California ‘Ghost Gun Lawsuit’ a Step Toward ‘Universal Registration’ and Beyond

“Universal” registration is a necessary step to “universal” licensing (for the “law-abiding, of course), followed by “universal” denial and “universal” confiscation. And guess who will have the power to approve or deny those licenses. (Giffords/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -( “California’s attorney general is suing the Trump administration in an effort to crack down on  ‘ghost guns; that can be built from parts and make it difficult to track or regulate owners,” the Associated Press reported Tuesday. “The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doesn’t consider the do-it-yourself kits to be firearms, so buyers don’t have to undergo the usual background checks and in most states the guns are not required to have serial numbers.”

The lawsuit has been brought in response to the Saugus High School shootings from November 2019, in which a 16-year-old shot five students, killing two, before turning the gun on himself. The killer used a semiautomatic handgun without a serial number that had been assembled from a kit, a so-called “ghost gun.”

It’s a near-perfect complaint to try in the media – it has heartbreaking implications to manipulate the ignorant with, sympathetic victims, and unlimited opportunities to get in one-sided digs at “hateful” gun owners, and at Donald Trump. What we won’t see, at least from a narrative-advancing DSM, is a realistic look at laws already broken that did not do a thing to stop the carnage, and where this will all lead after new infringements that won’t do any good are imposed.

They also won’t tell us that Giffords Law Center, one of the parties to the lawsuit, consistently gives California an “A” rating, assigning it the #1 position among all the states because, in their words, “ California has the strongest gun laws in the United States…”

As we can see, those aren’t “enough.” They never will be. If they win this fight in the courts, they’ll be back with another demand, with more victims and more dire warnings.

As for the victims’ survivors, we can all sympathize at a human level with the unimaginable grief and loss that no parent should ever suffer. That said, nothing demanded here would change that, and as the disparity between the citizenry and a monopoly of violence grows, so will the toll of heartbreak for others. The inevitable result will be the state deploying men with guns to bend all those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to its will – or else.

Sorry. Our sense of decency toward the grieving does not require our unconditional surrender to what history shows us is tyranny.

Looking at some of the circumstances, we see the same ones jumping out at us here that we see time and again. To begin with, per another AP report, the school was, predictably, a “gun-free zone”:

“Saugus High’s security is provided by one unarmed sheriff’s deputy and nine ‘campus supervisors’ who act as guards, said to Collyn Nielson, chief administrative officer for the William S. Hart Union High School District.”

In addition, “compulsory education” requires parents to put their children in a place where those tasked with watching them are utterly incapable of protecting their charges. Furthermore, they have no legally-binding duty to do so.

We can find plenty of other disconnects from a CNN report, one that naturally does not explore the implications of what it is relaying. A 16-year-old carrying a handgun in California is against the law. So is concealing it. So is bringing it onto school grounds. So is shooting people.

Ostensibly the “ghost gun” was obtained by the killer’s deceased father (again breaking numerous laws), who’d had his “registered” guns confiscated  when he became a “prohibited possessor.” Once more we see that the only way to deter someone who is not trusted with a gun from having one is to separate such people from society until they can be, something that inconveniently (for the state) requires full due process, not the fake “red flag” kind.

The effects of this lawsuit – if it ultimately succeeds (and will hinge on who wins the November elections and gets federal court appointment powers) – is that it will not just affect California, but will clear the way for national infringements. And that raises other questions, such as if so-called “80 percent receivers” are bad, what level of completion above a lump of ore-bearing rock is acceptable? What other parts that comprise a completed handgun or rifle will also have required serialization and permitting mandated? And what’s the purpose of all that in the first place?

It’s not like people haven’t been killed by bad people using “regular” guns that they have obtained through theft and other illegal means. And it’s not like all the laws prohibiting who can possess guns and how they must procure them haven’t been flouted by every armed criminal out there.

As always, this will only “stop” the “law-abiding.” And after their guns are “registered,” any number of new prohibitions can be enacted to close “loopholes” against them. The “authorities” will know exactly who to go after and the country will continue its long slide to the bottom of Nancy Pelosi’s slippery slope.

That’s the real goal behind the “commonsense gun safety” lie.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I have yet to read anywhere in our Supreme Law that commands “The Right to possess and drive a motor vehicle shall not be infringed”.

