Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Firearm owners protestion act of 1986

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • varn
    Junior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 94

    Firearm owners protestion act of 1986

    FIREARM OWNERS PROTECTION ACT OF 1986

    This has probably come up before. But, can anyone explain, logically, why this is not being followed.

    From the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986

    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 after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act [1986] 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. "

    Has this law been deleted?
    Last edited by varn; 09-10-2013, 7:08 PM.
  • #2
    stevedusa
    Member
    • Sep 2012
    • 175

    If it's not deleted and if it will be a problem for the antis, they will try to overturn it.

    Comment

    • #3
      varn
      Junior Member
      • Aug 2012
      • 94

      Originally posted by stevedusa
      If it's not deleted and if it will be a problem for the antis, they will try to overturn it.
      This is a Federal Law, not State. Currently, with the House controlled by the good guys, this law will not be repealed. But, after 2014, who knows?

      Maybe it has already been repealed. Some states seems to be violating it.

      I just emailed my Congressman. Maybe he can shed some light on this.
      Last edited by varn; 09-10-2013, 7:38 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        cr250chevy
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2008
        • 864

        Shouldn't this apply to the newly passed and the old AW reg requirements?

        Comment

        • #5
          Mssr. Eleganté
          Blue Blaze Irregular
          CGN Contributor - Lifetime
          • Oct 2005
          • 10401

          The 1986 FOPA only restricts the federal government from establishing a registry or from giving information collected under federal requirements to any State or local registry. It doesn't restrict any State or locality from creating their own registry as long as the registry doesn't use records that are required under federal law.

          Since California's registry uses information collected from the DROS and not information collected from the Form 4473 it is considered legal.
          __________________

          "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin

          Comment

          • #6
            gobler
            Veteran Member
            • Mar 2010
            • 3348

            But it does read "or ANY STATE". So would this not then forbid Ca to create a registry?? I mean they use Fed law supersedes state when it's convenient...
            Last edited by gobler; 09-10-2013, 8:14 PM.
            200 bullets at a time......
            sigpic

            Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA

            Comment

            • #7
              Mssr. Eleganté
              Blue Blaze Irregular
              CGN Contributor - Lifetime
              • Oct 2005
              • 10401

              Originally posted by gobler
              But it does read "or ANY STATE". So would this not then forbid Ca to create a registry?? I mean they use Fed law supersedes state when it's convenient...
              It doesn't say ANY STATE can't create a registry. It says the feds can't give information to a registry created by ANY STATE.
              __________________

              "Knowledge is power... For REAL!" - Jack Austin

              Comment

              • #8
                varn
                Junior Member
                • Aug 2012
                • 94

                The last sentence says "...nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. "

                So, by not adhereing to this law the states are not conforming to the intent of the law. Doesn't that sound familiar? When gun owners and manufacturers follow the letter of the law and get around the law legally the anti's always say that "they are avoiding the intent of the law." So, as usual this is a one way street. Some say that this law applies only to the Federal government whereas it specifically says what it says.

                Why is it that the democrats in Congress are always pushing for registration if this law only applies to them?

                This makes no sense at all. The state is getting aropund the intent of the law which says no registration whatsoever (unless the guns are National Firearms Act firearms).

                Comment

                • #9
                  California44
                  Senior Member
                  • Nov 2012
                  • 1092

                  I'll bet lawyer advocates have missed this.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    varn
                    Junior Member
                    • Aug 2012
                    • 94

                    However, whenever a gun store or business stops selling guns or goes out of business they are required to turn over their stored forms 4473's to the ATFE which is a branch of the Federal Government. So, if this Act forbids the federal government from recording or transferring records to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States then why are these 4473's transferred to the ATFE. That is the question. This law makes no sense. No one is paying any attention to it. It is just another gun law that is not enforced. The primary reason being is that it is a pro-gun law.
                    Last edited by varn; 09-10-2013, 11:53 PM.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      mag360
                      Calguns Addict
                      • Jun 2009
                      • 5198

                      So we lost our machine guns allegedly for protection and ended up with neither? Sweet! Great compromise.
                      just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

                      Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

                      CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

                      NRA Member JOIN HERE/

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        ke6guj
                        Moderator
                        CGN Contributor - Lifetime
                        • Nov 2003
                        • 23725

                        Originally posted by varn
                        The last sentence says "...nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. "

                        So, by not adhereing to this law the states are not conforming to the intent of the law. Doesn't that sound familiar? When gun owners and manufacturers follow the letter of the law and get around the law legally the anti's always say that "they are avoiding the intent of the law." So, as usual this is a one way street. Some say that this law applies only to the Federal government whereas it specifically says what it says.

                        Why is it that the democrats in Congress are always pushing for registration if this law only applies to them?

                        This makes no sense at all. The state is getting aropund the intent of the law which says no registration whatsoever (unless the guns are National Firearms Act firearms).
                        read the law,
                        "No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act [1986] 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. "
                        they are refering to records required to be maintained by the Federal gun control act, mainly the 4473 that you fill out. CA does not use the 4473 info in its AFS records. You fill out a separate state DROS record, and CADOJ uses that info for AFS. At no point did CA use "records required to be maintained under this chapter" for its registration programs.
                        Jack



                        Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

                        No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          JoshuaS
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2012
                          • 1617

                          Even if it did apply to states registries....it says "No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act "

                          California's handgun registry is at least as old as 1924. I think it may be actually 1917. But I have read the bill describing the DROS and related parts that was passed in 1924. That is right the DROS is older than the 4473

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            sigstroker
                            I need a LIFE!!
                            • Jan 2009
                            • 19054

                            But he is right in saying the ATF is violating the law now. They will continue to do whatever they want until the DOJ or a judge tells them to stop.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            UA-8071174-1