How is Assembly Bill 809 (long gun registration) legal under FOPA?

[Solidsnake87]

FOPA 1986 makes it clear that gun registries are not legal. So, how is AB 809 legal? Is it because they're just collecting "sales records"? I only ask because based on all these red flag laws, and entries in AFS, and confiscations that have occurred from volreg/AW/home made notifications, the state is clearly using AFS as a registry.

Second question is how can "out of date" or inaccurate sales records be used as proof of ownership for any form of confiscation or even to get a warrant? It is, after all, possible for you to sell guns and still have an entry in AFS for that gun as belonging to you (i.e., selling out of state). The state routinely uses outdated records to arrest people, seize property, red flag people, or obtain warrants. The Bakersfield farmer had charges dropped because of outdated AFS records being used illicitly (only case Ive heard of this backfiring). We have several documented home-build and AW registration-related confiscations. Plus, I am aware of one case where a judge imprisoned a guy because all of his firearms in AFS could not be accounted for. The guys attorney said he had sold the revolver in question years prior and wasn't required to notify the state or keep records. Judge imprisoned him until he "could come up with the gun". He could never account for the sold revolver and was imprisoned for an unknown period. This is scary stuff.

Do we have a lawsuit against the registry or AB809? I don't see anything. To me, it seems that fighting any registry should be priority no. 1 because it's impossible to enforce gun laws (i.e, confiscation) without one.

[Librarian]

Not litigation; potential activism; moved.

[dfletcher]

FOPA 1986 makes it clear that gun registries are not legal. So, how is AB 809 legal? Is it because they're just collecting "sales records"? I only ask because based on all these red flag laws, and entries in AFS, and confiscations that have occurred from volreg/AW/home made notifications, the state is clearly using AFS as a registry.

Second question is how can "out of date" or inaccurate sales records be used as proof of ownership for any form of confiscation or even to get a warrant? It is, after all, possible for you to sell guns and still have an entry in AFS for that gun as belonging to you (i.e., selling out of state). The state routinely uses outdated records to arrest people, seize property, red flag people, or obtain warrants. The Bakersfield farmer had charges dropped because of outdated AFS records being used illicitly (only case Ive heard of this backfiring). We have several documented home-build and AW registration-related confiscations. Plus, I am aware of one case where a judge imprisoned a guy because all of his firearms in AFS could not be accounted for. The guys attorney said he had sold the revolver in question years prior and wasn't required to notify the state or keep records. Judge imprisoned him until he "could come up with the gun". He could never account for the sold revolver and was imprisoned for an unknown period. This is scary stuff.

Do we have a lawsuit against the registry or AB809? I don't see anything. To me, it seems that fighting any registry should be priority no. 1 because it's impossible to enforce gun laws (i.e, confiscation) without one.

FOPA is federal - as in, no federal registry. Wouldn't apply to the states so far as I can tell, as FOPA is written. Remember the last time UBC came up federally the whole thing fell apart because then VP Biden responded with "of course" when asked if a UBC bill would include registration.

Your recounting of the fellow having lawfully sold a revolver years before and the subsequent legal troubles highlight why UBC is such a slippery slope, and that universal registration of ALL privately held firearms is a requirement for any such scheme.

[Solidsnake87]

No amount of googling has uncovered a lawsuit against registration. Am I correct in that there has never been one?

Side note, while googling, I discovered only Bing and duck duck go provided relevant search results. Google only provided anti 2a propaganda.

[TruOil]

FOPA only precludes a federal registry, not state ones. California is not the only state that registers firearms. I don't know all of them, but high on the list are NY and NJ. I believe Mass does too, and a couple of other states.

[BeAuMaN]

FOPA is federal - as in, no federal registry. Wouldn't apply to the states so far as I can tell, as FOPA is written.

Sometime ago I looked into this when we were discussing it on another forum, and that's the conclusion we came to as well (which also lead into discussing DROS/AB 263 from 1924. Thanks Gene Hoffman for purchasing that AB 263 research package linked in the wiki!).

