PDA

View Full Version : Registration fees unconstitutional?


fortdick
07-18-2012, 4:00 PM
Why are firearm registration fees allowed when it is a Constitutional right?

Why is it illegal to charge a voter registration fee?

Why is a poll tax prohibited, but there is a gun tax? Why doesn't Cal Guns challenge, what to me, seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of a civil right by imposing a fee. There is no other such fee on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

If the same standards were applied to the Second Amendment was as they are with the First Amendment, registration would probably go away. States are not going to fund registration programs.

Just asking.

bussda
07-18-2012, 4:04 PM
It is not a registration fee. It is a fee to cover the background check.

foxtrotuniformlima
07-18-2012, 4:09 PM
It is not a registration fee. It is a fee to cover the background check.

Perhaps one should need a background check in order to vote.

CSACANNONEER
07-18-2012, 4:15 PM
It is not a registration fee. It is a fee to cover the background check.

It's a fee for a Dealer Record of Sale. DROS is not actually "registration". It's just a record of guns transfered in this state. Currently, the state will know that you are buying a long gun but, they won't get the serial number. So, I don't see how that's registration. Since the background check is the same free NCIS system that is used by the rest of the country, it's not a fee for doing background checks.

bohoki
07-18-2012, 4:25 PM
yea its at point of purchase i think of it as a tax

but it is not as bad as a foid system that if you let expire you suddenly lose your right to own your firearms

Dantedamean
07-18-2012, 4:28 PM
Nothing will never change this, remember guns are evil.

littlejake
07-18-2012, 4:31 PM
I remember when CA did a paper DROS, had a 5 day wait, there was a 4473, only your DL was needed for ID; and there were no DROS fees.

IMO -- DROS fees are an unreasonable tax on a right and therefore unconstitutional.

Since the state claims it's a public safety issue, let all Californians pay for CADOJ to operate; let them get their money out of the general fund.

wheels
07-18-2012, 5:17 PM
Why $19 for voluntary reg?

Librarian
07-18-2012, 5:22 PM
Why $19 for voluntary reg?

Why 10-round mags? Why $10 fee to dealers for PPT? Legislature picked a number for all of these, out of a hat or someplace.

wheels
07-18-2012, 5:58 PM
Why 10-round mags? Why $10 fee to dealers for PPT? Legislature picked a number for all of these, out of a hat or someplace.

I should have quoted bussda...

It wasn't their hat, but it was probably a 3 letter word...

meaty-btz
07-18-2012, 5:59 PM
I support a background check and a 10 day wait on voting. Must have current california ID and two proofs of residency. Would work great.

Don29palms
07-18-2012, 6:05 PM
this is all supposing that you have rights anymore. You don't and haven't for a long time. You only have privileges that the government allows you to have. So they can tax ANYTHING they want to.

xpbprox
07-18-2012, 6:06 PM
You are not required to pay these fees/tax to own a firearm. You are required to do so if you purchase from a gun store. Make your own firearms and you don't have to pay crap, you just have to be legal to own and fallow the laws.



I support a background check and a 10 day wait on voting. Must have current california ID and two proofs of residency. Would work great.

Supporting the 10 wait period isn't really doing or stoping anoyone who wants to do wrong. Why would you support it? The only thing that's stopping them is ignorance, if they really wanted a gun, they could go out and build one in one day if they choose the right day or buy one off the street.

cdtx2001
07-18-2012, 6:08 PM
I support a background check and a 10 day wait on voting. Must have current california ID and two proofs of residency. Would work great.

Some people should have to wait 10 days before they speak freely.

Hope we never have to wait 10 days or be registered before we can be free of illegal searches and seizures.

SilverTauron
07-18-2012, 6:25 PM
Why are firearm registration fees allowed when it is a Constitutional right?
Because in certain Democratic Party strongholds in America, the voting majority don't own guns and do not want anyone else to either "for their own good".


Why is it illegal to charge a voter registration fee?


Because then the welfare state freeloaders can't afford to prop up the party which supports expansion of civil programs and welfare programs. Ill let the reader determine which party that is-but it ain't the Republicans.;)



Why is a poll tax prohibited, but there is a gun tax? Why doesn't Cal Guns challenge, what to me, seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of a civil right by imposing a fee. There is no other such fee on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

*Dons Devils Advocate Hat* You see, gun ownership automatically means the owner is overcompensating for something, stuck in the 1890s, or feels the need to invade a country. Someone who's illegally protesting on city property for the Occupy Movement is merely expressing themselves. A man carrying a gun in Wal Mart however is a scary threat which must be adressed. We must consider what might happen if the shoppers gun jumps out and begins shooting after all. *Tosses hat into shredder*




If the same standards were applied to the Second Amendment was as they are with the First Amendment, registration would probably go away. States are not going to fund registration programs.