The RESTRICTION upon government via the 2nd is absolute, shall not be infringed!

Matt is right on the vote issue as well.


Sorry, pbj on the vote issue


Well, I don’t NEED a license to own a car, Morons. Anyone can own a car. I also don’t NEED a license to build my own car and drive it on my own property. I don’t even NEED a license to fly an airplane that I built myself (unless I want to also carry a passenger). I do NEED a license to OPERATE a car on PUBLIC roads. And, I NEED to register the car if I want to operate it on public roads. I do not NEED a license to operate a car on my own property and I… Read more »


Excellent response! thank you


This is an effort to downgrade a right into a privilege.


Yes, a very strong effort. One that needs to be stopped (slapped forcefully to a complete halt!) immediately. If the courts won’t do that, patriotic citizens will have to. But it MUST be done. This issue cannot be ignored.

Matt in Oklahoma

Car = Privilege
Gun = Right
The argument is invalid


…and you don’t need a license or background check to BUY or OWN a car. And there is no age restriction – an infant can own a car.

Ryben Flynn

As long as it is NOT on a public highway you also do not need a license to drive that car.


so can a corporation. And ANYONE can be an officer of a corporation.

I can also OWN a car, and have someone else drive it, and my name is on nothing but the title. I can even OWN a car if I’m a felon or mentally incompetent. Just can’t DRIVE the thing on public roads without that particular flavour of Mother May I Card.


A well regulated set of wheels, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Cars, shall not be infringed.

2nd and a half amendment


Remind me again, which Constitutional Amendment protects your “right to drive a car”? Oh, that’s right, there isn’t one.

Watch um

Driving a car is a privilege not a constitunal right

Autsin Miller III

Personally, I view this as a God given right that is enumerated in the constitution but I’m with you brother. The scary part for me is the lack of understanding between what is a constitutional right and what is a privilege.


I was about to be a smart ass… in that the we have freedom of travel/movement. Which would include TRAVELING in an automobile. However I don’t see “freedom of travel” actually enumerated, unless that would be considered within the scope of the 9th amendment?
Whilst many things can be considered a privilege, personally I don’t consider travel a privilege.
In the early 20th century there were no driver’s licenses.
Lastly a “DRIVER” and “DRIVING” are engaging in the transporting of goods in commerce… didn’t take long for the states to start requiring a license to travel…

Dick Hilton

I my life, ( I’m 73 years old ) I have never heard of any one needing a license to buy a car. Only to drive it. So if that’s the case then I should be able to go into a gun shop and buy a gun and not need a license till I go shoot it. And since I have a CCW licenses I already meet his standard.

Ryben Flynn

There are several States where you don’t need a permit to carry that gun concealed or open. The license requirement is invalid.


Good point. Every state permits a licensed driver to “straw purchase” a motor vehicle for a non-driver to take possession. There are even corporations (non-humans) that own vehicles. Ownership of a firearm should not automatically indicate the buyer is a shooter. The interests of the state should be limited to punishing criminal misuse of guns, irresponsible handling of guns and negligent storage of guns, in the presence of irresponsible minors.


@Wass – You has me until your last sentence. What qualifies as negligent? Why should a 16 year old, who parents deem responsible, not have access to protect themselves if necessary? I only pick 16 in keeping with the article as that is usual age to get driver’s license. Now if you leave a (non drop safe) firearm, loaded and chambered, teetering on the edge of a rickety house where rambunctious kids are roughhousing – then you should absolutely be held responsible for the results of your actions. That is in no way the same as mandating use of state… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by Finnky

presence of irresponsible minors. you missed the operant word IRRESPONSIBLE. I know a man who purchased a pair of M1 Garands, one for his fourteen year old daughter, one for his eleven year old son. both had free access to their own personal property. The young lad ended up being invited to join the rifle team at their local gun range, at 13. Minimum age to join had been sixteen, until the seasoned men on the team observed the young chap with his Garand. He ended up copeting with the seasoned old guys, and winning quite a few matches. THAT… Read more »




