrow the government. It was a radical idea at the time of creating a nation where everyone was capable of defending it from outside attack. This concept didn’t pan out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And yet throughout the nations history it has been viable and utilized. Including cases of defense less than 50 years later by a foreign invader. You can try and shill here, but this isn't leftypol. Adults come here not children who can't find a job

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It wasn’t viable in 1812 at all retard. Despite vastly outnumbering the British, the militias did fuck all in general, refused to cooperate with each other and to take orders to act in any kind of centralized manner. Also it was less than 20 years after the constitution was ratified this happened, not fifty you fucking moron.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And yet in the 50 year period we have armed civvies fighting 1) invading forces, 2) pirates in Africa and the Atlantic, 3) various Indian wars, 4) and finally even a rebellion against the fledgling government. Stick it up your ass illiterate

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It was a radical idea at the time of creating a nation where everyone was capable of defending it from outside attack.

                This idea predates the idea of standing armies. It was intended as both. The founding fathers loathed the aristocracy and monarchism. The 2A was insurance against some despot declaring themselves King of America or the actual King of England coming back. They did in 1812 and BTFO these militiamen like you said but so far no King of America.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Always fun seeing one so adamant on being incorrect.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Wanna know how I know you have never read the Federalist Papers OR The Constitution? You post this.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The reason why the 2nd amendment is worded like that, as the Federalist papers line out, that even if it wasn't particularly effective, the People should have the ability to organize in order to deter a threat, and in order to have this ongoing ability, they must be allowed to keep arms. The actual effectiveness of this is besides the point.

                >Muh war of 1812

                Which happened because they tried to form militia of people who not only did not bear arms themselves, but literally had no idea how to fucking use them. What also didn't help is that US commanders for some fucking reason insisted on deploying the militia as an offensive army. Ironically enough, on the british side, the Canadian militias performed formidably on multiple occasions because the brits actually armed and directed them.

                Even after all this, the effect of the US militia was very pronounced; even though they often performed at a 5:1 ratio when faced with Britain army, the sheer number of them meant the Brits couldn't take land easily. Everywhere they went, their advances were stalled by militiamen and there have been many cases of the US simply being capable of ignoring the need to garrison their fords with anything more than a commander because the militia would just fully shore up the defenses and cuck the brits when they tried seiging it. The militia weren't effective but they made the war essentially unwinnable because they just outnumbered the brits 10 to 1

                https://i.imgur.com/AwzG2WM.jpg

                We had the puckle gun in 1776 so crank-fired revolvers are A-OK.

                You had actual revolvers back then, they just weren't that reliable and were outrageously costly. You also had shit like organ guns and the first commercial repeater airrifles. But the FF's were well aware of their existence

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Seemed to work well for the vietnamese, afghans, and even ISIS lasted for quite a bit before getting kosovoed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The reason the 2nd is worded like it is entirely stems from the founding fathers wanting an army without paying for one,
                No it stems from the fact they just fought the world's most powerful military using privately held arms and colonial based weapons, and they thought that should continue.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's what the whole Amendment process is for, moron. Is part of the Constitution out of date? Amend it! Yes, it's hard, it's *supposed* to be hard, you're directly altering the source code for the entire nation.

              Stop ruling by decree, and start trying to actually convince a super-majority of the states that your ideas are worthwhile.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >t's supposed to be something that can be rethought as the world changes
              Says who you fucking communist gay

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >It's supposed to be something that can be rethought as the world changes - so you can keep the concept alive forever.
              You are right for reasons you do not know. An update should solely be used to clarify that the people are still free and have not become enslaved in the trappings of a new age.
              The spirit of the law is not what should be reinterpreted, only the letter of it, and only to more closely match what the intent behind the original amendment was.
              I should be allowed to speak, believe, and learn about whatever I want
              I should be allowed to own any weapon I want
              I should be allowed the privacy of my own home, not being forced to harbor others within it
              I should be allowed the privacy of my own property, no one should forcibly rifle through and take whatever they want from my home, car, or whatever else
              I should be allowed due process and be immune to a double charge for a crime I've been cleared of
              I should be given a fair trial as soon as possible, judged by impartial mediators
              I should be able to request a trial by jury in civil court
              I should be immune from excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishments
              I shouldn't have to explain that my rights do not end with these alone and that common sense dictates that I am a free person with all the rights due to one
              I shouldn't have to explain that all powers not specifically listed as belonging to the government belong to me
              These 10 rights, as included on the day of their instatement, were never intended to be changed from their original spirit. They cannot be removed, not only because it would be a violation, but because they are self-evident to anyone who simply understands the world. These laws are not given to me because they are written, they are only being enshrined and reminded of there. They were given to me the day I was born, and will only be taken the day that I die. This is so for all men, everywhere on this earth.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wrong, it's the government getting a taste of its own gay medicine. How many times have they tried the whole "well X didn't exist back then so it's not protected by the bill of rights lmao"? Now the onus is on them and it's entirely their fault for being massive dickheads about it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The constitution has provisions allowing a supermajority to amend it.

