PDA

View Full Version : Court cases from when Handgun registration was passed


OCArmory
05-18-2012, 3:08 PM
I am looking for court cases and penal codes and the like from when California's handgun registration was passed. I know it had to have been challenged in court. Specifically I am looking for information as to when the state can use the information collected. Also why it wasn't prohibited by the 1986 FOPA. Thanks for everyone's help in advance. More info will follow as I can release it.
Mike

Gray Peterson
05-18-2012, 3:12 PM
I am looking for court cases and penal codes and the like from when California's handgun registration was passed. I know it had to have been challenged in court. Specifically I am looking for information as to when the state can use the information collect. Also why it wasn't prohibited by the 1986 FOPA. Thanks for everyone's help in advance.
Mike

Are you speaking of DROS from 1923 or the PTP transfers in 1990?

Librarian
05-18-2012, 3:19 PM
The change, effective in 1991, was to require substantially all in-CA firearms transfers to use a CA-licensed FFL.

No federal issue.

I had just come back to CA in 1990; I wasn't following this stuff back then, but I don't recall any CA legal issues raised.

OCArmory
05-18-2012, 4:02 PM
I know about the DROS. But what about the registration of handguns. and the use of the information in that database.

Gray Peterson
05-18-2012, 4:18 PM
I know about the DROS. But what about the registration of handguns. and the use of the information in that database.

There is no criminal penalty to having a gun not in the DOJ database. There is an enhancement for illegal carry, though.

Gray Peterson
05-18-2012, 4:38 PM
I am looking for court cases and penal codes and the like from when California's handgun registration was passed. I know it had to have been challenged in court.

It wasn't. There was no RKBA in the state constitution.


Specifically I am looking for information as to when the state can use the information collected. Also why it wasn't prohibited by the 1986 FOPA. Thanks for everyone's help in advance. More info will follow as I can release it.
Mike

GCA 1968 prohibits the federal government & the states from creating a registration system using 4473. It did not prohibit states from requiring their own forms in addition to the federal one.

littlejake
05-18-2012, 6:24 PM
The bill that created the need to process essentially all firearm sales through a dealer was AB 497.

"On March 3, 1990, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 497 (Connelly) which
amends existing state law regarding the purchasing and selling of firearms.
Effective January 1, 1991, this bill requires a record check and fifteen day
waiting period on ALL firearms..."

George Deukmejian was Governor.

The author was Lloyd Connelly, who is now a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge.

Quiet
05-18-2012, 10:15 PM
It wasn't. There was no RKBA in the state constitution.

GCA 1968 prohibits the federal government & the states from creating a registration system using 4473. It did not prohibit states from requiring their own forms in addition to the federal one.

What he said.

Prior to SCOTUS ruling, in 2010, that the Second Amendment was incorporated, CA did not have a "right to bear arms".
Hence the reason why the majority of court cases prior the mid-2000s, affirmed CA's gun control laws.

bussda
05-19-2012, 10:13 AM
Galvan v. Superior Court is the only California related case I can find.
See http://law.justia.com/cases/california/cal2d/70/851.html

ClarenceBoddicker
05-19-2012, 1:33 PM
GCA 1968 prohibits the federal government & the states from creating a registration system using 4473. It did not prohibit states from requiring their own forms in addition to the federal one.

It was the 1986 FOPA that supposedly banned the registration of guns. In reality ATF has been registering guns since the 1968 GCA. All 4473 forms from dealers that go out of business are sent to the ATF. ATF have saved them all & since the 1990's has been optically scanning them into a searchable computer database. Neil Knox reported about this in the 1990's. The modern version of the 4473 is NICS, which makes it very easy as the data is sent electronically. The facts are that unless you buy a gun from a private party cash & carry, your gun is registered with the Feds. The funny part about the non-registration part of law is that there is zero penalties for violating it. It's just a worthless feel good meaningless clause.

littlejake
05-19-2012, 2:35 PM
It was the 1986 FOPA that supposedly banned the registration of guns. In reality ATF has been registering guns since the 1968 GCA. All 4473 forms from dealers that go out of business are sent to the ATF. ATF have saved them all & since the 1990's has been optically scanning them into a searchable computer database. Neil Knox reported about this in the 1990's. The modern version of the 4473 is NICS, which makes it very easy as the data is sent electronically. The facts are that unless you buy a gun from a private party cash & carry, your gun is registered with the Feds. The funny part about the non-registration part of law is that there is zero penalties for violating it. It's just a worthless feel good meaningless clause.

That's like the Privacy Act of 1974 forbade the use of the SSN as an identifier -- then the government trampled on the Privacy Act.

NICS does not transfer gun information to ATF. Only info on the receiving party in the transfer. But, you are 100% about 4473's being compiled into a National registration Database. As you point out, dealers have to send in their A&D books and 4473s if they go out of business -- and many small dealers in CA went out of business after the passage of restrictive laws in the early 1990's.

NICS also works differently in CA. CA is a POC (Point of Contact) for NICS -- instead of the dealer doing a NICS check, as it's done in many states, CADOJ first checks their prohibited person file, then does the NICS check.

tozan
05-19-2012, 3:02 PM
The funny part about the non-registration part of law is that there is zero penalties for violating it. It's just a worthless feel good meaningless clause.

There are penalties for bringing in a gun if you move here and do not register it and if you buy a gun without a Ca. FFL there are penalties so, the result is the same you will be penalized for not registering a hand gun.

I would not think the staue of limitations would not help in those cases too, so I don't think laying low for a few years would let someone get away with it either.

littlejake
05-19-2012, 5:56 PM
There are penalties for bringing in a gun if you move here and do not register it and if you buy a gun without a Ca. FFL there are penalties so, the result is the same you will be penalized for not registering a hand gun.

I would not think the staue of limitations would not help in those cases too, so I don't think laying low for a few years would let someone get away with it either.

Not what ClarenceBoddicker meant. He's speaking of the 1968 GCA and 1986 FOPA that doesn't permit use of 4473 data as a form of registration. He means the government faces no penalties for ignoring the letter of the law.