Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2026/04/28/court-rules-2nd-amendment-covers-firearms-parts-good-news-for-those-who-build-guns/

by Bender • 3 months ago

114 76 3 months ago

cowboystatedaily.com

advisedwang2• 3 months ago

The actual opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...

Papazsazsa• 3 months ago

The bigger question is constructive prohibition, i.e. can the government kill civil rights with a thousand cuts.

This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping.

Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2...

And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

mullingitover4• 3 months ago

Why bother with a thousand cuts when you can just pack the court and do it with one, as was accomplished today when the court effectively struck down the voting rights act?

trollbridge• 3 months ago

Nitpick: the court isn’t “packed”; it’s has 9 members since 1869.

The VRA wasn’t struck down either. The court just ruled that race based gerrymandering isn’t legal if it results in partisan advantage in such a district.

akersten• 3 months ago

Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?

yieldcrv3• 3 months ago

my bet it is that it only affects the states in the 10th circuit, but could be assumed to be the law of the land, until a case is brought in which case there is only an issue if a different appeals circuit rules differently

rtkwe4• 3 months ago

Correct, it's only /binding/ on courts in the same District but they are often persuasive when cited in other districts if the decision is well reasoned and less controversial. This one will likely be contested, the circuits have very different ideas about gun rights.

bluGill• 3 months ago

Those are different circuit courts where this ruling doesn't directly apply. However anyone who wants to challenge those laws would be stupid to not bring this to the judge - even though it doesn't apply, the judge still needs to justify why they are ignoring it and on appeal the circuit court will mention this ruling (either why they agree, or why they think it is wrong) - assuming the appeal is accepted.

jmward01• 3 months ago

It will be fine to print a gun but there will be laws outlawing your ability to print an iphone case and printers will have to detect parts from any registered manufacturer. So we will get the worst of all worlds. printers only for guns and not for people to build useful things.

AnimalMuppet2• 3 months ago

You just need a gun design that has a part that can double as an iphone case...

dabluecaboose2• 3 months ago

Unjustified cynicism aside, the same technical reasons that a ban on printing gun parts is infeasible apply to printing iphone cases. There's no feasible way to detect what a printer is printing.

mghackerlady• 3 months ago

I very much wouldn't put it past this government from banning unauthorised part printing in some draconian DMCA-esque law bought and paid for by John Deere and Apple, but is there any current proposals for such a law?

cucumber37328423• 3 months ago

Unironically this because guns have fairly stringent constitutional protections and lots of jurisprudence to that effect whereas flimsy hand wavy bullshit about public good is enough to regulate anything else.

yieldcrv3• 3 months ago

10th circuit, no other circuit ruling on the case, a state bringing the case

I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this

rtkwe4• 3 months ago

I think you misunderstand how the courts work. No other court would rule on this case because it wouldn't be heard in another circuit and the Supreme Court is the ONLY court anyone can appeal to after a circuit court, the only other options are convening a larger group for an en banc hearing but that doesn't apply here afaik.

yieldcrv3• 3 months ago

I was trying to save Colorado taxpayers and people that disagree some time and energy. To focus on what they can control which isn’t this.

Additionally I was alluding to the process of using a other circuit by bringing a case in another state that has similar laws as Colorado, thats the only way for a potential circuit split, forcing SCOTUS review.

151556• 3 months ago

Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work.

"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

advisedwang2• 3 months ago

Those two things are in fact different. Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

jp191919• 3 months ago

Well, One is a right, the other is a privilege.

151556• 3 months ago

Tell me you have never actually read the statute without telling me.

Per the statute text, you may not manufacture a firearm for personal use in Colorado: the statute requires an FFL's license number (which you do not have) to be placed in the serial number string.

FFLs didn't exist in 1790 - therefore this fails Bruen among other standards.

iamnothere2• 3 months ago

You don’t actually need a VIN on a car, you just won’t be able to register and drive a VINless car on public roads.

Some states seem to have designated even private roads as “public” if there is uncontrolled access (seems ripe for a court challenge though). But offroading or gated roads would be fine even here.

Some YouTubers have fun importing cheap Chinese cars that aren’t street legal and destroying them with extreme offroading.

chroma3• 3 months ago

Do F1 cars have VINs? I’m pretty sure you don’t need a VIN on a car if it stays off public roads. Also driving is not a right enshrined by the constitution.

bigbadfeline• 3 months ago

Does requiring a VIN on a car mean that cars are banned?

Of course, Chinese cars in the US are effectively banned by regulations. Proof that VIN can be used for banning.

mananaysiempre• 3 months ago

"Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.

Works surprisingly (depressingly) well when there’s no pushback. We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses. It’s not a movie and videogame censor, it’s just a state agency for mandatory age ratings. (In at least one Western country that was literally a rebrand.) Or closer to TFA’s locale, we’re not regulating commercial activity within a single state, we’re just controlling its impact on the interstate market. (Don’t worry, it’s all for a good cause, child labor is bad after all.)

cucumber37328423• 3 months ago

We’re not controlling news media, we’re just issuing broadcast licenses

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns

Related Stories