Registration fees unconstitutional?

[Gray Peterson]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.