Should be interesting.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think milling a slot then lots of insirts with carefully worded statements to insert.I can see Dremel sales going through the roof.
“Eat a dick and don’t shoot my dog!”I think milling a slot then lots of insirts with carefully worded statements to insert.
Text. Hisrory. Tradition.
Just wait until someone figures out that there were several machine guns in existence before the Constitution was written. Look up the Puckle Gun.Education is a good thing.
Now go look up Chambers flintlock and learn that Thomas Jefferson shot a no shit machine-gun by the current ATF definition.
The reporting (if not the ruling) does have a serious error that serial numbers were not widely used before the GCA 68.I was surprised to learn that serial numbers weren't required until the 1968 gun control act.....so of thought they always were.
We in Illinois second this motion.patiently waiting for the suppressor laws to fall.. Made In Texas or not.
No, it's based on the earlier ruling about what was common at the time of the signing of the constitution. So, you'd need to go back and review what was common around the 1780's.Hopeful the ruling does not hinge on the “uncommonness” of serial numbers pre’68.
Awww, our law enforcement will save us. They took that oath.The reporting (if not the ruling) does have a serious error that serial numbers were not widely used before the GCA 68.
They were very widely used. And about the only place they didn’t appear was in very cheap .22’s, and some inexpensive foreign made guns.
When the industrial Revolution turned its eyes towards firearms in the 1840’s, serial numbers were very common. Not for government use, but so that the company could keep track of production, have “numbers” associated with shipping invoices and sales, government contract guns, etc.
Also allowed them to supply spare parts or supplies or accessories… because a serial number allowed the company to know the exact specifications of the product from their reference files.
This was true of many if not most industrial products. Bookkeeping needed serial numbers.
The government only got in the game as a precursor to registration and their long-desired End game of confiscation. As well as tracking for identification of crime guns.
The whole Oswald Carcano paper trail was one of the biggest justifications. Yet no one has ever adequately answered the question “why would Oswald have ordered a rifle and pistol, traceable to his mailbox, when he could have walked into any gun store in TX or LA, and paid cash for a totally untraceable firearm?” An act that “sealed his fate” in public eye as the lone shooter. And provided a justification for GCA68… passed by a leftist activist administration.
Hopeful the ruling does not hinge on the “uncommonness” of serial numbers pre’68. Because that is a ground for overturn, probably. It is flat wrong. What is right is that the government never recorded, saved or archived serial numbers (outside its own military and police forces) prior to 1968.
So the uncommon/unheard-of/unconstitutional part should be the tracking of a Constitutionally-guaranteed product and its owner by government-entities. And the requirement for businesses to put serial numbers on domestically-produced products. And probably it is unconstitutional to tell someone they can’t remove said serial number, because they have (or should hav) no say on what you do with a legally-owned product.
The spillover on this is immense, BTW. Because the government now mandates special features in printers, so that any printed page can be traced to the owner. Same with photocopiers. So send a letter containing a threat or hate speech or… anything deemed un-woke, and that piece of paper can be traced right to you… via the credit card trail and the serial number on the machine.
The First and Fourth Amendment violations there are utterly mind-boggling. And if this ruling applies to firearms and is upheld… and applied to all kinds of serial numbers…. Then it is a major privacy decision. Really major.
Anyhoo… fun history for the day… I’d be interested in hearing more from our true SH legal scholars on this. I’m just a historian… not a constitutional attorney. What say you guys?
But IMHO, The potential for a major SCOTUS case on this, if it gets appealed, is amazing.
Sirhr
Well except for the “few bad apples”…….Awww, our law enforcement will save us. They took that oath.
Right?
They aren't going to do what elected (so-called) representatives and, worse, unelected bureaucrats don't tell them to do.Awww, our law enforcement will save us. They took that oath.
Right?
I understand... and that is very true. And I don't disagree with that viewpoint. But if one thinks like an attorney trying to overturn this... or as an appeals court judge who might want to look at history a little more broadly... it's why I would say that if the ruling referred to serial numbers pre-68 (and not just the article), then that could be a way to overturn.No, it's based on the earlier ruling about what was common at the time of the signing of the constitution. So, you'd need to go back and review what was common around the 1780's.
No, it's based on the earlier ruling about what was common at the time of the signing of the constitution. So, you'd need to go back and review what was common around the 1780's.
You are correct, of course! Though the reality was that NFA was really a de-facto ban by extreme taxation. Because the ISG cannot Constitutionally ban a product. But they can excise tax it so completely as to make it impossible to own… while also requiring egregious paperwork to create a high bar for ownership.“What is right is that the government never recorded, saved or archived serial numbers (outside its own military and police forces) prior to 1968.”
Respectfully, you may have overlooked NFA 1934.
Privacy? What is this privacy that you speak of?The reporting (if not the ruling) does have a serious error that serial numbers were not widely used before the GCA 68.
They were very widely used. And about the only place they didn’t appear was in very cheap .22’s, and some inexpensive foreign made guns.
When the industrial Revolution turned its eyes towards firearms in the 1840’s, serial numbers were very common. Not for government use, but so that the company could keep track of production, have “numbers” associated with shipping invoices and sales, government contract guns, etc.
Also allowed them to supply spare parts or supplies or accessories… because a serial number allowed the company to know the exact specifications of the product from their reference files.
This was true of many if not most industrial products. Bookkeeping needed serial numbers.
The government only got in the game as a precursor to registration and their long-desired End game of confiscation. As well as tracking for identification of crime guns.
The whole Oswald Carcano paper trail was one of the biggest justifications. Yet no one has ever adequately answered the question “why would Oswald have ordered a rifle and pistol, traceable to his mailbox, when he could have walked into any gun store in TX or LA, and paid cash for a totally untraceable firearm?” An act that “sealed his fate” in public eye as the lone shooter. And provided a justification for GCA68… passed by a leftist activist administration.