          If people really wanted to get rid of the right to bear arms, there's a clear means to do so. But everyone knows there aren't the votes to make that change, so fuck off.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >This is a deeply retarded way to run a country and you all know it
          >he thinks we've gotten better as a country with more regulation and not worse
          >calls others the retarded one
          Please elaborate. There is a very clear and defined way to change the constitution. It's happened lots of times. Do it again if you want it changed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Legal tradition and precedent is one of the pillars of English common law dipshit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Well prohibitions on the civilian ownership of warships we're not around in 1776...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Actually, sometime before the War of 1812, people wrote in to Congress asking if they were allowed to fit cannons onto their ships to defend themselves against pirates and the like, some asking about paperwork for these things. Congress, which by then was still at least partly staffed with some of the Founding Fathers, wrote back to them saying that the Second Amendment entirely covered this issue and they were allowed to do so without any paperwork or legal fees needed, and encouraged them to mount as many guns to their vessels as they wanted to have.
          Therefore, you actually are allowed to own a warship as a civilian, as a ship with cannons mounted to it was pretty much the standard of a military warship at the time more or less. Same with muskets, they were the standard military arm of the time, thus making the average civilian on equal footing to any soldier in the military.
          If leftists think that the Second Amendment is so immutable that we cannot upgrade to continue being equal to the military, perhaps then they should lobby that we ban this excessive military equipment we have and return our army and navy their flintlocks and wooden warships. Or similarly, we can return blacks to being sharecroppers and day laborers paid pennies on the dollar, as the 14th amendment clearly didn't account for the rights of black people to scale up with the rights, stature, or degree of citizenship of white people either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
            The United States isn't at war with pirates anymore. What could be interpreted as 'The common man has the right to obtain weaponry equal to the army of the nation' could just as easily be interpreted as 'the common man has the right to obtain weaponry necessary to their life'. The latter is far more limiting, since African pirates have swapped out their near-peer warships for assault dinghies.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Picrel. The left is what pirates were using back then, the right is what the US government was using - the second USS Enterprise.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              While I'm aware of the Barbary War, there's plenty more precedent to say that the Founders clearly meant us to be as armed as any military force was.
              To list a few of the reasons I can think of off the top of my head:
              >we just defeated the largest land army in human history up to that point with a citizen militia, clearly the first order of business wouldn't be to disarm your nation because we were not immediately at war with Britain again and they thus didn't need the guns
              >the Founders stated that they could have as many cannonades as they wished on their ships, not as needed
              And of course the classic:
              >the wording of the Second Amendment clearly states that the right of all citizen's to own guns shall not be infringed upon, meaning that anything impeding one's right to any weapon is unconstitutional and wrong
              Aside from the obvious exceptions of cases where one is not of sound mind and couldn't be trusted with one (even then, I think it best for a citizen to be doing the impeding there and not the government, family, friends, and whoever else could lock the guns away until the schizo gets better or whatever), then I think the matter has far more evidence, both clearly written and implied by the times, that one should be allowed to own whatever weapons one wishes, with the only real limiting factors being one's budget. Even the joke about recreational nukes is fair game and even generally safe when you consider that fairly few people could afford the space, maintenance costs, and radiation detection, protection, and related equipment, not even counting the price of a nuclear warhead itself. The few people who could possibly afford these would have little reason to even use them, as they would likely own large businesses and thus don't want to destroy the world containing their profit margins.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, civilians should be able to own warships. Why is this hard for you to understand?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It blows my mind that people that claim to be on the right side of history know so little about it. Like the fact that the vast majority of the continental army's equipment was privately owned, including the ships and artillery. They had cannons because when they summoned the goons, they said bring whatever you got, and a good number of those goons brought their cannons that they just kept at home, and some of the richer bros brought their big ass boats, that also had cannons mounted on them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >regulations on recreational nooks are not consistent with the societal and legal traditions in force or created around 1776

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's a fucking terrible position to have as it can especially used in other legal matter. Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.

        The amendments for them would be unconstitutional, especially the one where slavery was ended without consent of half of the states without representation in Congress when it was passed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The amendments for them would be unconstitutional,
          As they should be

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The amendments for them would be unconstitutional
          That's...not how amendments work anon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is if you base things off tradition.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The point of an amendment is to establish a new and present tradition, so those cases are now the new precedent. Yet no amendment has been passed permitting the infringement of a citizen's right to keep and bear arms in general, let alone down to the minutiae of maintenance and markings of arms already owned.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No it's not. You are adding things to the constitution. You aren't reviewing everything that's in their. They are reviewing laws based on amendments.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Fags and race mixers should be lynched, and blacks and women should never have been allowed rights anon..

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          1st, where's the problem?