Just asking.

States are run by elected officials who are picked by the majority of its population. If the majority believes restricting or outright banning gun possession by civilians is a good idea they'll elect people who represent that perspective, whether its Constitutional or not.If millions of voters woke up one day and thought free speech should be illegal, that's what the state laws would reflect.

dantodd
07-18-2012, 7:06 PM
Why are firearm registration fees allowed when it is a Constitutional right?

Largely because they have been charged much longer than the Second Amendment has been recognized as an individual right.


Why is it illegal to charge a voter registration fee?

Why is a poll tax prohibited, but there is a gun tax?

because the people passed an amendment to the constitution specifically outlawing poll taxes.

Why doesn't Cal Guns challenge, what to me, seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of a civil right by imposing a fee. There is no other such fee on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

CalGuns Foundation isn't challenging the fees because the NRA and CRPA are already challenging the fees. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=471080

Why the NRA and CRPA instead of CGF? Well, that's a story for another day, perhaps a Memoir.

If the same standards were applied to the Second Amendment was as they are with the First Amendment, registration would probably go away. States are not going to fund registration programs.

as for registration fees, and more particularly the federal firearm excise tax, the controlling case law is probably Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commission of Revenue. (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1839/)

Registration is probably not unconstitutional but would have to be justified by the prefatory clause "A well regulated militia being necessary..." and perhaps at the expense of the state, at any rate fees cannot exceed costs.

"Well regulated" means well provisioned and knowing who has weapons is important to ensuring they are available if/when the unorganized militia is needed.

ClarenceBoddicker
07-18-2012, 8:14 PM
Unknown about a "fee", which post 1978 passage of prop 13 is really a tax by another name in CA due to the 2/3 majority requirement, because AFAIK it has never been challanged or heard by the SCOTUS.

A tax on guns as been held Constitutional by the SCOTUS when the 1934 NFA was challenged. BTW the $200 tax on "bad" guns in 1934 was equal to 13 months of rent or 1/2 the cost of a brand new car. Not much of an infringement for the rich to own guns then I guess. Don't you just love the Supremes?

Gray Peterson
07-18-2012, 8:37 PM
Unknown about a "fee", which post 1978 passage of prop 13 is really a tax by another name in CA due to the 2/3 majority requirement, because AFAIK it has never been challanged or heard by the SCOTUS.

A tax on guns as been held Constitutional by the SCOTUS when the 1934 NFA was challenged. BTW the $200 tax on "bad" guns in 1934 was equal to 13 months of rent or 1/2 the cost of a brand new car. Not much of an infringement for the rich to own guns then I guess. Don't you just love the Supremes?

It was held constitutional because only the government showed up, not Mr. Miller's lawyers. Roy Lucas did a lot of extensive research on Miller and then another thing, I can't remember the author but it was called "When a simple cite cannot be trusted", involving Miller. I think it was David Kopel if memory serves.

SilverBulletZ06
07-18-2012, 8:48 PM
Gray, often comes up but do you think that Miller will ever be reconsidered?

mag360
07-18-2012, 9:34 PM
Im not Gray but i think it will have to be due to the "common use clause"

Suvorov
07-18-2012, 9:39 PM
I can't ever guess about if it will ever be reconsidered, but Miller has to be one of the sketchiest decisions ever made. Can you imagine what would happen today if the defense never bothered to show? And how on Earth, less that 15 years after the end of the savage CQB trench fighting of WWI, no one knew enough to argue a short barreled shotguns use in military service is beyond comprehension.

stix213
07-18-2012, 9:40 PM
I expect if registration and background checks are ruled on by SCOTUS post Heller as legal, that fees limited to roughly the cost to administer the program to also be ruled legal. Meaning somewhere around $35 is probably going to be cool with the courts if they allow registration and background checks.

Though I'm pretty confident that New York style rediculous fees, specifically designed to limit the self defense rights of the poor, to be ruled against.

IANAL

SilverTauron
07-18-2012, 10:38 PM
You have to pay for a background check in CA?

