Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

BBender about 4 hours ago 56 commentsRead Article on cowboystatedaily.com

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 994 words in the discussion.

Discussion (56 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

Papazsazsa•about 3 hours ago

The bigger question is constructive prohibition, i.e. can the government kill civil rights with a thousand cuts.

This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping.

Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2...

And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

mullingitover•about 1 hour ago

Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?

trollbridge•about 1 hour ago

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869.

The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

15155•about 3 hours ago

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work.

"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

mananaysiempre•about 3 hours ago

> "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)

advisedwang•about 3 hours ago

Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

iamnothere•about 3 hours ago

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads.

Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here.

Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.

Sohcahtoa82•about 2 hours ago

Car/traffic laws don't apply on personal property (Though noise ordinances still would), but that won't stop cops from trying to ticket you anyways.

https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/dep350/receive...

jp191919•about 3 hours ago

Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.

chroma•about 2 hours ago

Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.

15155•about 3 hours ago

Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me.

Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.

FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.

SpicyLemonZest•about 3 hours ago

"Neener neener" seems to be working out well for the gun rights advocates in the source article, who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts".

15155•about 2 hours ago

"Absurd fiction" aka "established law for decades." This concept of "serialized part" is a construct stemming from Democrat-established legislation.

What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult to understand?

SpicyLemonZest•about 2 hours ago

I think you know that you're deploying the "neener neener" strategy on me and I'm not interested in engaging with it.

StefanBatory•about 2 hours ago

Which part of "well-regulated militia" is difficult to understand? ;)

JCTheDenthog•about 2 hours ago

>who enjoy the absurd fiction that a lower receiver is a firearm and the entire assembly they attach on top of it is just "gun parts"

It's the ATF and congressional Democrats (who are very much not "gun rights advocates") who created that "absurd fiction".

advisedwang•about 4 hours ago

The actual opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...

akersten•about 3 hours ago

Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?

bluGill•about 3 hours ago

Those are different circuit courts where this ruling doesn't directly apply. However anyone who wants to challenge those laws would be stupid to not bring this to the judge - even though it doesn't apply, the judge still needs to justify why they are ignoring it and on appeal the circuit court will mention this ruling (either why they agree, or why they think it is wrong) - assuming the appeal is accepted.

jmward01•about 3 hours ago

It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.

dabluecaboose•about 2 hours ago

Unjustified cynicism aside, the same technical reasons that a ban on printing gun parts is infeasible apply to printing iphone cases. There's no feasible way to detect what a printer is printing.

mghackerlady•about 2 hours ago

I very much wouldn't put it past this government from banning unauthorised part printing in some draconian DMCA-esque law bought and paid for by John Deere and Apple, but is there any current proposals for such a law?

AnimalMuppet•about 2 hours ago

You just need a gun design that has a part that can double as an iphone case...

chroma•about 2 hours ago

You joke but phone mounts for firearms are a thing. People use them to record gun PoV videos and to make range estimation (such as dope charts) more accessible.

yieldcrv•about 3 hours ago

my bet it is that it only affects the states in the 10th circuit, but could be assumed to be the law of the land, until a case is brought in which case there is only an issue if a different appeals circuit rules differently

rtkwe•about 2 hours ago

Correct, it's only /binding/ on courts in the same District but they are often persuasive when cited in other districts if the decision is well reasoned and less controversial. This one will likely be contested, the circuits have very different ideas about gun rights.

ApolloFortyNine•about 1 hour ago

If even the district court rules this way it's hard to see a World where the supreme court doesn't also rule that way.

Unless there's been court packing by then of course.

exabrial•about 2 hours ago

This is incredibly good news to anyone that believe in freedom of speech and expression.

jjtheblunt•about 1 hour ago

that's the first amendment. this article is about the second amendment.

NoImmatureAdHom•about 1 hour ago

It's possible GP got it wrong, but there is a "code is speech" angle on this. Shapes can't be illegal.

yieldcrv•about 3 hours ago

10th circuit, no other circuit ruling on the case, a state bringing the case

I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this

rtkwe•about 2 hours ago

I think you misunderstand how the courts work. No other court would rule on this case because it wouldn't be heard in another circuit and the Supreme Court is the ONLY court anyone can appeal to after a circuit court, the only other options are convening a larger group for an en banc hearing but that doesn't apply here afaik.

yieldcrv•about 1 hour ago

I was trying to save Colorado taxpayers and people that disagree some time and energy. To focus on what they can control which isn’t this.

Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.