Price v US - "Defaced" firearms

[Euler]

The petition to the Supreme Court was filed on November 4. Docket

Previous discussions (now locked):
Ghost Gun Ban Signed Into Law Today, Illinois (towards the end of page 5)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RANDY PRICE

Petition for Certiorari said:

The narrow question presented is whether Second Amendment protected "conduct," for purposes of Bruen's step one, consists of anything other than an individual's possession or carrying of a bearable firearm.

... Bruen's first step provides that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."

The Fourth Circuit found rather than what an individual is doing with a gun that is regulated, Second Amendment protected "conduct" is further defined by the historical scope of (1) who can possess a gun, as well as (2) what type of gun can be possessed. ... The Fourth Circuit further found that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not in common use for any lawful purpose, such that their possession is not entitled Second Amendment protection at Bruen's step one.
...
On May 3, 2022, a federal grand jury sitting in the Southern District of West Virginia returned a two-count indictment charging Randy Price with possessing a firearm after sustaining a felony conviction (Count One), under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and possession of the same firearm that had an obliterated serial number, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(k) (Count Two). ... The district court partially granted Price's motion to dismiss the indictment, concluding that § 922(k) violated the Second Amendment.
...
The Government filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's ruling, which the Fourth Circuit reversed in a published, en banc opinion. ... The court did so in a split nine-judge majority opinion holding (a) Bruen's step one is not limited to determining whether a regulation burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, and (b) non-functional characteristics of a firearm like obliterated serial numbers are not in common use for lawful purposes, such that possessing one is outside the scope of Second Amendment protections at Bruen's step one. ...

As part of its ruling, the Fourth Circuit found that courts are required to make three different inquiries in order to make the single determination of what "conduct" is protected by the Second Amendment: (1) whether the burdened individual is part of "the people" whom the Second Amendment protects, (2) whether the weapon regulated by the challenged regulation is "in common use" for a lawful purpose, and (3) whether the Second Amendment protected the individual's proposed course of conduct. ... Most importantly for this Petition, the Fourth Circuit expressly held "we can only properly apply step one of the Bruen framework by looking to the historical scope of the Second Amendment right." ...
...
... the Fourth Circuit used "common sense" to hold firearms with obliterated serial numbers did not enjoy Second Amendment protection. ... This was done solely within Bruen's step one, without any burden shifting to the United States to ever historically justify its firearm regulation.
...

This petition regards the interlocutory appeal. Price is represented by the WV federal public defender's office.

[Euler]

On November 21, the Court requested a response by December 23.

On December 13, the government requested an extension to respond to the petition.

On December 16, the Court granted an extension to January 22.

On January 10, the government requested an extension to respond to the petition.

On January 13, the Court granted an extension to February 21.

[Euler]

On January 21, the US finally met the deadline to file a response, in which the DOJ still argues that 18 USC 922(k) is constitutional (removing a serial number is a crime).

[Euler]

Petition denied.