Until recently, federal courts uniformly applied at least intermediate scrutiny to firearms laws and conducted a means-end analysis to determine whether the state’s interest in the regulation was sufficient to overcome whatever burden the law placed on one’s Second Amendment right. See, e.g., United States v. Carter, 669 F.3d 411 (4th Cir. 2012). In Bruen, however, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that all of the lower courts had been incorrect in applying means-end scrutiny. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). Rather than
balancing any government interest, no matter how important the interest may be in our modern society, the Supreme Court reaffirmed what it said in Heller: “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Id. (quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 634–35 (2008)) (emphasis in original). Because the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, only those regulations that would have been considered constitutional then can be constitutional now.

Supreme Court provided the following mandate:

To justify its regulation, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Section 922(k) criminalizes the mere possession of a firearm after a serial number is removed, obliterated, or altered in any way, whether or not the firearm is then placed into commerce.

Any modern regulation that does not comport with the historical understanding of the right is to be deemed unconstitutional, regardless of how desirable or important that regulation may be in our modern society.

It is undisputed that serial numbers were not required, or even in common use, in 1791. Rather, serial numbers arose only with the advent of the mass production of firearms. The first legal requirement for serial numbers did not appear until 1934 when Congress passed the National Firearms Act. That requirement only applied to certain firearms, such as machine guns and short-barreled rifles. The first precursor to Section 922(k) appeared in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and made it unlawful “for any person to transport, ship, or knowingly receive in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm from which the manufacturer’s serial number has been removed, obliterated, or altered.” Pub. L. No. 75-785, § 2(i), 52 Stat. 125

Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law
https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677

Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt?
https://lawstache.com/merch/

Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101

Want to learn about our recent victories?
https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/

If you'd like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra:

*Calvin Klein Men's Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf
*Calvin Klein Men's Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG
*Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y
*Harley-Davidson Men's Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC
*Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ
*Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm
*Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC
*ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q

Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски?
https://russiansandiegoattorney.com

Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts

The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...