          2nd, you're badly misunderstanding NYSRPA v. Bruen's logic.
          2A's validity and fundamental meaning (protecting a pre-existing individual right, as opposed to creating a new right, or referring to a collective right) remian just as they have been since Heller. They were not derived from tradition then, nor are they under Bruen.
          Bruen only drags in tradition (rightly or wrongly) to answer the question: "What is the scope of the 'right to keep and bear arms' referred to?"
          For example, a tradition of regulating weapons in courthouses is taken to mean that bearing arms in specific sensitive places was not part of the right as then understood.

          Taking the 19th amendment as an example:
          You could use similar logic to search history and tradition to determine the meaning of "sex" in the 19th amendment, and find justification to uphold a hypothetical ban on non-binaries voting.
          You couldn't use it to claim the whole amendment is invalid.
          And it goes without saying that no honest historical examination could interpret "sex" in a way that would uphold a ban on women voting.

          3rd, there is plenty of room to argue about the validity of the reconstruction amendments, but Bruen's logic has nothing at all to do with that.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >nooooo you just can't hold the federal govt to the original ideals of the constitution!!!
          >think fo the hecking moroninos!
          Follow the law fairly, if half of the states being unable to vote on the consitutional ammendment they were beholden to is deemed unconstitutional then it should be removed and voted on again simple as. Even good laws, or ones you agree with enacted in bad faith should be removed. Holding the legislature to a standard is the only way to keep a republic, allowing them to change laws without following the due process simply because the process exists that would allow them to is how we ended up with a gutted bill of rights in the first place

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You are completely misunderstanding the ruling and the constitution in general. The ruling basically affirms limitations on government power to curtail a right enshrined in the constitution, it didn't expand government powers to regulate or blanketly ban anything that didn't exist in 1776. I swear you people posting this shit have to be doing this on purpose because you hate guns and want to scare people into thinking the government is going to ban gay sex and avocado toast too, because otherwise you have an IQ of like 60.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.
          I’m not seeing the problem here.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In spite of your dubs, if you think you were anywhere near the kind of landed aristocracy that would have had any legal authority in the 18th century, you're in for a bad day.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage.
          Er . . . good thing?

          >Or for women and blacks to vote.
          We have had constitutional amendments to change both of these, to our national detriment.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > That's a fucking terrible position to have as it can especially used in other legal matter. Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.
          Sounds good to any rational person.
          >The amendments for them would be unconstitutional, especially the one where slavery was ended without consent of half of the states without representation in Congress when it was passed.
          You’re not very bright

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.
          Like it should be. You can't possibly argue those two are good.
          >The amendments for them would be unconstitutional,
          No, because amendments are added to the constitution. They are by definition constitutional.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >That's a fucking terrible position to have as it can especially used in other legal matter. Societal and legal traditions of 1776 did not allow for homosexual or interracial marriage. Or for women and blacks to vote.
          The joke writes itself.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      As long as it's only applied to legal concepts it should be fine, I think that antigunners can't think far enough ahead to adapt to recent rulings saying their blanket bans are unconstitutional

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thats because you glow in the dark.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you misunderstand the ruling. the "X wasn't around in 1776" isn't about gun features, it's about legal features. the ruling is "govt can't require serial numbers because there were no precedent for serial number requirements around the time of the 2A adoption", not "govt can't mandate serial numbers because there were no serial numbers around the time of the 2A adoption". the difference is important. law is based on legal precedents, the bruen ruling restricts the courts to looking at legal precedents at roughly the same era as the 2nd amendment was adopted.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Which makes no sense, considering the entire point of the Constitution being so vague was precisely so we wouldn't HAVE to always use the precedents from that era, but eh. If the court decides that the last 232 years of precedent formed afterward is null and void, then I guess that's how it is now.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the entire point of the Constitution being so vague
          you should hunt down your civics teachers and beat them with a stick

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >shall not be infringed
          >vague

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >onsidering the entire point of the Constitution being so vague
          Shall not be infringed. Wow so fucking vague. What did they meant there?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >black man says we should only interpret the constitution based on how the framers intended
      The really sad thing about being an uncle Tom is that it doesn't even save you. At the end of the day he'll be swinging from a lamp post just like all the others. It doesn't matter that he's "one of the good ones"

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >At the end of the day he'll be swinging from a lamp post just like all the others.
        Just two more weeks....

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I was speaking metaphorically. I don't think that will actually happen, I just think he's pathetic and self hating, desperate to show that he's not like the other blacks. I watched a lecture he gave where he said that he thought Dredd Scott was correctly decided. Just unbelievable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Uncle Tom

            Really wish you dumbass lefties would stop using this term, shows you never even read the book it's taken from. Also I support Clarence Thomas 100 percent as he has dedicated his entire life to metaphorically cock slapping the left. He must have been at least partially glad Biden got elected, considering he was the waste of skin in charge of the accuse Thomas of rape with zero proof committee back in the day, and now he gets to make commies seethe and make sleepy Joe look like a dumbass at the same time.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dredd Scott was correctly decided.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Dredd Scott
            It was correctly decided. The role of the Judiciary is to apply the law as written, not what they think the law should be. It is the duty of Congress to adopt new laws.
            >which they did with the 14A.

