21 Oct In-the-News Update [Issue: 2nd Amendment]
A recent court ruling coming out of a U.S. District Court in the southern district of West Virginia has resulted in a significant victory for law-abiding gun owners under the 2nd Amendment and has once again shown the sweeping positive impact of the “historical tradition” precedent set by the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen (2022). In the case of U.S v Randy Price, the defendant was indicted on two counts, (1) being a felon in the unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) , and (2) possession of a firearm with an altered or obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k) and 924(a)(1)(B). While the first count was upheld for very clear reasons, the second count was dismissed on grounds of unconstitutionality by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin. Judge Goodwin’s reasoning behind his ruling was such that the second charge was predicated on Section 922(k) of the U.S. penal code, which specifically prohibits the possession of firearms with altered or obliterated serial numbers, as was legislated by the Gun Control Act of 1968. While the government argued that Section 922(k) is constitutional because it is within the scope of commerce regulations, Judge Goodwin found it to conflict with precedents set by Bruen (2022) in as much as it imposes a restriction on the lawful right to keep and bear arms. The ruling recognized that while the requirement of serial numbers in the import, manufacturing, and selling of firearms plainly fell within Congressional authority to regulate commerce, once a firearm is purchased, and therefore removed from the stream of commerce, any further regulation restricting lawful gun owners from altering or removing those serial numbers directly conflicted with the 2nd Amendment.