The Genetic Fallacy of Tracking Manufacturers

Crime First. Apprehension Second. Tool Tracing?

There is a proposal afoot that would require both the upper receiver of the modern sporting rifle (the section that houses the bolt and barrel) and the lower receiver (the section that houses the fire control mechanism, the recoil apparatus, and the stock) to be serialized solely by government approved sources. Such a move would ostensibly permit both sections to be “contact traced” in the vernacular of a post-COVID-19 world.

But why? What is the purpose of serializing a firearm? Why a government approved source?

Under English common law, and the U. S. Constitution, the commission of an unlawful act is the trigger (not intentional, but not sorry for the pun) for apprehension of the perpetrator. Even then, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Let us presume someone committed a heinous crime, and that a firearm was one of the tools used to in its commission. The suspect (remember the innocent until proven guilty tag?) would be arraigned for the crime, and if the local jurisdiction warranted it, with the additional charge of using a deadly instrument to aid in its commission. So what would be the purpose of contact tracing the tool, since the suspect has already been charged with the crime, as well as the additional charge of using a deadly tool in its commission?

Perhaps, knowing the firearm’s provenance would allow the prosecutor to add a charge of theft, or unlawful possession to the litany of other charges. Or perhaps tracing its provenance may lead to someone who previously possessed it illegally, and thereby lead to his or her being charged with a crime. In this instance a serial number might help to establish a “chain of custody” from one possessor to another. In other words, to establish “proof” that this firearm was passed illegally from person A to person B, or that person A obtained the firearm illegally to begin with. Under this scenario, any unique identifier would suffice to establish that “chain of custody?” Serial numbers are simply easier.

Firearm Serial Numbers: Origins and Identity

The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) requires that firearms be marked with certain identifying data. Among that data are the maker’s name, the maker’s location, and a unique identifier. Under present law, any citizen, not lawfully prohibited from doing so, may manufacture a firearm. The ATF requires privately manufactured firearms to bear the same marks (name, location, and identifier) as a firearm manufactured by company licensed to do so.

“Government Approved” Means Governmentally Traceable

If privately manufactured, firearms are not easily traced until after a reason for their tracing is established. That means, as long as the firearm is used legally, its existence is not officially recorded through manufacturing records, or some government agency. Its a (OMG!) “Ghost Gun!”

Oh. By the way, if that unrecorded firearm were ever sold through a FFL, or pawned, a name, location, and identifier would be required on the firearm.

The requirement for marking a privately manufactured firearm by a government approved source, then would solely seem to establish an official record of its manufacture–de facto gun registration.

Why Track to Manufacturer?

Let’s return for a moment to the opening scenario. An unlawful act was committed. A tool was used to aid in its commission. That tool was obtained unlawfully from someone who also obtained the tool unlawfully.

So, if the tool was manufactured by a licensed company, ostensibly a record of it, and its ownership, would exist up to the point that it was obtained illegally. From that point, it would likely disappear from data records until it showed up after the commission of an unlawful act.

If the tool was privately manufactured, its existence would not be known (recorded in data records) until it showed up after the commission of an unlawful act.

The only difference between the two firearms is the record of the commercially produced firearm’s existence from the time of its manufacture, and the records of its transfer to an “end-user.” Seemingly, the real reason to track a firearm to its manufacturer/maker is to know how many there are, who owns (or owned) them where, and when. Sounds like back-door gun registration to me. How is knowing who made the firearm relevant to its unlawful use?

Oh yeah, easier tracking. Of course, one benefit from requiring firearm manufacturing data in government sanctioned repositories is ease of retrieval. Punch a serial number into a perpetual and ever-growing government database, and voila ♫ “we got a ma-atch.” ♫ But again, how is knowing who made the firearm relevant to its unlawful use?

One other possibility is that Big Brother is trying to determine if the products of a private makers are sold to others, thus rendering the private maker a “firearm manufacturer.”

What it sounds like is a nanny government trying to control actions of its citizenry. Zero defect mentality: remove the tool, remove the crime.

How Many Privately Manufactured Firearms are Used Illegally?

Before dashing off willy-nilly into de facto gun registration, it may be helpful to find out how many “ghost” firearms are used to commit unlawful acts. Many? Few? Too few to be statistically significant? None?

Privately made firearms are tedious to make, and cost about the same as a comparable commercial model when considering the cost of tools, until the maker produces more than one. But tooling costs, and time, remain an issue.

Have Los Jefes Forgotten, or Ignored?

NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) was instituted to ensure firearm purchasers have no background factors disqualifying them from lawful ownership. A section of the law implementing NICS also requires that records of the checks be destroyed. In other words, records of non-criminal firearm ownership, or potential ownership, is not permitted at the federal level.

Bureaucrats Emphasize Process Crime

Bureaucrats strive to create increasing categories of process crime. Fail to fill out this form properly, and you are a criminal; fail to comply with this process, and you are a criminal. Requiring a firearm maker to apply to a government approved serial number engraver-recorder, or be guilty of an unlawful act is a classic example of creating a process crime.

To the anti-gun bureaucrat, all that has to be done to incrementally reduce the number of guns is to exponentially increase the number of processes the gun owner has to fulfill. Eventually, the cost of gun ownership, quantified by cost, time, and compliance, will be too exorbitant for the average American to own a gun. No gun, ergo no crime. Zero defect.