DROS unconstitutional?

[dantodd]

I keep hearing about this dealer or that denying your right to do a transfer on gun X or requiring additional proof of residency in the DROS process etc.

How often and how widespread does this have to happen before we have adequate evidence that the entire DROS process is leglly flawed? if even those acting as agents of the state cannot in good faith follow the letter of the law when does it cease to be then fault of the agent and become simply an unconstitutionally vague law?

What kind of evidence is admissible for such a challenge?

[choprzrul]

.....hmmmmmm......maybe someone needs to come up with a standard reporting form for refusal incidents.

This is excellent thinking dantodd. Kudos.

.

[vantec08]

Its another good question dantodd, and ranks right up there with "how can gubmint deny you a CCW when you meet the character & HSC criteria"? The only way the ridiculous laws can be dealt with is to require the tinpot politicians and bureaucrats to be indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights. The only other way is . . .. .. well . . .. . it would get ugly.

[choprzrul]

Originally Posted by vantec08

Its another good question dantodd, and ranks right up there with "how can gubmint deny you a CCW when you meet the character & HSC criteria"? The only way the ridiculous laws can be dealt with is to require the tinpot politicians and bureaucrats to be indicted for Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights. The only other way is . . .. .. well . . .. . it would get ugly.

You mean like under 18 USC 241:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

Can't see Holder DOJ bringing this, but it is WAY within the realm of possibility under a president Rick Perry.....

.

[a1c]

Originally Posted by choprzrul

You mean like under 18 USC 241:

Can't see Holder DOJ bringing this, but it is WAY within the realm of possibility under a president Rick Perry.....

It's going to be a tough sell to demonstrate that the DROS requirements constitute a way "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" citizens to exercise one of their rights.

Even some basic rights require permits or licenses. The right to assemble does not mean you can hold a demonstration anywhere, anytime. Marriage requires a license (I agree it probably shouldn't). And so on.

And no president is going to change that, by the way (and Perry president is never going to happen anyway, but that one is for OT, I suppose). There are two other branches of government to deal with. And even Scalia wrote that "reasonable restrictions" do not - in his view - contradict the 2A.

One battle at a time.

[Untamed1972]

Originally Posted by a1c

It's going to be a tough sell to demonstrate that the DROS requirements constitute a way "to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" citizens to exercise one of their rights.

Even some basic rights require permits or licenses. The right to assemble does not mean you can hold a demonstration anywhere, anytime. Marriage requires a license (I agree it probably shouldn't). And so on.

The comparison to "right to assemble" is apples and organges thought.

I dont need a permit to assemble with my friends in my own home, or on my front lawn.

DROS stands clearly as an obstacle to the core right of accessing firearms, for the purpose.....and the Brady's will love this.....of keeping a firearm in mt home.

The marriage analogy doesn't quite fit either, but I'm pretty sure that the process for aquiring a marriage license is administered pretty uniformly across the state.

So as the OP stated.....if the laws are so complex that even those who are required to administer it often dont actually know the law, and there is little to no consequence to those who blantantly dont follow it or make up their own rules.....you NOW have a situation where something that might on some level be presumptively constitutional as merely a regulation, is now unconstituional in it the manner of it's application.

[bwiese]

DROS act itself will not be found to have major constitutional issues alone. Things associated with DROS and overall purchase process may well be found wanting:

• full 10 day wait for your Nth handgun purchase, when you already demonstrably own handguns
  (either by demonstrably having one, or DROS records exist demonstrating that fact)
  .
• arbitrary 2nd ID requirements blocking acquisition:
  ... what about a non-car-owner [no registration papers in buyer name],
  ... who lives with someone else [thus no lease/rental papers name]
  ... who thus also has no water/gas bill? [no bill for hardline utility svcs in buyer name]
  
  Ultimate test is a sane homeless person wanting to buy a gun (though that issue can
  get conflated with mental health matters and safe storage/lawful transport matters).
  .
• excessive fees (beyond trivial records/paper processing costs)
  .
• 1-in-30 day new handgun purchase restriction, though that is readily circumventable thru
  C&R + COE exemption, so it's low on radar.
  .1

Things that probably will stand in some form and not worth fighting in whole, though particular aspects may be worth challenge:

• Waiting period for someone's first gun purchase.
  .
• HSC (or BFSC) test + card. [HSC expiry may be challengable (?)]
  .
• Initial safe handling test. [Possible challenge on repeating test for given class of gun an owner already
  has demonstrated owning (via DROS records): what grounds for retest is there for revolver bought by a
  documented revolver owner, pistol test for for pistol purchased by a documented pistol owner, etc???]
  
