Judge's Ruling on Gun Serial Numbers Highlights 'Deadly' Impact of Right-Wing Supreme Court

[douglas9]

"The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence has grown so radical that it now shields criminals trying to conceal their involvement in a violent crime," said one observer.
Legal experts said Friday that a federal judge's ruling in West Virginia illustrates the danger posed by the U.S. Supreme Court's right wing majority, which ruled this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that restrictions on firearms must fall within the so-called "historical tradition" of gun laws.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, who was appointed to the Southern District of West Virginia by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, ruled against a federal law prohibiting people from possessing firearms with serial numbers that have been "altered, obliterated, or removed."

"Serial numbers were largely unknown to the Framers, Goodwin wrote. And so the Second Amendment confers a right to remove them from modern weapons."

Serial numbers have been required for guns since the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and are intended to prevent the illegal sale of guns and to allowing law enforcement to trace firearms.

But basing his ruling on the majority Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas in June, Goodwin said Wednesday that requiring serial numbers is not part of the "historical tradition of firearm regulation" and therefore runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/14/judges-ruling-gun-serial-numbers-highlights-deadly-impact-right-wing-supreme-court

[Docreed2003]

1. By that logic

Couldn't one argue that since modern firearms were unknown to "the founders" that they don't fall under the purview of the 2nd amendment and therefore can be regulated at will?

When will reasonable people recognize that modern problems require modern solutions and that two hundred year old concepts are arcane and require updating? Even the founders understood that notion.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

5. Caetano v Massachusetts says otherwise

It was a SCOTUS decision in 2016. It was a Per Curiam decision, so none of the liberal Justices dissented. The decision stated

Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[dflprincess]

2. Cops and prosecutors will love this

Tell me again how conservatives are for law and order.

[Lovie777]

3. Also, tell me again for the second time how RWers care about ......

the welfare of the general public.

[FakeNoose]

4. The 2nd Amendment was written before bullets were invented

[sdfernando]

6. I see an in here.

By that judge's logic we can regulate bullets up the yahzoo. What good is any gun, pistol, AR-15, etc. If you can't get bullets for it?

[FakeNoose]

7. I wish I knew the answer to that

Somewhere I'm hoping a few brilliant (liberal) lawyers are working on it.

[sl8]

8. It's true, the Yanks and Redcoats shot gumballs and Tic-Tacs. nt

[FakeNoose]

12. It was probably called buckshot

[sl8]

14. Not single projectiles.

They called them balls, or bullets.

I don't know if the meme creator made this as a joke, or perhaps they're confusing (self-contained) metallic cartridges with bullets. Even cartridges (paper) predated the 19th century.

[sarisataka]

11. If you are going to get your information from Internet memes

Expect to be wrong often, Is or at the very least look silly

[LiberalFighter]

9. By that logic photo ids are not required for voting.

[sanatanadharma]

10. So there is a 2nd A right to remove something that did not exist in 1789?

"Serial numbers were largely unknown to the Framers, Goodwin wrote. And so the Second Amendment confers a right to remove them from modern weapons."

First, note the word 'largely"! Moving on

I think some judges are going to advance the 2nd A absurdity by reductio ad absurd.
The non-existence of a past something confers a right to erase the existent present.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

16. More specifically

It's the non-existence of laws requiring them and forbidding removing them. Under Bruen, if the gun law doesn't have a historical equivalent from around the time of the founding, then it fails the standard set in Bruen and is unconstitutional. This review standard puts many gun laws at risk.

[Pompoy]

15. I see it as the judge wanting to show how ridiculous Thomas' thinking is

"This decision rigorously adheres to Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in Bruen ... but it also reads as if the judge is desperate to show readers just how dangerous and radical that ruling is."

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1580656963368546304%7Ctwgr%5E992aed7d2090e500e2c167cda424389ef1e61914%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2F2022%2F10%2F14%2Fjudges-ruling-gun-serial-numbers-highlights-deadly-impact-right-wing-supreme-court

He is a Bill Clinton appointee after all.