In South Dakota ive never seen a fee for a 4473 check.Illinois either for that matter, although the weapons in IL certainly are priced high enough to cover the expense if there is any.

bigcasino
07-18-2012, 10:54 PM
You are not required to pay these fees/tax to own a firearm. You are required to do so if you purchase from a gun store. Make your own firearms and you don't have to pay crap, you just have to be legal to own and fallow the laws.



This is not true because if you move into CA with a handgun you legally owned in a free state you still have to register it and pay $19 each to CA DOJ

Librarian
07-18-2012, 10:56 PM
You have to pay for a background check in CA?

In South Dakota ive never seen a fee for a 4473 check.Illinois either for that matter, although the weapons in IL certainly are priced high enough to cover the expense if there is any.

Not quite: what DOJ (http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/dlrfaqs#17G) tells us: What fees can I charge in addition to the DROS?

In addition to the State's $19.00 DROS fee, you must also charge a $1.00 Firearms Safety Testing fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement fee. If the transaction being processed is a dealer sale, consignment return, or return from pawn, you may impose other charges as long as this amount is clearly shown as a "dealer fee" and not misrepresented as a State fee. The DROS penal code is 28100 (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/28100.html).

The background check is not separately itemized.

Gray Peterson
07-18-2012, 10:57 PM
Gray, often comes up but do you think that Miller will ever be reconsidered?

Miller spoke for the possession of short barrelled shotguns being taxable, and that possession without tax could be prohibited. The follow on circuit court cases on the subject matter of 2A in general started mutating Miller into "2A is a collective right".

Let's also be sure of what we are talking about. People keep using inaccurate shorthands, such as "taking down NFA" when what they actually mean is taking down the prohibition on civilian transfers of post-May '86 select fire weapons. Removing 922(o) doesn't make you sound like a crazy person, because there are numerous background check processes for possession of select fire weapon. Repealing NFA in it's entirety is not in the cards, or striking it down as unconstitutional as it currently stands. We have bigger problems to deal with. Along with the carry issues and dealing with the stupid assault weapons designation of semi autos (If courts don't entertain AW strikedowns, what makes you think select fires will fair any better?), we don't need the "crazy person" label.

There are three primary problems with NFA, besides it's actual existence:

1) NFA Taxes Collected by BATFE NFA Branch are sent into the General Treasury, and then doled out by Congress during appropriation. The ASA (American Silencer Association) met with BATFE officials and Congress on this issue.

8VTZO3pVsAA

Solution: Change the appropriation mechanism to self-funded in order to clear out the backlog and allow more hiring to clear the backlog. It's currently a 7 month wait for an NFA examiner approve a transfer. Make it electronic, like they do with NICS.

2) This provision:

Section 13.8. Requesting permission to transport certain firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. A person, other than an FFL/SOT, may not lawfully transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, without prior written approval of ATF, specifically the NFA Branch. For definitions of these firearms and devices, refer to 27 CFR 478.11. Licensed collectors are not required to obtain such approval if the firearms and devices being transported are “curio or relic” firearms under the GCA. Approval for the transportation may be obtained by (1) a written request or (2) an approved application filed with ATF on Form 5320.20.

Not sure if this is sourced in law or if it's just a made up regulation much like the CLEO sign-off provision.

Solution: At a minimum, the application should be electronic so that one can get a signoff quite quickly rather than waiting for weeks or months. It's merely a matter of checking if both states laws allow possession of the item. Nearly every state has preemption of gun laws, so there's no reason to individually check addresses and city limit lines. Again, this may be a relic similar to CLEO signoff. Could toss the thing like CLEO signoff is in the process of doing, unless there's a clear statutory law requiring it.

3) 922(o)

By far, this is what people are taking about when it comes to "taking down NFA". It's more likely that we would be able to legislatively repeal this versus trying to challenge it in the courts before it's time. Right now, there are 250K transferable select fire weapons. The 9th Circuit is in the process of considering a criminal appeal, the defendant lawyer stated that 250K select fire weapons would be considered "in common use". I don't have to tell you that this is problematic for numerous reasons.

Solution: If 922(o) is gone, that number would likely go up by orders of magnitude. When you start talking about 10 or 20 million, that's when "Common Use" starts being a question. However, carry must be addressed by SCOTUS, as well as AW stuff addressed by SCOTUS, before it would be either politically or legally viable to take this on.

