Ghost Gun Ban Signed Into Law Today, Illinois

[Flynn]

On 7/10/2022 at 11:24 AM, soundguy said:

It may be a dog whistle now, but they came by it honestly from the company that does business as "Ghost Guns". Perfect name for what they offer.

 

Merriam Webster says the term "ghost gun" to define an unserialized gun was first used in 2012, but gives no citation of the first use on their website.

 

The company you describe didn't register their domain until 2014, so I'm inclinded to say they are not the source of the coined buzzword.

Edited July 10, 2022 at 11:33 PM by Flynn

[mostholycerebus]

So, if im reading this right, this law does not effect 80% firearms that were NOT built on a 3D printer?

[steveTA84]

We now have a federal court ruling on the record that seems (obviously) bans on homemade firearms unconstitutional  

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-blocks-delaware-ban-on-self-built-firearm-possession-home-manufacturing

 

WILMINGTON, DE (September 23, 2022) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order enjoining Delaware’s bans on self-manufacturing and possession of home-built firearms in its Rigby v. Jennings lawsuit. The opinion and order can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“These statutes burden constitutionally protected conduct because possession of firearms and firearm frames and receivers is within the scope of the Second Amendment’s right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ and Defendant has not shown that these firearms and components are not commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” wrote Judge Noreika in her opinion. “Further, Defendant has offered no evidence that these statutes are consistent with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.”

The Court went on to hold that “the right to keep and bear arms implies a corresponding right to manufacture arms. Indeed, the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless if no individual or entity could manufacture a firearm. Thus, if possessing untraceable firearms is protected by the Second Amendment, then so too is manufacturing them.”

The Court’s Order states in pertinent part that: “Defendant [Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings], her officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with her, and all persons who have notice of the injunction are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing 11 Del. C. § 1459A(b); 11 Del. C. § 1463(a); 11 Del. C. § 1463(c)(1) and from enforcing 11 Del. C. 1463(b) to the extent that the Court has found it likely unconstitutional (i.e. the statute’s provisions that bar the manufacturing and assembly of untraceable firearms, but not the prohibitions against distributing untraceable firearms).” The Order issued today further denied the State’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

“The self-manufacture of arms is deeply rooted in American history,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “It has been a celebrated tradition since the earliest colonial days, it helped save America’s war for Independence, it was essential to western expansion, and it has led to many of the most innovative technological breakthroughs in our nation’s history. We are pleased that the court recognized this essential element of the right to keep and bear arms and will continue to fiercely advocate for its protection.” 

Edited September 24, 2022 at 05:58 PM by steveTA84

[Euler]

On 9/24/2022 at 1:48 PM, steveTA84 said:

We now have a federal court ruling on the record that seems (obviously) bans on homemade firearms unconstitutional  

...

 

Rigby v Jennings isn't a ruling. It's a temporary injunction. The case has not yet been tried.

[steveTA84]

On 9/24/2022 at 1:31 PM, Euler said:

 

Rigby v Jennings isn't a ruling. It's a temporary injunction. The case has not yet been tried.

True, but this is the first step to these laws being overturn, which they will.  Fun fact too, the judge in this case is a Democrat 

[SiliconSorcerer]

I didn't think illinois had a ban on making them you just had to serialize them. Being  inpossible to do means that pig don't fly.  A law impossible to do can't be enforced. 

[solareclipse2]

On 9/24/2022 at 2:05 PM, SiliconSorcerer said:

I didn't think illinois had a ban on making them you just had to serialize them. Being  inpossible to do means that pig don't fly.  A law impossible to do can't be enforced. 

 

Tell that to California re: microstamping.

[SiliconSorcerer]

And you can't buy guns or someone went to jail?

The effect? 

[Wideglide11]

Does it state that serialization has to be in English?

[RandyP]

While I am NOT being an advocate for compliance, it does raise a question for anyone wishing to comply. Are there any qualifying "nearby" FFL resources to take one's boo-ghostie gun and have it serial numbered while one waited or near enough to make two trips? If there aren't any resources a law-abiding gun owner could use then compliance would seem to be de facto impossible?

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 9/25/2022 at 9:20 AM, RandyP said:

While I am NOT being an advocate for compliance, it does raise a question for anyone wishing to comply. Are there any qualifying "nearby" FFL resources to take one's boo-ghostie gun and have it serial numbered while one waited or near enough to make two trips? If there aren't any resources a law-abiding gun owner could use then compliance would seem to be de facto impossible?

No none, it's not possible. The ATF told them before they passed the law and they passed it anyhow.  Only a manufacture can legally serialize a firearm.  

[Lou]

On 9/25/2022 at 8:33 AM, Wideglide11 said:

Does it state that serialization has to be in English?