Anyhow Solidsnake: Section 926

The section opens with talking about that the Attorney General can only prescribe rules and regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter (firearms), and then gives a list of which of those that are included. The FOPA prohibition on registries is tucked under 926(a)(3), which is kind of poorly written and takes some parsing.

The leading part of the FOPA prohibition is that it refers to "no such rule or regulation prescribed", and that's specifically limiting the Attorney General's ability to do so as it says in the opening part of this section. It limits the ability of the Federal government from requiring records to be maintained by the Federal government and also the state and local governments... hence this wouldn't prevent California from establishing their own registries, but would prevent the federal government from forcing California to establish registries or maintaining such records.

As such the writers (and voters) of FOPA were much more concerned with a federal registry and maybe states rights. DROS had existed decades before this point so they knew it existed, so perhaps it wasn't a (or as much of a) concern, however I won't pretend to know what these people were thinking. I'm not well read into federal firearm laws at all.

[RickD427]

FOPA 1986 makes it clear that gun registries are not legal. So, how is AB 809 legal? Is it because they're just collecting "sales records"? I only ask because based on all these red flag laws, and entries in AFS, and confiscations that have occurred from volreg/AW/home made notifications, the state is clearly using AFS as a registry.

Second question is how can "out of date" or inaccurate sales records be used as proof of ownership for any form of confiscation or even to get a warrant? It is, after all, possible for you to sell guns and still have an entry in AFS for that gun as belonging to you (i.e., selling out of state). The state routinely uses outdated records to arrest people, seize property, red flag people, or obtain warrants. The Bakersfield farmer had charges dropped because of outdated AFS records being used illicitly (only case Ive heard of this backfiring). We have several documented home-build and AW registration-related confiscations. Plus, I am aware of one case where a judge imprisoned a guy because all of his firearms in AFS could not be accounted for. The guys attorney said he had sold the revolver in question years prior and wasn't required to notify the state or keep records. Judge imprisoned him until he "could come up with the gun". He could never account for the sold revolver and was imprisoned for an unknown period. This is scary stuff.

Do we have a lawsuit against the registry or AB809? I don't see anything. To me, it seems that fighting any registry should be priority no. 1 because it's impossible to enforce gun laws (i.e, confiscation) without one.

You need to do a little homework here. You started off with a very incorrect preposition (The part that you got wrong being in bold font in your original posting).

The FOPA does not prohibit all firearms registries. Let's look at the pertinent part of the FOPA and parse out its contents. Here it is:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed 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 dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s [1] authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation."

Note that there are two clauses to the FOPA. The first provides that no "records required to be maintained under this chapter..." may be transferred to a facility owned managed or controlled by the United States, or to any state or political subdivision.

The records used by the state of California to support the AFS database are drawn from State DROS and are not "records maintained under this chapter." Scratch that idea.

The second clause provides that no "system of registration..." be established. The FOPA is not entirely clear as to what entity the prohibition is directed at. In context, the remainder of the FOPA is directed to the Attorney General. At first blush, you could hold the opinion that the AFS is a system of registration and that the states are bound by it. But you can't get very far with that argument. The FOPA is a federal statute. For a federal statute to apply to the states, there must be a specific power granted to the federal government to enact such a statute (refer to the Tenth Amendment). The FOPA makes so such provision. Scratch that idea.

The FOPA only prevents the establishment of a national registry.

[Quiet]

FOPA prevents a national registry of Title 1 firearms.
^It does not prevent the national registry of Title 2 firearms.

Local Gov (State, County, City) can enact their own firearm registration as long as they do not use any of the Federal forms to do so.

Since 1924, CA DOJ has utilized the CA DROS to create/populate the CA firearm registration system.
^Currently, CA utilizes other reporting system in addition to the CA DROS to create/populate the CA firearm registration system.

Because CA does not use the ATF 4473 form to create/populate the CA firearm registration system, it does not violate the FOPA.

[Jimi Jah]

ATF can find anything on anyone if they choose.

[deebix]

So basically, bury everything and pretend it doesn't exist anymore. Got it.