SilverTauron
07-18-2012, 11:09 PM
2) This provision:

Section 13.8. Requesting permission to transport certain firearms in interstate or foreign commerce. A person, other than an FFL/SOT, may not lawfully transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, without prior written approval of ATF, specifically the NFA Branch. For definitions of these firearms and devices, refer to 27 CFR 478.11. Licensed collectors are not required to obtain such approval if the firearms and devices being transported are “curio or relic” firearms under the GCA. Approval for the transportation may be obtained by (1) a written request or (2) an approved application filed with ATF on Form 5320.20.

Not sure if this is sourced in law or if it's just a made up regulation much like the CLEO sign-off provision.

At a minimum, the application should be electronic so that one can get a signoff quite quickly rather than waiting for weeks or months. It's merely a matter of checking if both states laws allow possession of the item. Nearly every state has preemption of gun laws, so there's no reason to individually check addresses.

.

The bolded text is the only part I disagree with. Illinois in fact does NOT have pre-emption, and at the state level bans possession of NFA items by non law enforcement or military personnel.In addition, while many other states do have firearm law preemption some local cities disobey it and enforce their own rules anyhow-think Los Angeles' local gun restrictions despite CA state pre-emption. Some sort of Federal pre-emption for transit above and beyond the FOPA would need to be included, or a zip-code specific adress check would be mandatory to prevent someone being jailed for stopping at a gas station with an NFA item.

IrishPirate
07-18-2012, 11:12 PM
Legislature picked a number for all of these, out of a hat or someplace.

i think we know where they pulled it from.....

gunsandrockets
07-18-2012, 11:32 PM
Why are firearm registration fees allowed when it is a Constitutional right?

Why is it illegal to charge a voter registration fee?

Why is a poll tax prohibited, but there is a gun tax? Why doesn't Cal Guns challenge, what to me, seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of a civil right by imposing a fee. There is no other such fee on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

If the same standards were applied to the Second Amendment was as they are with the First Amendment, registration would probably go away. States are not going to fund registration programs.

Just asking.

Federal DOJ files lawsuit challenging Texas voter ID law as unconstitutional infringement on right to vote! Why expecting a voter to provide an ID is just too much effort to expect from the poor put upon voter. It's Jim Crow all over again!

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/17/rick-perry-obama-admin-needs-to-apologize-for-the-insulting-lawsuit-and-incendiary-comments/

Meanwhile we in commiefornia must put up with the B.S. fees, ID & paperwork, waiting period and background check. Even when we already have a houseful of guns.

nicki
07-18-2012, 11:36 PM
I agree with the OP, that being said, we are finally at a stage where we can actually use the federal courts to protect and take back what should have been our rights all along.

As Gray and the folks at Calguns foundation point out, we have to go for the low hanging fruit and build on it.

Let's get the big issues first. BTW, the SAF attacked NYC's gun registration fees which are around 345 dollars plus every 2 years, so it isn't like the issue has caught the right people's attention.

Nicki

Why are firearm registration fees allowed when it is a Constitutional right?

Why is it illegal to charge a voter registration fee?

Why is a poll tax prohibited, but there is a gun tax? Why doesn't Cal Guns challenge, what to me, seems to be the government prohibiting the free exercise of a civil right by imposing a fee. There is no other such fee on a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

If the same standards were applied to the Second Amendment was as they are with the First Amendment, registration would probably go away. States are not going to fund registration programs.

Just asking.

Gray Peterson
07-19-2012, 12:01 AM
The bolded text is the only part I disagree with. Illinois in fact does NOT have pre-emption, and at the state level bans possession of NFA items by non law enforcement or military personnel.In addition, while many other states do have firearm law preemption some local cities disobey it and enforce their own rules anyhow-think Los Angeles' local gun restrictions despite CA state pre-emption. Some sort of Federal pre-emption for transit above and beyond the FOPA would need to be included, or a zip-code specific adress check would be mandatory to prevent someone being jailed for stopping at a gas station with an NFA item.

Why would an NFA examiner approve a non-LEO transferring an NFA item for transport into Illinois? Also, if you're just transporting it across Illinois to another state where it's legal to possess, FOPA already applies to Title II NFA items anyway, and the Griffith FOPA enhancement bill (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4269/text) would not change this except significantly strengthen the ability to deal with bad local officials.