I like the way you think

[JamesW]

On 9/25/2022 at 9:20 AM, RandyP said:

While I am NOT being an advocate for compliance, it does raise a question for anyone wishing to comply. Are there any qualifying "nearby" FFL resources to take one's boo-ghostie gun and have it serial numbered while one waited or near enough to make two trips? If there aren't any resources a law-abiding gun owner could use then compliance would seem to be de facto impossible?

 

 

Yes, this place does them:

 

https://lawweapons.org/

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:59 AM, JamesW said:

 

 

Yes, this place does them:

 

https://lawweapons.org/

 

Anyone got their FFL it would be interesting to see what class is is, if they are not a manufacture they are violating federal law.  Type 7 or 10. 

 

 

[Euler]

On 10/5/2022 at 10:59 AM, JamesW said:

Yes, this place does them:

 

https://lawweapons.org/

 

On 10/5/2022 at 11:39 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Anyone got their FFL it would be interesting to see what class is is, if they are not a manufacture they are violating federal law.  Type 7 or 10. 

 

3-36-043-07-5A-05179    "BEVIS, ROBERT"    LAW WEAPONS & SUPPLY
3-36-043-08-5A-05180    "BEVIS, ROBERT"    LAW WEAPONS & SUPPLY

 

[SiliconSorcerer]

On 10/5/2022 at 10:58 AM, Euler said:

 

 

3-36-043-07-5A-05179    "BEVIS, ROBERT"    LAW WEAPONS & SUPPLY
3-36-043-08-5A-05180    "BEVIS, ROBERT"    LAW WEAPONS & SUPPLY

 

 

A manufactures license, interesting. 

Well I hope they don't get sued the first time one of these guns malfunctions and hurts someone or is used in a crime, almost certainly they will be sued, 

Malfunctions 100% they loose, murder or crime IDK but they better have lots of money for lawyers. 

 

[sctman800]

    Of course I could be wrong but my understanding is even an FFL adn manufactur can still only serelize firearms they manufactured. 

[martho]

If I were to have something which fits this criteria and wasn't lost in a boating accident, what fee is LWS charging to perform this task? I don't see it even listed as a service but I didn't shred through each page of the site.

 

Whether they can/can't legally do it is not my question - I am asking if someone has done this, what does it cost?  

 

[Euler]

On 10/5/2022 at 1:38 PM, martho said:

If I were to have something which fits this criteria and wasn't lost in a boating accident, what fee is LWS charging to perform this task? I don't see it even listed as a service but I didn't shred through each page of the site.

 

Whether they can/can't legally do it is not my question - I am asking if someone has done this, what does it cost?  

 

[RandyP]

On 10/5/2022 at 1:20 PM, Euler said:

 

 

the current price is $100 per with about a week and a half leadtime.

[steveTA84]

And just like that....

 

[59caddy]

On 10/13/2022 at 11:32 AM, steveTA84 said:

And just like that....

 

So how do you interpret that as far as possessing unserialized homemade firearms in WV? I thought WV did not have any restrictions on such firearms. What do you think that means for IL? 

[mauserme]

In finding the federal serial number requirements unconstitutional the court found no history in the founding era of a serial number requirement, nor did the state present one.  

 

More broadly (and not part of this case), if serial numbers were not required in that legal tradition, then they cannot be required now.  Similar logic may apply to self manufactured firearms at some point.

 

 

[Euler]

The case is US v Price from the Federal District Court of Southern West Virginia.

 

Docket

Decision said:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The question before the court is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), which prohibits possession of a firearm with an altered, obliterated, or removed serial number, are constitutional after the Supreme Court's recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022). After considering the arguments presented here, I find that Section 922(g)(1) is constitutional, but I find that Section 922(k) is not. For the following reasons, Mr. Price's motion to dismiss the indictment against him is GRANTED as to Count Two and DENIED as to Count One.

...

Relying on the Supreme Court's holding in Bruen, Mr. Price argues that these statutes are facially unconstitutional.

...

The Government argues that ... the requirement that firearms bear serial numbers is, in its view, a "commercial regulation" that does not "infringe" on one's right  to  keep  and  bear  arms.

...

18 U.S.C. § 923(i) is the commercial regulation that requires manufacturers to place serial numbers on firearms .... Section 922(k) goes farther. It 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.
...
Assume, for example, that a law-abiding citizen purchases a firearm from a sporting goods store ... and removes the serial number. ... He could be prosecuted federally for his possession of it. That is the definition of an infringement on one's right to possess a firearm.

 

Now, assume that the law-abiding citizen dies and leaves his gun collection to his law-abiding daughter. ... As it stands, Section 922(k) also makes her possession of the firearm illegal .... Rather, it is a blatant prohibition on possession. The conduct prohibited by Section 922(k) falls squarely within the Second Amendment's plain text.
...
Even in 1968 there was no prohibition on mere possession of a firearm that had the serial number altered or removed. In fact, it was not until the Crime Control Act of 1990 that Section 922 was amended ...
...
In fact, as the Government points out, the commercial requirement that a serial number be placed on a firearm "does not impair the use or functioning of a weapon in any way." ... The mechanics of the firearm -- with or without a serial number -- are the same.