            It doesnt make him a self-hating "Uncle Tom", it makes him a principled and ethical jurist.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              It means he's a traditionalist, legal interpretation has little to do with ethics. Especially in the Dredd Scott decision

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It means he's a traditionalist, legal interpretation has little to do with ethics. Especially in the Dredd Scott decision
                orly, you got your JD where?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I only trust the experts!

                You're losing and result to appeal to authority. Get out, you tremendous flaming gay.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >experts
                I am the expert, and my dismissing of your shittake out of hand is not me losing, its me refusing to engage with laymen.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Legal frameworks do not dictate all ethics. Ethics are rooted in personal moral codes and can only be consistent depending on the ethics chosen. In a strict contractual sense Dredd vs Scott is legally defensible. From an ethical code (depending on the one at the time) it was note. According to a Kantian ethical code it would not be ethical. The law strives to be ethical, but can not be so in all cases. The law ultimately rests in collective of society. Which can be described as unethical in a number of ways. I'm not trying to be circular here. Just trying to point out that ethical rulings are not really possible in a uniform way and thus can not be impartially used. Whereas someone ruling legally and traditionally can be described. A law degree is not necessary in the discussion of ethics.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The role of the Judiciary is to apply the law as written
              lmao no it is not you dolt. the role of the judiciary is to interpret how a law can be lawfully applied, not to blindly enforce the legislation. that is what cops and prosecutors do, and the judge is there to tell them they did it right, wrong and/or that the law is not applicable

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Jesus the amount of glow in this post is truly amazing. Oh look, surprise surprise, your IP is fucking Langley Virginia. At least use a fucking proxy, asswipe.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That’s because you don’t belong here.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Don't grind it off. The number can still be recovered using acid etching. Weld over it or mill it off and cebterpunch the shit out of it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      mill through the metal entirely if possible.
      most wonder 9s have sheet metal inserts and rifles have it on the magwell usually so that's totally doable.

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Explain to erupop what does it mean/imply?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's essentially saying that because serial numbers on firearms did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, serial numbers being mandated on guns is unconstitutional.

      This sets an extremely stupid precedent, because, under this framework, any advancement in firearms made after 179X could be deemed unconstitutional. Bullets? When the fuck did cased bullets exist then? Unconstitutional! Automatic mechanisms? The hell they did, ban them!

      There are ways to keep grabbers away from funs, but this is NOT the way to do it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's not how it works. Legal limitations on how arms may be owned, carried, or acquired that did not exist or have an extant analog in 1791-1792 are unconstitutional according to the standard set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen. It does not limit what kind of arms or what capabilities they can have to 1791 at all. Instead, the only limits that can be placed on arms you can have are few. From NRA's "America's 1st Freedom."

        >In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects “arms ‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and arms that are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Such arms are “chosen by American society,” not the government.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          When talking about v. Bruen, you'd be correct, but the issue is we're talking about v. Price, which will be the more recent precedent that will be found, or at least lifted up by grabbers. They brought up v. Bruen in the article because it was the more sensible interpretation.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your whole post implies you believe this decision is inconsistent with or a departure from NYSRPA v. Bruen. If so, why? Where do you see it going astray?
            Please be specific.
            I'm sure you read it already, but in case you want to review it:
            https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wvsd.234171/gov.uscourts.wvsd.234171.48.0.pdf
            Hard mode: Point to the part that could be applied or extended to declare "cased bullets" unconstitutional.

            I've read the decision, and not only does it say nothing to support the nonsense in

            It's essentially saying that because serial numbers on firearms did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, serial numbers being mandated on guns is unconstitutional.

            This sets an extremely stupid precedent, because, under this framework, any advancement in firearms made after 179X could be deemed unconstitutional. Bullets? When the fuck did cased bullets exist then? Unconstitutional! Automatic mechanisms? The hell they did, ban them!

            There are ways to keep grabbers away from funs, but this is NOT the way to do it.

            , but it seems to be a very straightforward application of the Bruen precedent. It specifically addresses and finds unconstitutional the prohibition on *possessing* a firearm with an altered serial number, and in doing so specifically contrasts that prohibition with various commercial requirements, including the marking requirements for licensed firearms manufacturers, and the prohibitions on transporting, shipping and receiving in commerce firearms with altered serial number. Those were not at issue in this case, and thus aren't specifically declared constitutional, but the contrast being drawn would make it hard to use this ruling (if it were precedent at all) to find them unconstitutional.