Hopeful the ruling does not hinge on the “uncommonness” of serial numbers pre’68. Because that is a ground for overturn, probably. It is flat wrong. What is right is that the government never recorded, saved or archived serial numbers (outside its own military and police forces) prior to 1968.
So the uncommon/unheard-of/unconstitutional part should be the tracking of a Constitutionally-guaranteed product and its owner by government-entities. And the requirement for businesses to put serial numbers on domestically-produced products. And probably it is unconstitutional to tell someone they can’t remove said serial number, because they have (or should hav) no say on what you do with a legally-owned product.
The spillover on this is immense, BTW. Because the government now mandates special features in printers, so that any printed page can be traced to the owner. Same with photocopiers. So send a letter containing a threat or hate speech or… anything deemed un-woke, and that piece of paper can be traced right to you… via the credit card trail and the serial number on the machine.
The First and Fourth Amendment violations there are utterly mind-boggling. And if this ruling applies to firearms and is upheld… and applied to all kinds of serial numbers…. Then it is a major privacy decision. Really major.
Anyhoo… fun history for the day… I’d be interested in hearing more from our true SH legal scholars on this. I’m just a historian… not a constitutional attorney. What say you guys?
But IMHO, The potential for a major SCOTUS case on this, if it gets appealed, is amazing.
Sirhr
I wonder if it was a matter of serial numbers weren't used for tracking firearms before the GCA68?The reporting (if not the ruling) does have a serious error that serial numbers were not widely used before the GCA 68.
They were very widely used. And about the only place they didn’t appear was in very cheap .22’s, and some inexpensive foreign made guns.
When the industrial Revolution turned its eyes towards firearms in the 1840’s, serial numbers were very common. Not for government use, but so that the company could keep track of production, have “numbers” associated with shipping invoices and sales, government contract guns, etc.
Also allowed them to supply spare parts or supplies or accessories… because a serial number allowed the company to know the exact specifications of the product from their reference files.
This was true of many if not most industrial products. Bookkeeping needed serial numbers.
The government only got in the game as a precursor to registration and their long-desired End game of confiscation. As well as tracking for identification of crime guns.
The whole Oswald Carcano paper trail was one of the biggest justifications. Yet no one has ever adequately answered the question “why would Oswald have ordered a rifle and pistol, traceable to his mailbox, when he could have walked into any gun store in TX or LA, and paid cash for a totally untraceable firearm?” An act that “sealed his fate” in public eye as the lone shooter. And provided a justification for GCA68… passed by a leftist activist administration.
Hopeful the ruling does not hinge on the “uncommonness” of serial numbers pre’68. Because that is a ground for overturn, probably. It is flat wrong. What is right is that the government never recorded, saved or archived serial numbers (outside its own military and police forces) prior to 1968.
So the uncommon/unheard-of/unconstitutional part should be the tracking of a Constitutionally-guaranteed product and its owner by government-entities. And the requirement for businesses to put serial numbers on domestically-produced products. And probably it is unconstitutional to tell someone they can’t remove said serial number, because they have (or should hav) no say on what you do with a legally-owned product.
The spillover on this is immense, BTW. Because the government now mandates special features in printers, so that any printed page can be traced to the owner. Same with photocopiers. So send a letter containing a threat or hate speech or… anything deemed un-woke, and that piece of paper can be traced right to you… via the credit card trail and the serial number on the machine.
The First and Fourth Amendment violations there are utterly mind-boggling. And if this ruling applies to firearms and is upheld… and applied to all kinds of serial numbers…. Then it is a major privacy decision. Really major.
Anyhoo… fun history for the day… I’d be interested in hearing more from our true SH legal scholars on this. I’m just a historian… not a constitutional attorney. What say you guys?
But IMHO, The potential for a major SCOTUS case on this, if it gets appealed, is amazing.
Sirhr
The SCOTUS ruling in NYSRPA v the cunts in NY wasn’t about the history of the firearms industry but the history of regulation of firearms, it is irrelevant how far back manufacturers used serial numbers but what matters is when serial numbers were first required by law and whether or not that fits with the text as informed by history.I understand... and that is very true. And I don't disagree with that viewpoint. But if one thinks like an attorney trying to overturn this... or as an appeals court judge who might want to look at history a little more broadly... it's why I would say that if the ruling referred to serial numbers pre-68 (and not just the article), then that could be a way to overturn.
Strict originalism is pretty hard to enforce... but when originalism is combined with an historical trail that shows that 'original' thinking was in place until modern times, then it becomes easy. Serial numbers were prevalent just 50 years or so after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were Ratified (1789) When 'originalism' was superceded by practice, law, etc. for 'most' of our history, it becomes more tenuous.
Again, you are right on. But do the courts agree with us? That is my only concern. The opportunity here, on the other hand, is fantastic!
Cheers,
Sirhr
Agreed.The SCOTUS ruling in NYSRPA v the cunts in NY wasn’t about the history of the firearms industry but the history of regulation of firearms, it is irrelevant how far back manufacturers used serial numbers but what matters is when serial numbers were first required by law and whether or not that fits with the text as informed by history.
It clearly was. That's what I mentioned in the Oswald case where they were able to trace his purchase of a surplus Carcano to a, I think, Chicago gun store where he bought it by mailorder. The FBI traced serial numbers in crime long before GCA 68. I am sure big city departments did the same. But at the time, unless the seller/jobber kept a serial number WITH a receipt, which they didn't have to do, there would be no record of the buyer.I wonder if it was a matter of serial numbers weren't used for tracking firearms before the GCA68?