The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed suit Monday against Oregon's “ghost gun” ban, choosing the Bruen decision as a means to repeal the Beaver State's Second Amendment violation.
Ban
The bill, House Bill 2005 (HB 2005), was signed into law last summer by Oregon’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, ignoring a Supreme Court decision from a year earlier, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which provides that governments that violate citizens’ right to keep and bear arms must prove that “the regulation is consistent with the historical traditions of firearms regulation in this country.”
Oregon's so-called ghost gun ban prohibits “the manufacture, sale, transfer or possession of so-called 'undetectable' firearms, that is, firearms that do not have serial numbers or frames or receivers that do not have serial numbers.” When it goes into effect on September 1, violators will be required to face felony charges.
Litigation
The FPC complaint declares that Americans have been free to manufacture firearms without restriction since the founding of the Republic.
Throughout American history, people have had the freedom to personally manufacture, build, and/or assemble weapons for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
Ignoring this historical tradition, Oregon’s ban categorically and categorically prohibits individuals from exercising their Second Amendment-protected rights to possess, acquire, and home-build firearms of types, features, and designs commonly owned and possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes (home-built firearms that do not bear a manufacturer’s serial number, and parts used in the manufacture of such firearms).
The suit relies not only on Bruen's arguments, but also on a study published by Joseph Greenlee of the Heartland Institute called “America's Home-Made Weapons Tradition.”
Greenlee said:
Since early colonial times, Americans have been busy making and repairing weapons.
In the colonies, their ability to defend their homelands and communities, hunt, fight wars, and ultimately win American independence depended heavily on their ability to produce weapons.
Weapons production was crucial for the newly independent nation to repel invasions and rebellions, and eventually to expand westward.
This technology has always been highly valued and in demand, and many Americans made their own weapons rather than relying on others.
He added that government regulation of such private activity is rare.
Throughout American history, restrictions on homemade weapons have been rare.
All restrictions on weapons intended for personal use have been introduced in just a few states within the past decade.
Thus, he concluded, “the tradition of manufacturing weapons for personal use is deeply rooted in American history…. There is no tradition of regulating homemade weapons…. In short, the right to manufacture weapons for personal use is a right protected by the Second Amendment.”
The “defense” of the nation
Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum must overcome two hurdles — Bruen and early American history — to stop district courts from tossing out Oregon's ghost gun violations. “I believe the (state) Legislature had the authority to enact these commonsense laws that support law enforcement investigative efforts and protect law-abiding Oregonians, and we will vigorously defend their constitutionality,” she said.
She is likely to lose: “There is no history or precedent for eliminating law-abiding citizens' ability to manufacture their own firearms or prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms for that purpose,” according to the FPC's complaint.
The complaint states:
Thus, states have the burden to “affirmatively demonstrate that their firearm regulations are part of a historical tradition that defines the limits of the right to keep and bear arms.” (Bruen, 2006)
Oregon cannot shoulder this burden: it has no established representative historical tradition banning the home-making of weapons commonly used for lawful purposes or prohibiting the home-making of such weapons.
Unfortunately, no one on either side points out the fundamental error that underlies these legal disputes: that guns are the cause of gun violence. In fact, the term “gun violence” has been constantly created and promoted by the media to falsely support that association. In order to solve the problem of crime, which is often committed with guns, we need to separate the term “violence” from the phrase “gun violence.”
The crime is in the use, not the possession. Unfortunately, this distinction has been lost in the ongoing fight against private ownership of firearms in the United States.