            >more recent precedent
            This is a district court decision, so it isn't precedent at all. Assuming it does get appealed, save your handwringing till then, and let's see what actual precedent the 4th Circuit sets. Even then, for everyone outside the 4th Circuit, it won't be binding, so Bruen is 100% the correct reference point.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >This is a district court decision, so it isn't precedent at all
              You expect PrepHole to understand how precedent works? In Federal Courts?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It goes deeper. The court considers the intent of the framers. The word 'analog' also applies. The intent was that the citizen would own a firearm that is an analog or is interchangeable in function and it was that 'The State' could be defended against a runaway government, and this is only realistic if they have the same capability. The framers also did not believe in a standing army, so the issue of why an army has weapons not available to a militia comes into question.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        i think its more the fact, did the government deem it necessary that the 2nd amendment should allow the government to have a database on all firearms via a serial number, and that removing that serial number or not having one would make your "arms" illegal and then they can take it from you. the precedent since the 2nd amendments inception was that the individual citizen can have equal or greater means to arm themselves than the armed forces, hence cannons and warships being legal.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Annnnnd now you know why credit card companies are tracking who is buying what and turning that over to the government. They knew this was coming.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not really for the simple fact that if technology was at the level of 1776 (or whatever arbitrary number) then that's the highest the people can have, then I want my fucking cannons and howitzers, both of which were in private hands then. Also, that would be rather nasty legal precedent considering that the first amendment also would fall under that exact limitation. Would we all be removed from the internet and forced to use the printing press again? As much as the shitlibs are pushing conservatives to that end, that's not how the law works.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This sets an extremely stupid precedent, because, under this framework, any advancement in firearms made after 179X could be deemed unconstitutional. Bullets? When the fuck did cased bullets exist then? Unconstitutional! Automatic mechanisms? The hell they did, ban them!
        This is perhaps the most retarded take on the Bruen decision that I have ever seen. The only things that can be declared unconstitutional are state or federal laws or rules. A bullet cannot be "unconstitutional" because it is not a law.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        imagine being this dumb

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          He is correct though. This is not a good thing at all.

          This is why originalism is stupid. It’s an insanely hypocritical legal viewpoint. It’s a pick and choose what it applies to stance often enough too, as shown by Alito and Thomas who tend to abandon it to pursue politically conservative favorable outcomes whenever they can. At least Scalia could point out when the constitution was in error.

          By the way, judicial review as practiced by the Supreme Court isn’t constitutional. The court gave itself that power.

          No, the problem here is not originalism - trying to implement the original intent of the legislature - the problem is, well, i dont know what the fuck to call this judgment. Juristic Autism perhaps.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is a good thing, shut the fuck up, be wrong in silence, you're obviously a Grabber shill.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh look, a glowmoron concern trolling.

        Imagine my shock.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This sets an extremely stupid precedent, because, under this framework, any advancement in firearms made after 179X could be deemed unconstitutional.
        American education

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This sets an extremely stupid precedent, because, under this framework, any advancement in firearms made after 179X could be deemed unconstitutional. Bullets? When the fuck did cased bullets exist then? Unconstitutional! Automatic mechanisms? The hell they did, ban them!
        No it's not you fucking smoothbrain. It means that their can't be laws regulating things that weren't intended to be regulated around the time of the Constitution. You can't just ban something because it didn't exist in the 1790s. You can try passing a law that does that ban bullets it would also get struck down immediately from the current SC, Heller, and the fact even the furthest left don't even try it.

        When you have no idea how laws work you should refrain on commenting.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        chud

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's liberals going OMG YOU GUYS THIS PRO GUN RULING **COULD** TOTALLY MEAN SERIAL NUMBERS WON'T BE A THING, YOU HAVE TO STOP THIS BEFORE THIS OTHER THING **COULD** POTENTIALLY HAPPEN!!1!

      https://i.imgur.com/xloMCEi.png

      So now that guns can have their serial numbers removed...

      ((Plausibly))

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The appeal will be interesting. How much rope is the government willing to buy?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    will this circumvent the decision on having to serialize "ghost guns"

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yes. ghost guns were the standard back then, there were very few guns with serialized production runs. even the brown bess - one of the most massively-produced firearms of that era - didn't have serial numbers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        will this circumvent the decision on having to serialize "ghost guns"

        Honestly, there are still guns in common circulation with no serial numbers. Nobody was required to serialize shit until the late 20th century, so cheap catalog guns were almost never serialized. It added too much time and bother for the equivalent of Hi-Points, let alone all the Belgian and Spaniard pirate guns that were already in the country. I live in a state with a serialization "requirement" and I can go down to the Cabela's right now and pick any one of a dozen .22s and shotguns off the rack that have never had a serial number and won't require one to own.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe.

      This is an excellent legal development if you're in the business of stealing guns.

      There are plenty of ways to make guns identifiable even if their serial numbers are obliterated. Stamp a customized "proof mark" on it somewhere, for example.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >now that guns can have their serial numbers removed...
    >The file was invented in 2022

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you file numbers off acid can still be used to recover the number. The area they press in the number leaves denser metal then the surrounding area so the acid exposes it.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah dude, everyone already knows that. Everyone also knows that the vast majority of ballistic forensics is retarded so this means nothing.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's why you use various number and letter punches in random orientations to totally obscure the serial number and THEN file it flat.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Billet lowers finally have an advantage!