  [Note the real political purpose of the safe handling test was to add obstructions to sales of handguns
  and slow down their sales (i.e., add pain via raising transaction time & thus FFL staff costs/ overhead
  required)]
  . .

[dantodd]

But if the state's agents are over broad in their enforcement of these rules they are unconstitutional, as applied.

Some examples:
Big 5 requires more than a 240 hour waiting period.

Many FFLs are reportedly not doing timely PPTs on demand

Many FFLs are reportedly not giving HSC tests

Can an FFL deny my 2A rights when acting as an agent of the state? Can an FFL deny my PPT because they "think" the gun is illgal? That is now a denial of a fundamental right without due process, in the event the gun is legal. Look at the reticence FFLs have shown, in the past, to deal with EBR PPTs. Certainly the FFL can choose what to sell but can they Sit in judgement of what guns are legal in a PPT?

If the DoJ is going to force FFLs to issue HSCs then they cannot run out becuase that is delaying my right to keep and bear arms. This was one of the issues back when the DoJ was continually "out" of the certificates and dealers werent able to get them in stores.

[bwiese]

Originally Posted by dantodd

But if the state's agents are over broad in their enforcement of these rules they are unconstitutional, as applied.

Some examples:
Big 5 requires more than a 240 hour waiting period.

Yep. But that's Big 5's store policy and that's likely decoupleable from agency relationship with state. Big 5 can argue 'we're taking extra care', and that this is commercial discretion.

Many FFLs are reportedly not doing timely PPTs on demand

Yes. The question is do we wanna hammer on these FFLs via DOJ?
It's really DOJ's job, but I don't wanna be an enabler of DOJ actions.

Many FFLs are reportedly not giving HSC tests

Likely a mistake on the 'educational' side. They may think that's only associated with an actual sale.

Getting into relative minutiae on certain regulatory trivialities probably does not serve us well or get us that far.

Going nuclear on DOJ or FFL for running out of HSC cards is kinda like an old friend of mine who called OSHA since his workplace ran out of toilet paper in the men's room. He's had a hard time finding employment since then.

We need to work on the big sweeping things first.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by bwiese

Yep. But that's Big 5's store policy and that's likely decoupleable from agency relationship with state. Big 5 can argue 'we're taking extra care', and that this is commercial discretion.

But when acting as an agent for the state can they limit my rights via "commercial discretion?" if not for the DROS law there is no way that Big 5 would make you wait. This is done out of caution over violations and fear of the government. The DoJ is using the color of authority to convince a private business to infringe my rights in ways they are not able to legally.

Originally Posted by bwiese

Yes. The question is do we wanna hammer on these FFLs via DOJ?
It's really DOJ's job, but I don't wanna be an enabler of DOJ actions.

It's not about hammering the FFLs it's about hammering the law and DoJ because the law is so vague and is being applied against FFLs such that they fear repercussions.

Originally Posted by bwiese

Likely a mistake on the 'educational' side. They may think that's only associated with an actual sale.

Getting into relative minutiae on certain regulatory trivialities probably does not serve us well or get us that far.

The point is that the state will just continue to add minutiae to ensure that it is almost impossible to follow the letter of the law so FFLs simply go overboard and violate my rights. The state succeeds in restricting my rights but I have recourse only against the FFL. As you said, no one really wants to sue the FFLs because we know why they do this. The question is how do we document the issues and go after the root laws and their application by the DoJ and circumvent hurting the FFLs.

Originally Posted by bwiese

Going nuclear on DOJ or FFL for running out of HSC cards is kinda like an old friend of mine who called OSHA since his workplace ran out of toilet paper in the men's room. He's had a hard time finding employment since then.

First of all, not being able to wipe isn't going to cost you your life, not having accessnto a gun might. Also, I don't have a constitutional right to a clean bum.

Originally Posted by bwiese

We need to work on the big sweeping things first.

My point is that the transfer process is a big sweeping thing. While each thing seems little theynall work together to really make gun ownership unappealing and difficult.

[Untamed1972]

What about having something added into the DROS laws, kinda like they did with the CCW laws, stating that an FFL may not add-to or take-away from the requirements listed. They can't add days to the wait, any of the acceptable proofs of residence MUST be accepted, they can't ask for 2nd proof of residence for long-gun, etc.

