Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Iowa goes with permit-less carry | Main | Good news »

The headline sums it up well

Posted by David Hardy · 9 April 2021 12:03 PM

"After Open Borders, High Crime, and Defunding Cops - Joe Chooses Now to go After Guns to Defend Ourselves".

UPDATE: As I recall, before the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, handguns didn't have to be stamped with serial numbers, and before the Gun Control Act of 1968, rifles and shotguns didn't have to be stamped. Some manufacturers did voluntarily, for inventory purposes, but others did not. I have a couple of rifles that don't have and never had serial numbers.

6 Comments | Leave a comment

Hank Archer | April 11, 2021 8:56 AM | Reply

Aren't there millions of non-serial numbered firearms in existence? Firearms manufactured before it was required?

CDR D | April 12, 2021 8:46 AM | Reply

I can think of a few models of Winchester .22 single shots that were not assigned numbers. Madis's "The Winchester Book" would provide a comprehensive list. California requires serial numbers on anything manufactured after December 16, 1968. Before that date long guns are exempt.

wrangler5 | April 12, 2021 6:18 PM | Reply

My mid-50s Marlin bolt action 22 has no serial number. OTOH, I understand Colt has serial numbered their guns from the very first Paterson model produced (1837.)

Dave D. | April 13, 2021 7:20 AM | Reply

...Like a lot of California and U.S. Gun laws, the serial number requirement is hard to enforce for homemade guns. How can you know when a gun was made when the fella who made it is dead or not answering questions ? And when it goes to his heirs, you can't ever know because they don't know. The burden of proof is on the State to prove the elements of the accusations. Until they make mere possession a crime. And Biden can't do that with an executive order, only Congress can, with legislation.
...And without a number, transfer can't be recorded. So it just gets sold or traded or given . The Goobers aren't in the loop. Imagine that.
...Somebody, somewhere, is gunna pair printing gunz with CDC manufacturing and like the gentle rain from heaven, bangsticks will be everywhere as leaves are in the fall.
...I want the green one.

Old Guy | April 13, 2021 10:42 AM | Reply

I have a Marlin 39 from the 1920's that has a serial number but when I tried to date it Marlin said they had a fire and the records were burned. Other were lost to water, not uncommon I understand

anonymous | April 15, 2021 11:45 AM | Reply

> "before the Gun Control Act of 1968"

Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, we - the royal "we", since I was not born yet - could purchase guns through the mail.

Democrats tell us that mail is super secure; e.g., secure enough to prevent tampering with election ballots.

So why don't we repeal the prohibition on buying guns through the mail?

Unlike 1968, background checks can now be done on-line. All the postal delivery person/perdaughter would need to do before turning over the package is verify the recipient's I.D. and ...

... oh, that part is racist, isn't it?

OK, so such dispense with the I.D. requirement part.

Anyway, somebody should contact Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene about introducing such a bill in Congress.

Leave a comment