Ghost Gun Ban Signed Into Law Today, Illinois

[mauserme]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:57 AM, RandyP said:

"I argue that serial numbers have no beneficial effect for society. They serve no law enforcement purpose. Crimes are not detected, cleared, or prevented by having serial numbers. The only purpose is to identify what person owns what gun."

 

If someone breaks into my home and steals a serialized firearm, I report the theft and the Police find said criminal with MY firearm? By matching the serial number it does confirm the criminal's possession of MY stolen firearm does it not? I submit that could be considered a law enforcement purpose. Same would apply to the matching VIN of a stolen vehicle or any other serial numbered item.

 

Perhaps your argument is that serial numbers voluntarily applied by the manufacturer, but not required in law or recorded by the state, is the answer.  Then consumers can dictate if they'd like their guns to be serialized or not, as they might have done in 1791.

 

 

[Felixd]

With respect to the question broached by Randy, I think you will find that if someone is actually charged in Illinois with the possession of a reportedly stolen firearm the charge is frequently dropped. It requires the offender to knowingly possess the item. Possession does not automatically prove intent. As to returning stolen firearms it is frequently unlikely as to the effort the police or a court have to take to return it. In Cook County they are mostly confiscated and destroyed.  This is not a level playing field we are on. 
 

Re: Mauser question. My position is that these laws were part of a reaction to crime at two periods of history with a naive idea that collecting serial members would magically deter crime. I do not support government mandating anything that does not support the public good.  Most manufacturers had serialized their products well before 1934. If a gun was taken in a crime the serial number could, and were, provided. Some makers chose not to number their products. Inexpensive guns remained that way until 1968. Government has no right to collect personal information about citizens. We do not belong to the government, but government belongs to the people. 

[RECarry]

Years ago, Illinois passed a law mandating that anyone who purchased drain cleaner of a certain strength/ composition supply their ID and personal information at POS. As the clerk pulled out a clipboard to record my info, I declined and left. I did not consent to putting my name on a registry of "most-likely suspects". Which is how the state would have used that information. A complaint to our state Senator was met with "that law is temporary, we'll see how it goes". Umm, OK.  

 

If deterring crimes of disfigurement was the goal, the state could have allowed victims to be armed (this was years before McDonald). But no, tracking innocent consumers was their solution.

[Flynn]

On 1/1/2023 at 9:57 AM, RandyP said:

I submit that could be considered a law enforcement purpose. 

 

I submit that the Bruen ruling was quite clear, very clear in fact, ends-means arguments like you just made are moot arguments in regards to government infringing upon the 2nd.

 

Quote

To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. 

 

I would also submit that if you would like a serial on your firearm, it's certainly within your right to have one applied, but the government has no right to infringe upon people's 2nd rights by mandating one.

 

Again, I stand firm, we need to break the compromise mold and mentality, we have become so conditioned to compromise that even when the Supreme Court says something is very likely unconstitional some are still willing and conditioned to compromise their own and worse other people's rights away using the same means-ends argument the Supreme Court has stated is moot and not appliable to the 2nd.

 

[crufflesmuth]

On 1/1/2023 at 3:28 PM, Flynn said:

 

I submit that the Bruen ruling was quite clear, very clear in fact, ends-means arguments like you just made are moot arguments in regards to government infringing upon the 2nd.

 

 

I would also submit that if you would like a serial on your firearm, it's certainly within your right to have one applied, but the government has no right to infringe upon people's 2nd rights by mandating one.

 

Again, I stand firm, we need to break the compromise mold and mentality, we have become so conditioned to compromise that even when the Supreme Court says something is very likely unconstitional some are still willing and conditioned to compromise their own and worse other people's rights away using the same means-ends argument the Supreme Court has stated is moot and not appliable to the 2nd.

 

 

Agreed. We need to adapt, like Muslims in the post 9/11 era did. Our only response should be: see you in court.

[Tvandermyde]

here is my run down on what's happening with Ghost Gun regulations. . . 

 

 

[jrsavoie]

Thank you again

[Monty80]

Maybe someone can get PSA to do some lowers like the Vatipants lowers.

 

 

[mauserme]

The 1/2/2023, topic titled "Ghost Guns: Fed vs Illinois" has been merged into this existing topic.