Simple put....here are the requirements, you can do no more and no less.

[dantodd]

Ultimately the real issue is that you are forcing a private business to act as law enforcement and of course not giving any kind of qualified immunity and trying to de-link the government from any infringements their policies cause. Thismmeans that it is almost impossible for anyone to want to become an FFL, again this has a chilling effect on then exercise of thenright.

[Connor P Price]

Originally Posted by dantodd

First of all, not being able to wipe isn't going to cost you your life, not having accessnto a gun might. Also, I don't have a constitutional right to a clean bum.

I vote 28th amendment!

[ShooterDK]

HSC card + fee to exercise a right seems iffy.

[bohoki]

i think requiring the purchase of an id card before being able to buy a gun is a bit of an infringement

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by bohoki

i think requiring the purchase of an id card before being able to buy a gun is a bit of an infringement

You may be right. What purpose does the ID card serve. If they are going to do a background check anyway it doesn't identify you as not-prohibited. I think they'll have a hard time having a competency test, resembles voter literacy tests too much.

[a1c]

Originally Posted by dantodd

You may be right. What purpose does the ID card serve. If they are going to do a background check anyway it doesn't identify you as not-prohibited. I think they'll have a hard time having a competency test, resembles voter literacy tests too much.

Not really.

First of all, if you guys are talking about the HSC, it's not an ID card.

Second of all, Jim Crow voting laws were designed to exclude a certain class of citizens.

Whereas the HSC exam is really easy to pass for just about anybody with some common sense, and the study guide is available for free online and costs only 50 cents in stores. The online version is even available in Spanish.

Demonstrating that it is a major obstacle to gun ownership is going to be a tough one. You only have to take it once, and for handguns only.

You know, I disapprove of just about any California gun law, but going after the HSC program is just ridiculous. There is much bigger and obvious fish to fry out there. And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.

[stix213]

I think the HSC card will pass muster. I think requiring everyone to use FFL's for transfers, while looking the other way as many FFL's arbitrarily deny them, will not.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by a1c

You know, I disapprove of just about any California gun law, but going after the HSC program is just ridiculous. There is much bigger and obvious fish to fry out there. And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.

what makes the right tockeep and bear arms so different than any other right that a competency test is acceptable? Do you think a literacy test to vote that isn't targeting a particular race would be ok?

What happens if you fail the GSC test?

And, it is not a one-time test.

[Bruce]

Related to the above, couldn't the fees charged for DROS, PPT's and even LTC's be viewed the same as a "poll tax" allowing only "the rich" to be able to exercise their 2A rights?

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by dantodd

what makes the right tockeep and bear arms so different than any other right that a competency test is acceptable? Do you think a literacy test to vote that isn't targeting a particular race would be ok?

What happens if you fail the GSC test?

And, it is not a one-time test.

You actually already know the answer.

We're all speculating because the jurisprudence is still being developed. It may be that Bill is too pessimistic - or that he is too optimistic.

But Bill is right about the need to develop the more broad picture. Get the courts to properly define the core right to keep and bear arms and then we can start working at the detail level.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Related to the above, couldn't the fees charged for DROS, PPT's and even LTC's be viewed the same as a "poll tax" allowing only "the rich" to be able to exercise their 2A rights?

That is the argument in the NRA's DROS lawsuit filed last week (or Momday, I lose track.)

Oops, actually I think the argument is that it is a tax not passed by 2/3 majority. I'm not sure why it's in Federal Court now that you mention it...

[OleCuss]

Originally Posted by Bruce

Related to the above, couldn't the fees charged for DROS, PPT's and even LTC's be viewed the same as a "poll tax" allowing only "the rich" to be able to exercise their 2A rights?

Sorta. We really don't know exactly how all this will come out in the end.

But it may be that people who can demonstrate a lack of funding get a decrease in the fees which are required.

There can already be "reasonable" fees on free speech. So, let's say that three months from now I want to have a parade to celebrate some particular philosophical point of view? I'm willing to bet that I'd be required to pay for reasonable costs to the city to provide police, block the roads that had to be blocked, maybe pay for some liability insurance as well.

Heck, if I just want to put up a billboard someone is going to charge me for that - even if it's not the government.

Reasonable fees will survive. The question is what is a "reasonable fee". We don't yet know that answer.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by a1c

And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.

It might be (and I don't find it particularly onerous in itself) - but how would one know?

