Importantly though, the statute at issue here is not a commercial regulation.

This makes sense because commercial regulations that apply only to manufacturers and sellers do not implicate an individual's right of possession.

The Government's argument relies mainly on its contention that no relevant Supreme Court precedent casts 'doubt on laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' In his concurring opinion in Bruen, Justice Kavanaugh explained that the Court did not intend 'to cast doubt on … laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' This idea is rooted in Heller and McDonald-precedent that Bruen reaffirmed-which also left commercial regulations untouched. The Government argues that it does not because the requirement that firearms bear serial numbers is, in its view, a 'commercial regulation' that does not 'infringe' on one's right to keep and bear arms. The threshold question is whether Section 922(k) prohibits conduct that is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to transport … in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered or to possess … any firearm which has had the importer's or manufacturer's serial number removed, obliterated, or altered and has, at any time, been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce…. Section 922(k) states, in pertinent part, Price, decided yesterday by Judge Joseph R.

Gun serial number searchfor value