PDA

View Full Version : CA long gun AW registration illegal?


taperxz
07-31-2012, 7:58 PM
Federally, isn't the registration of long guns unconstitutional?

The SCOTUS or parts there of have mentioned this. The 2014 implementation of registering long guns may also be shot down as unconstitutional.

Why has a challenge to registration of CA AW's (primarily long guns) not been challenged in federal court? Wouldn't this eliminate AW registration and
possibly eliminate CA AW laws?

Bhobbs
07-31-2012, 8:03 PM
I never heard long gun registration was illegal at the federal level. Do you have a link to that?

CSACANNONEER
07-31-2012, 8:05 PM
What are you talking about? Feds started registering certain long guns back in the 1920s. Before the NFA, MGs were just long guns.

morfeeis
07-31-2012, 8:08 PM
I need more info.....

moleculo
07-31-2012, 8:11 PM
If I remember correctly, it wasn't SCOTUS, but one of the appeals courts that opined in a recent ruling that long gun registration might be unconstitutional. My google-fu isn't working right now, though. This whole issue is quite a debatable subject until we get some clear cut SCOTUS rulings, however.

Even Alan Gura is quoted by CSNews.com as saying, "My answer on this would be, sadly, (registration) is constitutional although perhaps only if the government is serious about organizing a militia. The fact is that the framers had gun registration for this purpose, and the D.C. Circuit (in the case that led to Heller) specifically approved of registration being constitutional." (link here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html))

My non-lawyer take on why a long gun registration challenge in CA hasn't surfaced yet is that there is no standing until the law actually goes into affect. I'd wager that there are already lawsuits ready to go as soon as it does.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 8:13 PM
It's my understanding the Feds do not allow for long gun registration. Much like we have now. Since the 2a has been incorporated, wouldn't long gun registration be illegal federally under current federal law for long arms in common use.

taperxz
07-31-2012, 8:16 PM
If I remember correctly, it wasn't SCOTUS, but one of the appeals courts that opined in a recent ruling that long gun registration might be unconstitutional. My google-fu isn't working right now, though. This whole issue is quite a debatable subject until we get some clear cut SCOTUS rulings, however.

Even Alan Gura is quoted by CSNews.com as saying, "My answer on this would be, sadly, (registration) is constitutional although perhaps only if the government is serious about organizing a militia. The fact is that the framers had gun registration for this purpose, and the D.C. Circuit (in the case that led to Heller) specifically approved of registration being constitutional." (link here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html))

My non-lawyer take on why a long gun registration challenge in CA hasn't surfaced yet is that there is no standing until the law actually goes into affect. I'd wager that there are already lawsuits ready to go as soon as it does.

Thanks, this is what I was referring to:)

hoffmang
07-31-2012, 8:17 PM
Federal law bars the Federal government from creating a registry based upon the required documents collected at FFLs (i.e. 4473's.) It also prohibits the states from using the FFL's federal records to create a registry. It does not bar the states form requiring FFL's to have a dual/parallel state license and have that state license have a separate record keeping function (DROS) that creates a registry.

-Gene

taperxz
07-31-2012, 8:18 PM
Federal law bars the Federal government from creating a registry based upon the required documents collected at FFLs (i.e. 4473's.) It also prohibits the states from using the FFL's federal records to create a registry. It does not bar the states form requiring FFL's to have a dual/parallel state license and have that state license have a separate record keeping function (DROS) that creates a registry.

-Gene

OK, what about how CA registers long guns they determine to be AW's arbitrarily?

taperxz
07-31-2012, 8:38 PM
Never mind Gene, I picked up on your last sentence.

Nick Justice
08-01-2012, 11:14 AM
The appellate court said that long gun registration might be ruled unconstitutional IF a case were actually brought before the court. Nothing more.

bohoki
08-01-2012, 11:20 AM
it does seem contrary that some people are barred from owning guns that other people can have

littlejake
08-01-2012, 11:57 AM
Federal law bars the Federal government from creating a registry based upon the required documents collected at FFLs (i.e. 4473's.) It also prohibits the states from using the FFL's federal records to create a registry. It does not bar the states form requiring FFL's to have a dual/parallel state license and have that state license have a separate record keeping function (DROS) that creates a registry.