For example, the test cannot possibly apply to deliberate uses of handguns, so let's look at accidental deaths from firearms in California. The ancestor to the HSC was the BFSC, and it was passed into law in 1994, so divide the data there - pre-1995 and 1995 and later.

WISQARS tells us the stats.

Here are the accidental fatalities, pre 1995:

1981 - 1994, California
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-9 Codes: E922


               Number of                    Crude     Age-Adjusted
  Year            Deaths   Population***     Rate           Rate**

  1981               148      24,286,016     0.61             0.54
  1982               102      24,820,028     0.41             0.36
  1983               124      25,360,065     0.49             0.45
  1984               147      25,844,407     0.57             0.52
  1985               176      26,441,102     0.67             0.59
  1986               133      27,102,159     0.49             0.44
  1987               141      27,777,037     0.51             0.47
  1988               149      28,464,180     0.52             0.49
  1989               199      29,218,118     0.68             0.65
  1990               124      29,950,111     0.41             0.39
  1991               136      30,470,736     0.45             0.43
  1992               118      30,974,659     0.38             0.37
  1993               123      31,274,928     0.39             0.39
  1994               138      31,484,435     0.44             0.44

And here are the accidental fatalities, 1995 -

 
  1995               111      31,696,582    0.35             0.34
  1996               142      32,018,834    0.44             0.44
  1997                80      32,486,010     0.25             0.25
  1998                52      32,987,675     0.16             0.1
  1999                47      33,499,204     0.14             0.14
  2000                66      33,871,648     0.19             0.19
  2001                97      34,485,623     0.28             0.28
  2002                44      34,876,194     0.13             0.12
  2003                68      35,251,107     0.19             0.19
  2004                50      35,558,419     0.14             0.14
  2005              146      35,795,255     0.41             0.40
  2006                68      35,979,208     0.19             0.18
  2007                43      36,226,122     0.12             0.11

Yep, there's a pretty obvious drop there in 1997; the rate fell from .44/1000 to .25/1000, and, except for that oddity in 2005, has stayed well below that .44/1000 through 2007.


Compare to the whole US - including, of course, California:

1981 - 1998, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-9 Codes: E922


               Number of                    Crude     Age-Adjusted
  Year            Deaths   Population***     Rate           Rate**

  1981             1,871     229,465,316     0.82             0.76
  1982             1,756     231,664,211     0.76             0.72
  1983             1,695     233,792,237     0.73             0.69
  1984             1,668     235,825,040     0.71             0.68
  1985             1,649     237,924,038     0.69             0.67
  1986             1,452     240,133,048     0.60             0.58
  1987             1,440     242,289,046     0.59             0.58
  1988             1,501     244,499,040     0.61             0.60
  1989             1,489     246,819,195     0.60             0.59
  1990             1,416     249,464,396     0.57             0.55
  1991             1,441     252,980,942     0.57             0.57
  1992             1,409     256,514,231     0.55             0.54
  1993             1,521     259,918,595     0.59             0.58
  1994             1,356     263,125,826     0.52             0.51

  1995             1,225     266,278,403     0.46             0.46
  1996             1,134     269,394,291     0.42             0.42
  1997               981     272,646,932     0.36             0.36
  1998               866     275,854,116     0.31             0.31
  1999               824     279,040,181     0.30             0.29
  2000               776     281,421,906     0.28             0.27
  2001               802     285,081,556     0.28             0.28
  2002               762     287,803,914     0.26             0.26
  2003               730     290,326,418     0.25             0.25
  2004               649     293,045,739     0.22             0.22
  2005               789     295,753,151     0.27             0.27
  2006               642     298,593,212     0.22             0.21
  2007               613     301,579,895     0.20             0.20

If we look at the linear trends (see attached .pdf), we see that the all-US trend was falling faster overall. If we look at just 1995-2007, the US trend still shows the rate is falling faster than the CA-only rate.

So, there's no particularly good reason to suggest the HSC program is especially effective.

Now, the data doesn't split the deaths between handguns and long guns. It's possible that the handgun deaths in CA are vastly lower than the national handgun rate, but we just cannot tell that from this level of data.

[Meplat]

Originally Posted by dantodd

I don't have a constitutional right to a clean bum.

Sig line material here!!

[Meplat]

Ignorant voters are a much larger threat to liberty than ignorant shooters. This is the kind of reasoning that gets us chip by chip to the state of "reasonable" restrictions on our rights that obtains today in Kalifornia.

Originally Posted by a1c

Not really.