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is an excellent legal development if you're in the business of stealing guns.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, now your completely legal theft-based business can offer value-added defacement services without fear of going to jail.
      Idiot.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are you honestly such a dumbass you don't see how this benefits criminals? Let me explain it to you: the whole idea behind making removing serial numbers illegal is that when you get caught with a stolen gun it doesn't matter if you filed the number off or not, you can get charged either way. Now if you remove the serial number how are they going to prove it was stolen?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Defaced serial numbers are still recoverable most of the time. It just costs more money. You can't just "grind them off" the surface of a metal frame. Glocks, etc with the little metal SN plate cast in polymer are a different story. It's basically a nothing burger.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most guns have the serial number in multiple places, and violent criminals are pretty stupid usually.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Does this extend to home-produced firearms without serial numbers?

      In 2022 I would suggest that it is not limited to but specifically including self made firearms. Certainly defeats endruns like banking denial, lawfare, insurance denial...

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I pretty sure this is just at a district level, not federal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      District=trial level federal court. Circuit is their boss, and can tear up this ruling. Then supreme court.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So that is great and all, until you need to warranty your gun.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is political which is against the rules. Delete the thread so we can have more talk about Ukraine.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't that fantastic though? Now you can make as many SBRs as you like, because without a serial they just have to take your word that its registered.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if someone tried this with some machine gun registry stuff and it got repealed because serial numbers are now optional.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It makes it to the Supreme Court
      >Machine gun registry gets shredded along with destructive device lists based on this ruling.
      Would the liberal assblast exceed the abortion ruling?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Eh, given the continual efforts to farm outrage with the lie that all guns are available with less hassle than a pack of smokes (or w/e) to support AWBs and such, you have to wonder how many liberals would be surprised for a moment to realize just how restricted machineguns had been until the ruling.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          My anti gun dad still doesn't understand the difference between semi auto and auto.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >available with less hassle than a pack of smokes
          I mean, I 3D print my own grenades. It's a hell of a lot easier than growing my own tobacco and then drying and curing it. So, kinda yeah they are?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know you can just buy smokes, right? That was the point.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I 3D print my own grenades.
            Sure you do buddy. Printing a plastic shell means fuck all. You aren't printing the explosive. The casing of any grenade has always been the easy part. Steel plumbing pipe is cheap and readily available. Anyone with a $100 harbor freight welder and an angle grinder can make grenade and claymore bodies, shrapnel, whatever.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Most definitely, just less of a roastie focus this time

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  17. 2 months ago
    Bigdick_Sarah

    If you REALLY want to mask the SN that badly, just get a nail and hammer a decimal point someplace in the number: gun #43352 is now #43.352

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >serial numbers did not exist when the amendment was ratified so the government has no right to regulate them today
    I really like this reasoning because it implies that any firearm using cordite as propellant cannot legally be regulated by the government, since cordite didn't exist back in 1791 either

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    the government wants you to take the vax kill shot still. Why would they care if have or have not a serial.
    >Wouldnt free ammo & cheap full autos help their cause?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      First of all, Gene Simmons is a fucking retarded merchant of shit music who hasn't had to live in the real world for almost half a century, so his opinion on anything can be discarded out of hand.
      Second of all, your right to swing your fist, or spray infectious disease at me, stops at my nose.
      'member when California decriminalized prostitution by whores with HIV, who were definitely not telling their John's and "the right" fucking lost their mind? Same people are screaming bloody murder about "vaccine mandates" and THE CLOT MONSTER. Get vaccinated or not. But don't pretend your crunchy mom blog propaganda is science, or that your actions don't have consequences for your community.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >member when California decriminalized prostitution by whores with HIV, who were definitely not telling their John's and "the right" fucking lost their mind?

        No I don't, because prostitution is illegal in CA. Are you perhaps referring to Anthony Wiener(lol)authoring a bill to make knowingly infecting someone with HIV no longer a felony but a misdemeanor(he felt it being a felony was homophobic)? Because that actually did happen.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >California lawmakers have passed legislation to reduce the penalty for those who knowingly or intentionally expose others to HIV without their knowledge, rolling back a law that mostly affected sex workers.
          Forgive me anon, my memory is imperfect. It's still a ridiculous law that puts feels above logic, science and morality.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It's still a ridiculous law that puts feels above logic
            The whole point of the law was that because prostitutes had to knowingly or intentionally expose people to HIV to be prosecuted, they simply didn't get tested.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I had to re-read your post, reading is hard. Rather than decriminalize exposing people to HIV knowingly, how about criminalizing being a prostitute without a clean bill of health?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That would probably end up being ruled unconstitutional due to self incrimination or something, similar to how people who can't legally own guns can't be charged with a crime for having an unregistered NFA item.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Felon with an NFA item loophole
                ... I'm not sure it works like that, but I'm no lawyer, either.
                Still can't carry a gun in California without a permit, but you could expose people to HIV without consequence by just not getting tested. Big brain shit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >... I'm not sure it works like that, but I'm no lawyer, either.
                The Supreme Court ruled on it 7-1:
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >your actions don't have consequences for your community.
        Remember when you were ordering Amazon shit and door dash during lockdowns? Your recklessness killed hundreds of people.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Those are servants. Their lives don't matter as long as they deliver the elite their orders.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The servants make up the community. I doubt the truly elite communities would even use door dash or order anything from Amazon so those "servants" would never be setting foot in those communities in the first place. You can't claim "actions have consequences" and in the same breath say that the lives of those that make up the community don't matter. You're just another disingenuous gay using any means necessary to attempt to win an internet argument. Suck start a shotgun and help make the world a better place.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I was being sarcastic and supporting your point, shitlicker.
              Now I might start supporting the other guy though just because you well full mouth-frothing autism.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >kill shot
      So October 10 has been and gone, when is the next date where I am supposed to die from the vaccine?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Just two more weeks