As for California, the courts ruled that sales regulations are not effected by preemption. Sales, Silver, not possession and transport (The unsafe/ultracompact local handgun dealer sales bans were preempted and the local authorities had to repeal). Also, California already prohibits possession of NFA items except for "Dangerous Weapons" permit holders. Even assuming arguendo that NFA suddenly became legal in California (but subject to strict transport controls similar to AW), cities could not ban the home possession of NFA weapons any more than they can ban handguns. See Fiscal v. City/County of San Francisco.

Also, the issues with NFA items that you're saying about "local cities violating state law" is not the NFA branch's responsibility.

Their only job is to approve or disapprove the transport for federal legal purposes. Again, I'm not an NFA law expert, and it's possible that the interstate transport thing is purely a rule (Remember that Miller was convicted of possession of an SBS without a stamp plus transporting the unregistered NFA item across state lines. If it's registered....), however it is what it is. NFA itself isn't going away. Changing the regulations and changing the process administratively would reduce the in terrorum effect of legal NFA possession.

Your issue is with FOPA's lack of teeth.

UPDATE: I actually digged, and there is actually a statutory requirement to get approval under 18USC922(a)(4), so my theory of it being as unset in statute as CLEO signoff was, blown out of the water:

(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to
transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive
device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled
rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General
consistent with public safety and necessity;

"Specifically authorized" means the NFA Branch approval with the form.

Untamed1972
07-19-2012, 9:00 AM
It is not a registration fee. It is a fee to cover the background check.

It WAS a fee to cover admin cost of background check......until the Ca .leg decided to raid the DROS fund and use the monies for other things.

Now it's a tax, which should be challengable.

meaty-btz
07-19-2012, 9:34 AM
Supporting the 10 wait period isn't really doing or stoping anoyone who wants to do wrong. Why would you support it? The only thing that's stopping them is ignorance, if they really wanted a gun, they could go out and build one in one day if they choose the right day or buy one off the street.

Some people should have to wait 10 days before they speak freely.

Hope we never have to wait 10 days or be registered before we can be free of illegal searches and seizures.


It was sarcasm people. 2 day 30 day whatever day waits on firearms are ineffective an just plain idiotic.

Hey they are working on that registration part to be free of illegal search and seizures... that pre-clearance list for the TSA smacks of it.

As for free speech, well you need a permit and that process can take some time and quite a bit of money. Things in this nation do not work how people think they do.. all just and rosy.

As far as voting, you have to register to vote, no registration, no voting. So they already have "registration" for voting and to be frank an ID isn't asking too much.

So as you can see, all the supposed "protected natural rights" do in fact have similar restrictions on them. Often different names and mechanism or excuses but never the less a system of permitage, registration, and delay exists on all of them to one extent or another. These restrictions will only grow in time, not lessen.

Wherryj
07-19-2012, 9:37 AM
Why 10-round mags? Why $10 fee to dealers for PPT? Legislature picked a number for all of these, out of a hat or someplace.

...not a "hat" exactly, but more likely a portion of the anatomy typically associated with a colonoscope...

dfletcher
07-19-2012, 9:39 AM
So long as the fee is not in place for the purpose of obstructing the exercise of a right I think courts will find it OK, yes? Quite a few states have fees associated with the purchase of a gun via FFL, OR has a $3.00 (or $10.00, can't quite recall) fee for a telephone check and I'm sure there are other states doing the same. Further, if a state allows "person to person" sales with no FFL it can be said a person may aquire a firearm and pay no fees.

Carbuncle
07-19-2012, 10:15 AM
Perhaps one should need a background check in order to vote.

I second this and would like to add pass a written test before being allowed to breed.

jamesob
07-19-2012, 2:44 PM
isn't the fed. background check free? if so, the state doing a background check and charging for it is a fee or tax in my opinion.

dantodd
07-19-2012, 3:25 PM
isn't the fed. background check free? if so, the state doing a background check and charging for it is a fee or tax in my opinion.

The DoJ doesn't rely on the NCIC check, they do their own. And their own paperwork on the pricing. I believe the number I've seen tossed around for the Federal check is either 25 cents or 2.5 cents each.

Arondos
07-19-2012, 9:13 PM
According to the A.G. simply requiring I.D to vote is imposing a tax on a right and not allowed.

I like the idea of running with that logic and saying then that requiring I.D. to purchase a firearm is a tax on a right. Yeah it will never fly but is funny how Holder's logic doesn't hold up.