First of all, if you guys are talking about the HSC, it's not an ID card.

Second of all, Jim Crow voting laws were designed to exclude a certain class of citizens.



Whereas the HSC exam is really easy to pass for just about anybody with some common sense, and the study guide is available for free online and costs only 50 cents in stores. The online version is even available in Spanish.

Demonstrating that it is a major obstacle to gun ownership is going to be a tough one. You only have to take it once, and for handguns only.

You know, I disapprove of just about any California gun law, but going after the HSC program is just ridiculous. There is much bigger and obvious fish to fry out there. And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.

[stix213]

Originally Posted by Librarian

It might be (and I don't find it particularly onerous in itself) - but how would one know?

For example, the test cannot possibly apply to deliberate uses of handguns, so let's look at accidental deaths from firearms in California. The ancestor to the HSC was the BFSC, and it was passed into law in 1994, so divide the data there - pre-1995 and 1995 and later.

WISQARS tells us the stats.

Here are the accidental fatalities, pre 1995:

1981 - 1994, California
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-9 Codes: E922


               Number of                    Crude     Age-Adjusted
  Year            Deaths   Population***     Rate           Rate**

  1981               148      24,286,016     0.61             0.54
  1982               102      24,820,028     0.41             0.36
  1983               124      25,360,065     0.49             0.45
  1984               147      25,844,407     0.57             0.52
  1985               176      26,441,102     0.67             0.59
  1986               133      27,102,159     0.49             0.44
  1987               141      27,777,037     0.51             0.47
  1988               149      28,464,180     0.52             0.49
  1989               199      29,218,118     0.68             0.65
  1990               124      29,950,111     0.41             0.39
  1991               136      30,470,736     0.45             0.43
  1992               118      30,974,659     0.38             0.37
  1993               123      31,274,928     0.39             0.39
  1994               138      31,484,435     0.44             0.44

And here are the accidental fatalities, 1995 -

 
  1995               111      31,696,582    0.35             0.34
  1996               142      32,018,834    0.44             0.44
  1997                80      32,486,010     0.25             0.25
  1998                52      32,987,675     0.16             0.1
  1999                47      33,499,204     0.14             0.14
  2000                66      33,871,648     0.19             0.19
  2001                97      34,485,623     0.28             0.28
  2002                44      34,876,194     0.13             0.12
  2003                68      35,251,107     0.19             0.19
  2004                50      35,558,419     0.14             0.14
  2005              146      35,795,255     0.41             0.40
  2006                68      35,979,208     0.19             0.18
  2007                43      36,226,122     0.12             0.11

Yep, there's a pretty obvious drop there in 1997; the rate fell from .44/1000 to .25/1000, and, except for that oddity in 2005, has stayed well below that .44/1000 through 2007.


Compare to the whole US - including, of course, California:

1981 - 1998, United States
Unintentional Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races,
Both Sexes,
ICD-9 Codes: E922


               Number of                    Crude     Age-Adjusted
  Year            Deaths   Population***     Rate           Rate**

  1981             1,871     229,465,316     0.82             0.76
  1982             1,756     231,664,211     0.76             0.72
  1983             1,695     233,792,237     0.73             0.69
  1984             1,668     235,825,040     0.71             0.68
  1985             1,649     237,924,038     0.69             0.67
  1986             1,452     240,133,048     0.60             0.58
  1987             1,440     242,289,046     0.59             0.58
  1988             1,501     244,499,040     0.61             0.60
  1989             1,489     246,819,195     0.60             0.59
  1990             1,416     249,464,396     0.57             0.55
  1991             1,441     252,980,942     0.57             0.57
  1992             1,409     256,514,231     0.55             0.54
  1993             1,521     259,918,595     0.59             0.58
  1994             1,356     263,125,826     0.52             0.51

  1995             1,225     266,278,403     0.46             0.46
  1996             1,134     269,394,291     0.42             0.42
  1997               981     272,646,932     0.36             0.36
  1998               866     275,854,116     0.31             0.31
  1999               824     279,040,181     0.30             0.29
  2000               776     281,421,906     0.28             0.27
  2001               802     285,081,556     0.28             0.28
  2002               762     287,803,914     0.26             0.26
  2003               730     290,326,418     0.25             0.25
  2004               649     293,045,739     0.22             0.22
  2005               789     295,753,151     0.27             0.27
  2006               642     298,593,212     0.22             0.21
  2007               613     301,579,895     0.20             0.20

If we look at the linear trends (see attached .pdf), we see that the all-US trend was falling faster overall. If we look at just 1995-2007, the US trend still shows the rate is falling faster than the CA-only rate.