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They will unironically claim you are going to die any second now for thr next 50 years.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're missing the big picture and have already died via compliance and lack of critical thought. NPC's were never alive to begin with. Enjoy your nerve degeneration.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >it was just a metaphor
          >uuuuuh something something nerve degeneration
          so that's the new goalpost site?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        As soon as it's safe to throw the kill switch on your batch. The ones you hear about were the duds, the vax is supposed to make it easy to remove you en masse when the time comes. Boosters are so the "code" remains up to date, it can still degrade somewhat over time as your body attempts to remove the rogue strands of DNA, which it recognizes as a virus.
        Of course, if you got the military or Israeli variants for example, you may not die immediately. Those are separate sets, meant for individuals who step out of line so you can immediately be killed if you diverge from what you're told to say or do.
        The truth is that you won't die until we want you to. But it's okay, as long as the government is still standing then you probably have nothing to worry about, just follow the law as prescribed and generally do what you're told to do, and you'll be just fine.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Those are separate sets, meant for individuals who step out of line so you can immediately be killed if you diverge from what you're told to say or do
          Every copy of Super CoVax 64 is personalized.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well yeah, killing your entire unit would suck. It's for dissident soldiers who won't follow orders. It's admittedly more of a failsafe there than anything, since typically they can be "dealt with" on the spot by their fellows, but it's good to be safe, don't you agree?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      gay who wears makeup and hasnt lived in the real world in decades

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      By Allah I don't even have to check anymore.

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    youll still be arrested for not having one, supreme court doesnt change what local enforcement cares about.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just wanna get rid of the ugly import marks on my yugo. I don't have a reason to weld the serial number personally

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are the actual implications of this ruling if your name isn't Tyrese and you don't steal guns?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Libs were using guns having no serial numbers as a means to:
      1. Registration scheme, which ties directly to the 4473 process.
      2. Stop home made guns that are entirely untraceable, requiring that they be serialized or are illegal was a small brain lib way of having the law abiding self register while their supporters, AKA: Criminals would never do that.
      >Most importantly!
      Most importantly, this tears the guts out of all the Universal Background Check laws on the books. If there is no serial number, how are you going to prove that I am lying when I say that the gun got destroyed? Once the serial number is gone, you can buy and sell all you want, and there isn't shit the cucks can do about it.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The world was a better place without guns.
    You can't refute this.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The world was a better place without (insert technology here)
      I can't refute that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Old fashion farming equipment?

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do serial numbers on guns help law enforcement “trace” criminals unless they already have a registry, which is illegal? Do the serial numbers on stolen TVs and Xboxes also help cops trace criminals?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      bruh, you report the SN as stolen to them

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly the ruling makes complete sense. Serial numbers weren't required until the GCA of 1968. Before that, they were mostly just a convenience for buyers in case their guns got stolen, so they could identify them.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Fridges didn't exist when the Constitution was written, so the government has no power to regulate Fridges.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I dont get it. Serial numbers didnt exist in 76 so unconstitunal but neither did Semi autos etc etc. Is this a first step to ban anything more modern than 76?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is why originalism is stupid. It’s an insanely hypocritical legal viewpoint. It’s a pick and choose what it applies to stance often enough too, as shown by Alito and Thomas who tend to abandon it to pursue politically conservative favorable outcomes whenever they can. At least Scalia could point out when the constitution was in error.

      By the way, judicial review as practiced by the Supreme Court isn’t constitutional. The court gave itself that power.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      who let you get off the short bus? Obviously you aren't American since you think the Constitution and its ratification happened fourteen years before it did. Lemme just spell it out to your Samefagging ass.

      This decision doesn't hold that serialization is unconstitutional, it holds that the government isn't allowed to require it. It's like saying just because a law is passed that allows you to ride a bike without a helmet, suddenly helmets are illegal.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Read the fucking decision.
      It doesn't find serial numbers "unconstitunal".
      It doesn't find requiring FFLs to serialize firearms "unconstitunal".
      It doesn't find restrictions on commercial activity a firearm with an altered/obliterated serial number "unconstitunal".
      It finds a ban on *possessing* a firearm with an altered/obliterated serial number unconstitutional.