 

... And the founders addressed the "societal problem" of non-law-abiding citizens possessing firearms through "materially different means" -- felon disarmament laws like Section 922(g)(1).

...

 

My summary excludes a lot of the opinion, but it's worth noting that the argument for why the prohibition of possession of unserialized firearms by a law-abiding individual is unconstitutional is essentially the same argument for why the prohibition of any possession (serialized or unserialized) by a felon is not unconstitutional.

 

On 10/13/2022 at 2:20 PM, 59caddy said:

So how do you interpret that as far as possessing unserialized homemade firearms in WV? I thought WV did not have any restrictions on such firearms. What do you think that means for IL? 

 

WV has no unserialized firearm laws. (I don't know it if has any "defaced" firearm laws. Price was only charged federally.) The decision will not affect IL (yet).

 

WV is in the jurisdiction of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, the same as MD, which is why Maryland Shall Issue tweeted the decision. The decision doesn't affect MD, either, but it seems reasonable to expect that the US will appeal. Whatever CA4 decides will affect MD.

 

If there are circuit splits, then the Supreme Court may take it up, and that would affect IL. Of course, IL could have its own home-grown challenges to the law, too.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 at 07:37 PM by Euler

[steveTA84]

Simply put, if it’s ruled unconstitutional at the federal level, it won’t stand at the state level, which is why the Biden admin didn’t outlaw home built unserialized firearms, just that everything can’t be sold together 

Edited October 13, 2022 at 07:40 PM by steveTA84

[Euler]

On 10/13/2022 at 3:34 PM, Euler said:

The case is US v Price from the Federal District Court of Southern West Virginia.

 

Docket

 

My summary excludes a lot of the opinion, but it's worth noting that the argument for why the prohibition of possession of unserialized firearms by a law-abiding individual is unconstitutional is essentially the same argument for why the prohibition of any possession (serialized or unserialized) by a felon is not unconstitutional.

...

 

US filed an appeal on October 24. On October 26, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals assigned it docket number 22-4609.

[RandyP]

I am aware of a 'lower cost' alternative to getting one's 80% lower build serialized and made legal for about $100 from one of the very few establishments that do that kind of work. The Range at 355's online store sells a nice FMH polymer lower for just under $40. Simple enough to swap the parts around. They also offer a metal one for about $90.

 

IMHO many folks built an 80% lower or two simply for the fun and the DIY challenge. The "ghost gun" issue was not a consideration. Personally I have no problem with a requirement to only own 'serialized' firearms. But that's just me.  I'm also a survivor of the idiotic Chicago Gun Registry from a few decades ago with which I was in full compliance.

[Flynn]

On 12/31/2022 at 12:21 PM, RandyP said:

Personally I have no problem with a requirement to only own 'serialized' firearms. But that's just me. 

 

Personally I'm done compromissing, there is no historical tradition for serials besides some manufactures using it for their internal purposes, it's nothing but modern means-ends when it comes to the government requiring them and thus for me it's clearly unconstitutional.  I have said it before and I'll say it again, we have to break ourselves out of the compromise pattern we have become complacent with for decades out of fear they would take more of the pie this round only for them to take it next time anyway, we literaly compromised our right away for decades, that needs to end...  The time for compromising our rights away is over, it's time to take the right back in full and not give anything away.  Give them serials on guns, then they will push for serials on magazines, then they will push for serials on ammo, then they will push for a registery of every serialized part and bullet you own, Bruen gave us the test to entirely nip their unconstitutional demands and restore the right, the time is now...

Edited January 1, 2023 at 08:23 AM by Flynn

[Molly B.]

Preach it brother!

[THE KING]

On 1/1/2023 at 2:20 AM, Flynn said:

 

Personally I'm done compromissing, there is no historical tradition for serials besides some manufactures using it for their internal purposes, it's nothing but modern means-ends when it comes to the government requiring them and thus for me it's clearly unconstitutional.  I have said it before and I'll say it again, we have to break ourselves out of the compromise pattern we have become complacent with for decades out of fear they would take more of the pie this round only for them to take it next time anyway, we literaly compromised our right away for decades, that needs to end...  The time for compromising our rights away is over, it's time to take the right back in full and not give anything away.  Give them serials on guns, then they will push for serials on magazines, then they will push for serials on ammo, then they will push for a registery of every serialized part and bullet you own, Bruen gave us the test to entirely nip their unconstitutional demands and restore the right, the time is now...

Very well said. 

 

I agree completely but it's going to be difficult for some people to change their ways and stop compromising.