I stand corrected regarding @Wass’s post. Thank you @Tionico – I do agree with him. My complain regarding laws related to minors still stands. Quite often children are the best shooters. An example would be an 8 year old girl who I observed shooting her AR – had about the best (including safest) gun handling skills I’ve seen short of her father. Admittedly her pink AR was in 22 and her father was right there the whole time, but her father’s responsible approach certainly contributes to her responsible attitude. Must admit a bit of jealousy as I cannot get my… Read more »


Shameless plug: I met that family because they all four showed up at a Project APpleseed shoot, a group for which I’ve been an instructor for some ten years now. Their introduction to the M1 Garand was as we werewrapping up the two day basic instructioin shoot. One of the other instructors had brought out his, and offered anyone in attendnance the hcnace to fire a full clip. The eleven year old, apressy skinny kid, was the first one to step up.then Big Sister HAD to try it. That young man, askinny flyweight eleven year old,got down on the mat… Read more »


So, using your line of thought, should parents also be required to secure car keys from “irresponsible minors.” Where does that line of thought end?


somewhere in the dark twisted perverted recesses of Giffords’ sich mind.


This is why, in “worst case scenarios”, there are courts.


I’m going to have to disagree. I know of no state that requires a license “to drive a car”. They only require a license to drive a car on public property. If you have access to private property where a car can be driven, you don’t need a license. ————————————————————- This is just another asinine attempt for the anti-gun crowd to try to create an analogy to guns using cars. They have tried the registration requirement… nope, only if you want a tag to drive it on public property. They have tried an insurance requirement… nope, only required on public… Read more »


But requiring an I.D. to vote is voter suppression and trampling on their rights?….morons


A quick way to shut down their “you need a license to drive a car, etc.” is to counter with, “Since you don’t need a license to BUY or OWN a car (only to drive it), and that is not a guaranteed right, why would you be more restrictive on a Constitutionally guaranteed right?”


well you can drive a car on private land without a drivers license.
because a criminal didn’t follow the law and his son got his illegal firearm and killed some children in a school all law abiding firearms should be punished?
why were the school resource officer unarmed? unarmed people do nothing to stop a armed killer. school staff should be able to carry if they desire to protect the children entrusted to them. if you were one, would you?
let’s put it up for national vote, also put abortion on the ballot, they are both about killing children.


unarmed officials are only able to stop bullets when they are fired at them. Can’t even top them when fired at other people.


Does this mean that Giffords (and her husband Mark Kelly Sen candidate AZ) believe that since I have a concealed carry license I should be allowed to carry concealed in all 50 states + territories? After all, I’ve passed a background check and have that license.

No, of course not. They just want control and eventually the means to seize all guns.

As others are saying, they’ve conflated rights versus priviledge. I have no Constitutional right to drive, but I do to own a gun. I’m for Constitutional Carry in all states and territories, btw.


“Badges, we don’t need no stinking badges!”


One of the manufacturers of 80% receivers used to offer a brick-like piece of aluminum. They called it a 0% receiver. Just poking the bear a bit.


I’d like to set up a machine shop with a CNC machine, and let folks come in ans select which brick made of which material as they wish, and pay me the price. With that brick they will recieve a certificate. That certificate, when surrendered to our staff, will enable the new owner of that brick to plop it into the hopper of whichever machine he happens to select, punch a couple of buttons, and watch as that machine forms a fully completed reciever. IF he so desires he can enter whatever alphanumeric characters he wishes to have imprinted upon… Read more »


I watched the Rochester NY chief of police, 30 year LE veteran, this morning call politicians liars for saying they need to make more gun laws. He said we don’t need more laws because we simply need to enforce the laws already on the books. Where have we heard that before? He also said he was tired of putting the bad guys in jail and having the politicians friends, lawyers, get the bad guy out on bond or the politicians letting them out of prison to commit more crime with a get out of jail card from the state. Defunding… Read more »


No, it is called our birth. Whether that right was told out in the Constitutoin or not, it remains ours, as it predates and does not flow from the Federal government, nor the Constutiton..


Well stated

Watch um

Trump 2020 and keep the Senate and win the house of representatives

Happy Everafter

If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to say anything you want.