So, there's no particularly good reason to suggest the HSC program is especially effective.

Now, the data doesn't split the deaths between handguns and long guns. It's possible that the handgun deaths in CA are vastly lower than the national handgun rate, but we just cannot tell that from this level of data.

Interesting data, but what the hell happened in 2005?

[a1c]

Originally Posted by Librarian

It might be (and I don't find it particularly onerous in itself) - but how would one know?

For example, the test cannot possibly apply to deliberate uses of handguns, so let's look at accidental deaths from firearms in California. The ancestor to the HSC was the BFSC, and it was passed into law in 1994, so divide the data there - pre-1995 and 1995 and later.

Well that's not helping at all. You are quoting "firearms" data, not just handgun-related ones. Apples and oranges. Stats can be used by both camps to advance their agendas. They're not very useful here.

Whether the HSC is effective or not is not relevant here anyway. I thought we were talking constitutionality.

My point is - if you're going to make a point of the unconstitutionality of some California firearms laws, the HSC test is not a very good case to make. Nor the principle of DROS.

As Bill stated earlier in this thread, there are a lot of more obvious things to go after, like the 10-day waiting period, or the so-called high cap mags, the one-handgun-per-30-day limit, etc.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by a1c

Well that's not helping at all. You are quoting "firearms" data, not just handgun-related ones. Apples and oranges. Stats can be used by both camps to advance their agendas. They're not very useful here.

Whether the HSC is effective or not is not relevant here anyway. I thought we were talking constitutionality.

You said

And I for one believe that a basic exam like the HSC is actually a pretty good idea.

and I was wondering why that might be true. A quick look at reasonable data leaves me unpersuaded that an HSC-type exam is a 'good idea' - no obvious benefit.

And I acknowledged the handgun/firearm issue.

[dantodd]

Originally Posted by a1c

Whether the HSC is effective or not is not relevant here anyway. I thought we were talking constitutionality.

Hopefully was can agree that requiring a test to exercise a right is a burden on that right. Then the question becomes whether or not that burden is unreasonable. If, as Librarian showed, the HSC isn't effective what purpose does it serve and how is a burden that serves no demonstrable purpose reasonable?

[wildhawker]

We're apparently looking at the same data the other side's economists would be looking at to justify the HSC program. If the HSC regulations don't "do" anything (except function as a complete ban on handguns until the condition is satisfied) - it's a recurring fee, certainly not a database, and doesn't appear to further the state's stated interest of handgun injury/fatality - the regulation is very probably, or at least very possibly, unconstitutional.

I don't think the OP is looking to leapfrog HSC or DROS ahead of other forthcoming cases (which you'll see sooner than many think); it's my understanding that we're simply discussing the constitutionality of these sorts of regulatory schemes.

-Brandon

Originally Posted by a1c

Well that's not helping at all. You are quoting "firearms" data, not just handgun-related ones. Apples and oranges. Stats can be used by both camps to advance their agendas. They're not very useful here.

Whether the HSC is effective or not is not relevant here anyway. I thought we were talking constitutionality.

My point is - if you're going to make a point of the unconstitutionality of some California firearms laws, the HSC test is not a very good case to make. Nor the principle of DROS.

As Bill stated earlier in this thread, there are a lot of more obvious things to go after, like the 10-day waiting period, or the so-called high cap mags, the one-handgun-per-30-day limit, etc.

[dantodd]

Yes. It's a mental exercise on which parts of the transfer process could withstand strict scrutiny. I didn't intend to suggest that the discussion should be about which cases should be pursued in which order.

[hoffmang]

Any fee for a fundamental right has to only really cover the costs of administering the system itself.

NICS is free to use, but CA opted out. As such, DROS can only really charge for registering a handgun. There is an argument that any fee to background check for e.g. a long arm isn't the least intrusive means since CA could just tell CA FFLs to use NICS.

Heh.

-Gene

[Anchors]

Wait, California doesn't use NICS at all?
I thought they ran both.
Wow. They would. This is the only state that tries to be its own mini-country.

I would say that is a pretty reasonable argument. One worth making to the "budget concerned" governor and legislature...oh wait, they want your $25 a pop and now they want to use it for other stuff.

If the bill to divert DROS fees passes, can that make the basis for attack stronger?