-Gene

Gene:

It has been said that ATF is digitizing out-of-business records from dealers. In essence that creates a de facto registration database. (How useful that would be is questionable as it would be incomplete.) But would appear to be in conflict with the GCA 1968.

In the early 1990's, my observation was that many dealers I have used went out of business.

Jake

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 12:01 PM
Federally, isn't the registration of long guns unconstitutional?

The SCOTUS or parts there of have mentioned this. The 2014 implementation of registering long guns may also be shot down as unconstitutional.

Why has a challenge to registration of CA AW's (primarily long guns) not been challenged in federal court? Wouldn't this eliminate AW registration and
possibly eliminate CA AW laws?

Isn't the registration of a handgun, banning of an assault weapon, high-cap magazine, suppressor, and so on... illegal Federally based on the 2A that we're all here discussing and fighting against?

A.W.D.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-01-2012, 12:04 PM
...It does not bar the states from requiring FFL's to have a dual/parallel state license and have that state license have a separate record keeping function (DROS) that creates a registry.

-Gene

Which of course becomes immediately available to the FED when they feel the time is right to ask and demand such registry.

Convenient isn't it?

A.W.D

taperxz
08-01-2012, 12:31 PM
Isn't the registration of a handgun, banning of an assault weapon, high-cap magazine, suppressor, and so on... illegal Federally based on the 2A that we're all here discussing and fighting against?

A.W.D.

Currently it is not. Carry has not been settled, common firearms has not been settled, time and manner has not been settled, magazine capacity has not been settled. If they have, please direct me to the SCOTUS decisions that gives us case law to say so.

IVC
08-01-2012, 1:05 PM
Which of course becomes immediately available to the FED when they feel the time is right to ask and demand such registry.

Convenient isn't it?

Only by unfriendly states. Look at the number of states fighting and avoiding requirements from Obamacare.

bwiese
08-01-2012, 1:28 PM
Certain styles of gun registration may survive challenges up to/thru Supreme Ct, given some of
the militia context of 2A.
.
I recall in the otherwise-problematic kitchen-sink Heller II case that the panel, 3-0, opined
long gun registration may well be problematic.
.
Solving registration issues may be best done *politically* in the states that can swing it.
.
I'm not to worried about registration in CA. I can pretty much find out indications of gun ownership
and level thereof by paying $100ish and acquiring all sorts of personal info about you.
.
The old bumper sticker "Registration = confiscation" is no longer applicable post-Heller.
.
Registration databases can be overpopulated and not distinguish between guns and serial-numbered
sheet-metal. ;-)
.
If TONS of people own reg'd guns, the fact that gun ownership is flagged on cop's MDT display becomes
trivialized ("familiarity breeds contempt").
.
Some idiot will bring up the California SKS situation way over a decade ago, and it is wholly irrelevant for
a variety of reasons gone over before.
.
Many of us are already "on the radar" so any database records saying "dude has guns" is kinda moot - duh!

Bhobbs
08-01-2012, 1:45 PM
[LIST=1]
Certain styles of gun registration may survive challenges up to/thru Supreme Ct, given some of the militia context of 2A.


What would that be? I could see if the government issued state owned arms to the people for national defense but how can they register personal arms if there is no unorganized militia? I understand the people are the militia but I also thought militias were banned in CA. :shrug:

bwiese
08-01-2012, 2:02 PM
What would that be? I could see if the government issued state owned arms to the people for national defense but how can they register personal arms if there is no unorganized militia? I understand the people are the militia but I also thought militias were banned in CA. :shrug:

It is not at all clear that a nonoffensive registration would not pass muster with the Supremes as part of reasonable regulation.

It's a battle I'd rather fight politically in the 30-35 states where it won't pass.

I'd much rather have us in CA focused on killing AW ban, killing Roster, fixing carry permits, fixing outside-CA purchases, protecting ranges, etc.

littlejake
08-01-2012, 3:55 PM
"Many of us are already "on the radar" so any database records saying "dude has guns" is kinda moot - duh!"


Especially those of us who have been printed for a COE.

"...I'd much rather have us in CA focused on killing AW ban, killing Roster, fixing carry permits, fixing outside-CA purchases, protecting ranges, etc."

Those are at the top of my list, in no particular order.