Rebel VA



This year I purchased a caliber conversion barrel. Much to my surprise my new barrel has a serial number. Sure with milsurp guns you expect serial number everywhere, but I’ve never heard of this manufacturer even competing for military contracts nor would this firearm stand a chance. I believe this company has preemptively surrendered to the will of petty tyrants. They do not want to be holding an inventory of items restricted in any jurisdiction. I can understand this as EAA is notoriously bad with inventory control, and I doubt turnover in 10mm barrels is high – particularly for low… Read more »

Get Out

Wow, another scheme to get a firearms registration going, it worked out so well with their “Assault weapons registration” failure too.

Get Out

That is an outstanding video and should be shown in all schools and college’s. Kitty Werthmann knows first hand what gun registration and confiscation can lead to. She’s sending out the warning not to let it happen again.


Hmmm that bad apple did not fall very far from the tree. Daddy was a felon, got all his guns taken away, and put together a “clean” bun anyway, so Junior just followed in Daddy’s bootprints. I wonder if anyone would be suing Uncle Stupid if the punk had taken Daddy’s big pickup and driven it to school and crashed into a bunch of his much-despised fellow students and killed eight of them….. things likat have NEVER happened, though. He was too young to have been able to rent a Home Depot Chev pickup…. those trucks are dengerous, they are… Read more »


And while I’m at it: they aren’t “constitutional rights”. The amendments list a few especially important human rights that the Federal Government is not to mess with, including a statement that it isn’t a complete list. The Constitution is only for constituting or creating and defining the Federal Government. The Framers needed to reassure the states that it would be bound. Well they tried… It chaps my hide when even SC Justices talk as if rights not enumerated don’t exist. We have all the rights; the Government is privileged. And if you knew that ( probably, in this forum) pass… Read more »


There are shortcomings in anything made by man. My opinion is that in case of the Constitution it would be the statement that powers explicitly granted to federal government devolve to states or the people respectively. In my opinion it should have more clearly stated that individual rights are supreme, with all governments limited to powers explicitly listed in the Constitution. Unfortunately they FF failed to fully anticipate the imaginative machinations of petty dictators combined with pervasive public apathy.
What we surrender we lose.


Driving a car is a privilege not a right. There is a huge difference between a privilege and a constitutional right.


May I suggest you would be more correct by referring to it as a “Constitutionally enumerated right.”

Country Boy

“California’s attorney general is suing the Trump administration in an effort to crack down on ‘ghost guns; that can be built from parts and make it difficult to track or regulate owners,”

I believe the people who believe the above, need to read the 2nd A. In America, who owns a firearm was never meant to be tracked nor regulated.

Hence the 2nd A ends with “shall not be infringed”.


Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right there’s the difference, gun grabby Gabby and her anti-2A husband Mark Kelly should know that…AZ you have a choice in Nov. you vote Kelly in he will trample on your rights.

Papa J

This is an old argument that is pure BS. Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. It’s comparing Apples to Oranges. It means nothing!


I’d say more like apples to oceans both can be ingested but are not the same they are different in every way.


Ghost guns, another leftist buzzword meant to scare the masses. Essentially, aren’t all guns ghost guns? That is until they surface as captured evidence at a crime scene. Maybe someone can explain how the point of sale of any weapon that’s stolen helps law enforcement, but we all know excuses are what they use to sell their anti-Constitutional poison. Now if that original owner uses it in a crime or is stupid enough to sell or give it away, maybe it might help. 80% lowers are just potential guns these politicians and bureaucrats want to eliminate because they can’t control… Read more »


I do have a license to own and carry arms: the human right and duty of self defense, guaranteed by the second amendment. And I don’t have to go to the local gubermint to get it.

By the way this privilege to drive stuff has got to go:
1–licensing is a law enforcement tool
2–how long before the bed wetters notice and begin talking about the privilege of firearms ownership.

Or maybe they do now, haven’t checked/don’t care.

Be safe or be dangerous, cheers


Until driving becomes a right, STFU!


While I support the 2nd Amendment and understand the difference between the privilege to driving a car and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. You are all missing the point here. As my Old Departed Father taught me many decades ago. You Should never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing, It Wastes Your Time and Annoys the Pig. The mere idea of attempting to use logic to win an argument against people who are ruled by emotions and the desire to attain Control over those they feel are inferior is ludicrous. What is needed is not a continued… Read more »


I have to agree with both below.