Why doesnt someone use the FOPA to stop the CA AW Ban??!!

[moemuny]

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA)
The FOPA has built in a Registry prohibition...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

below taken form wiki...

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

The new California required AW registration would require an individual to break a federal law in order to comply with a state law that itself is deemed illegal by the federal law...


Or am I missing something????



discuss

[cdtx2001]

Sure, the feds are constrained by FOPA. The states however, are not.

[moemuny]

re-read the bold... it says OR STATE or any Political subdivision

Its a federal law prohibiting States from creating or keeping a registry

[duckman45]

I'm all for it.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/archive/index.php/t-615356.html

[CAL.BAR]

While it does reference "any state" it is still a FEDERAL law. Generally speaking under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, unless the Feds move to occupy an entire field (i.e. medical device and drug testing) the States are fee to enact law more strict than the Feds.

While I cannot address the question directly, your answer will undoubtedly lie in the fact that the law is FEDERAL, not State, and STATES are still free to regulate firearms as they see fit.

[moemuny]

couldn't an individual refuse to take part in a FEDERAL crime? Wink wink!!!

[penguinman]

While it does reference "any state" it is still a FEDERAL law. Generally speaking under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, unless the Feds move to occupy an entire field (i.e. medical device and drug testing) the States are fee to enact law more strict than the Feds.

While I cannot address the question directly, your answer will undoubtedly lie in the fact that the law is FEDERAL, not State, and STATES are still free to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Yet the law specifically protects transport of firearms across states even if that state bans it. For example, I can't be arrested in California for transporting an "Assault Weapon" between, say, Arizona and Oregon. So it does take precedence over individual state laws.

[RickD427]

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA)
The FOPA has built in a Registry prohibition...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition

below taken form wiki...

The Act also forbade the U.S. Government agency from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law (Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926) being:

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

The new California required AW registration would require an individual to break a federal law in order to comply with a state law that itself is deemed illegal by the federal law...


Or am I missing something????



discuss

re-read the bold... it says OR STATE or any Political subdivision

Its a federal law prohibiting States from creating or keeping a registry

couldn't an individual refuse to take part in a FEDERAL crime? Wink wink!!!

Sir,

You're going off "Half-Cocked" here, and yes, you are missing something.

Please take a moment to read and understand the law that you have cited.

The FOPA does prohibit the federal government from automating records derived from records collected under Title 18, Part1, Chapter 44 of the United States Code. Please note the restriction to "records required to be maintained under this chapter" contained in the law. Those are the only records which are prohibited. That limitation has a lot of meaning.

California's Assault Weapons Registration Records are not maintained under Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44 of the United States Code, they're maintained under Part 6, Title 4, Division 10, Chapter 2 of the California Penal Code and are therefore not covered by the FOPA.

[seanbo]

You are going to have to stop the AW ban your self. That's why you have the 2nd Amendment.

[oktavist]

No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

Re-read the bold, then read the rest of U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44
Gotta admit, it makes my head hurt...

[zapatito92]

you really think that the politicians are going to follow the law ??

[chris]

you really think that the politicians are going to follow the law ??

not in this state they wont. but we are expected to. remember this and repeat after me. "Rules are for thee not for me"

[RickD427]

you really think that the politicians are going to follow the law ??

not in this state they wont. but we are expected to. remember this and repeat after me. "Rules are for thee not for me"

Gents,

Before you grouse too much about this, just keep in mind, that at least on this issue, they are following the law.................

[fiddletown]

re-read the bold... it says OR STATE or any Political subdivision

Its a federal law prohibiting States from creating or keeping a registry

No, it is not. You need to read the parts of the statute all together (emphasis added):

(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations

(1) regulations providing that a person licensed under this chapter, when dealing with another person so licensed, shall provide such other licensed person a certified copy of this license;

(2) regulations providing for the issuance, at a reasonable cost, to a person licensed under this chapter, of certified copies of his license for use as provided under regulations issued under paragraph (1) of this subsection; and

(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.

No such rule or regulation prescribed

Thus 18 USC 926 is thus a limitation on the authority of the Attorney General of the United States to adopt rules and regulations. And so the Attorney General of the United States may not adopt a rule of regulation requiring, among other things, that a State maintain a registry of firearms.

But the California AW ban and registration program was not adopted pursuant to a rule or regulation of the Attorney General of the United States. It was adopted pursuant to a statute enacted by the California Legislature.

[sigstroker]

Yet the law specifically protects transport of firearms across states even if that state bans it. For example, I can't be arrested in California for transporting an "Assault Weapon" between, say, Arizona and Oregon. So it does take precedence over individual state laws.

You certainly can, it just won't be legal. It's happened a number of times in other states and it's been a lot of hassle for the gun owners even though the law is spelled out in black and white.