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

[TGS]

Im not a LEO. Im asking because baby mama selling guns was mentioned earlier and Im curious what types of people are making a straw purchase.
Im also asking about the charges because I dont know. I was hoping for a bit more detailed reply than what you provided.

Usually only if the gun is used in a crime or some criminal enterprise, such as a "Straw-purchasing ring".

One offs by baby mamas are usually not prosecuted. There simply isn't enough docket space; you'd need to ignore most other federal crimes and dedicate a significant portion of a given USAO to work straw purchases. I don't work in a USAO, but I'd bet you could double or triple the size overnight of every USAO and federal court in America and there'd be no lack of work.

In general, the lack of capacity in the criminal justice system is a real problem.

[Stephanie B]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ban-gu...ge-2022-10-13/

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

I predict thus: This shit will go too far and the Supremes will end up rolling Bruen back.

[HCM]

I predict thus: This shit will go too far and the Supremes will end up rolling Bruen back.

Unfortunately I suspect you’re right.

[Malamute]

I recall that the Highland Park shooter left a gun at the scene when he left, they were able to get a name fairly quickly from the trace info as a new purchase and gave them the clue needed as to who to start looking for.

[Stephanie B]

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ban-gu...ge-2022-10-13/

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

I predict thus: This shit will go too far and the Supremes will end up rolling Bruen back.

Unfortunately I suspect you’re right.

If the courts are going to apply the historical test to gun laws, i.e., that there was no serialization of guns back in the early days, then one might argue that most of the 1968 GCA will fall out. Guns and ammunition back in the day were sold as was alcohol-- old enough to take it off the counter, old enough to buy it. The prohibition on buying handguns in other states will also fall, as will the Form 4473. Suppressors once were sold in hardware stores, so maybe that provision of the 1934 Act will fail.

Ruling that the ban on manufacturing and selling machineguns is unconstitutional will fast-track this matter back to the Supremes.

[JohnO]

The way I see it you either have to take the Amendments as they were intended or allow politicians to trample all over them and not object.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't rate highly with many citizens. The ignorant frequently are all too happy to trade liberty for the illusion of security. The same people would likely get up in arms ( couldn't resist) if their right to free speech, assembly, jury trial or the prevention of government housing troops under their roof was removed.

[HCM]

Im not a LEO. Im asking because baby mama selling guns was mentioned earlier and Im curious what types of people are making a straw purchase.
Im also asking about the charges because I dont know. I was hoping for a bit more detailed reply than what you provided.

No.

Prosecution of the usual straw purchase specific charge, 18 USC 922(a)(6), requires proving the purchaser knowingly provided false info intended or likely to deceive.

Proving those elements is difficult. Hence why most straw purchase prosecutions involve either guns used in serious crimes or draw purchase rings flipping guns for profit.

If the straw purchaser denies or misrepresents their involvement re: a gun used in a serious crime it can sometimes be easier to simply prosecute under 18 US. 1001, the generic false statements in official matters charge.

There is always a difference between what you know, and what you can prove. Straw purchases are often like the old Supreme Court obscenity standard: you know it when you see it, but proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is a different matter.

(6) for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;

[BWT]

Damn, and I just ordered a new Dremel attachment! 😔

To me this ruling seems peculiar because even as as a “half-orc, right wing Trump voting nut job who really does think the gov isn’t looking out for my best interests,” I don’t find the requirement than modern guns be serialized to be an infringement on the 2A. Especially when there are so many more egregious infringements on the books.

I was curious about the real world effectiveness of tracing as my limited exposure to NCIS and Law And Order shows that gun registration leads them to the killer every time.

I understand where you’re coming from, but it in my opinion is a step in the direction of what Democrats have wanted.

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

They didn’t get it in 1934 - so get everything serialized and add the Sporting Clause to imports in 1968, Hughes in ‘86, AWB in ‘94, etc. now we’re forcing FFL’s to keep records for longer and longer periods - reports of illegal registries, etc. This isn’t my head spinning into “What if’s” this is legitimately what has happened.

ETA: The reason I bring up the NFA is that is a legitimate gun registry in the United States for specific types of firearms - they would have had a complete registry if it applied to (now) Non-NFA items in 1934.