      >Is [finding a ban on possessing certain guns unconstitutional] a first step to ban [possessing a different set of guns]
      That seems like a very odd first step, doesn't it? Wouldn't you want to start by, say, upholding some sort of gun ban? Nah, I'm probably just thinking in 2D.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >This decision doesn't hold that serialization is unconstitutional, it holds that the government isn't allowed to require it.
      It doesn't even do that, though. The government is free to keep the whole FFL scheme including the marking requirements for manufacturers and importers, and to keep its prohibitions on various commercial activity with firearms having altered serial numbers.
      It doesn't even hold that the government can't criminalize the act of altering or obliterating a serial number by anyone, without regard to commerce. (I don't recall such a prohibition in federal law, since the possession law already covered it, but many states do have one.)
      It only holds that government isn't allowed to ban *possession* of such a firearm.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Is this a first step to ban anything more modern than 76?
      No. I don't understand how dumb you people are.
      >Court says govt can't require serial numbers
      >somehow this means there is more gun control
      Seriously, please explain how you think this will happen.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Eh, the government will probably just ask manufacturers to hide a tiny serial number inside of the gun somewhere.

    By this ruling, it wouldn't be illegal to do that, it just wouldn't be illegal to obliterate it.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    yet more evidence that Thomas is a fucking moron, because guns had had proof marks indicating where, when and who produced them for almost 100 years by 1791.
    fucking originalists are the libertarians of the legal systems, so stupid they think they're smart

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A proof mark doesn't identify an individual gun.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Proof marks are the modern equivalent of a brand name on your gun. Serial numbers identify the specific gun as well as your name or social security number identifies you. It's not 1:1 comparable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Guns had serial numbers for a long ass time, but they weren't required until 1968.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Some had serials most notably military armories for tracking. Common gun serials were not even normalized by the 1920s

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It depends how you interpret the word "serial number". Do we mean in the narrow sense "a series of digits to identify a specific firearm" or do we mean in the broad sense "a manufacturers mark to identify a firearm". Narrow sense, its new, broad sense its not. Pic related identifies the manufacturer and the regiment the firearm was sent to.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          *on a brown bess, civil war era musket

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >brown bess
            >civil war era musket
            please consider suicide any day

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Try revolutionary war you idiot. Civil war was 1861 springfield and 1853 enfield.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Proof marks aren't serial numbers you idiot. There are millions of .22s and shotguns with no serial numbers from pre 1968.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Registration is the only form of gun control I'm in favor of
    >Registration is the first thing going away
    what the fuck man, just let me have an automatic with a hundred-round magazine.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am as pro-2A as anyone else, but this is fucking stupid. It does nothing to protect gun rights and does everything to assist criminals.

    Shit like this is a give-away to the anti-2A crowd. Absolutely idiotic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Good God Fudd, read the entire thread. This has been answered. Do you like the thought of Universal Background Checks? While I am sure you never need more than your bolt action deer rifle and double barrel shotgun, that's an end run for defacto registration. If no guns have serial numbers, they can be bought and sold without the UBC, thus no registration.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I am as pro-2A as anyone else
      No you aren't
      >but this is fucking stupid. It does nothing to protect gun rights
      How does removing a gun law (potentially) not help gun rights?
      >and does everything to assist criminals.
      How? Be specific. How will crime increase?
      >Shit like this is a give-away to the anti-2A crowd. Absolutely idiotic.
      Imagine giving a shit about what anti gunners think. How have you not realized they hate you, want to take your rights, and playing "nice" gets you no where?

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it wrong that I legitimately do not care? Because I don’t.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Joepedo btfo

    Socialism fails once again, but I doubt its serfs will learn.

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    We had the puckle gun in 1776 so crank-fired revolvers are A-OK.

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So from what I'm getting is. It literally only unbans the possession of guns with no serial numbers, but you can still get in trouble for modifying the serial numbers? Or am I dumb and confused.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe filling them in with JBWeld would be a cleaner look.. I might do that.

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can an anon explain to an idiot.
    What are the implications of this ruling?
    And what could actually come from it?
    Isn't there an actual federal law about removing serial numbers from fire arms?
    Or just having one?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >And what could actually come from it?
      people can steal your shit and remove the serial number and you wont be able to prove it

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    First good thread I've seen on this board in weeks

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does this extend to home-produced firearms without serial numbers?

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Beyond manufacturing this doesnt really impact the average gun owner. I wouldnt go grinding off my serials on any gun that could be involved in self defense.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >judge finds
    No, judge acknowledges that the previous case that upheld the ban was unconstitutional.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Removed? Removed how exactly?
    >so YOU can’t SEE them or anyone else?
    Removed hey?
    Just going to grind them out, amiright?

    >Hint. NDT MPI.
    Not so easy to remove. What you can’t SEE, can be seen.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *