Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: FOPA Question

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108

    FOPA Question

    As I understand it (IANAL) the FOPA forbids the creation of a firearms owner or firearms ownership database. If so, has the CT requirement to file the form DPS-3-C with the DPS and local law enforcement ever been tested in the courts, since it obviously could form the basis of such an ownership database at both the local and state levels? And no, I don't want to be the test case

  2. #2
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Can you cite the USC where you think this is?

    AFAIK, FOPA only covers the Federal forms and checks enacted by FOPA.

    Quote Originally Posted by 18 USC 926 - Rules and regulations
    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.
    The Federal government is prohibited from establishing a registration system. I don't see anything that is binding to the states. After all, the 10th amendment allows states to enact their own laws.

    I think there are ground to fight our current laws, but I don't see it in FOPA.
    Last edited by Rich B; 11-16-2012 at 11:54 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    108
    Rich,

    From your excerpt "No such rule or regulation ... 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".

    I had understood that the prohibition of the establishiment of a system of registration (italicized section) applied to the states as well as the Feds (bold and underlined section), but to repeat IANAL. And it came to mind again with this TTAG post http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...arms-database/, Which may not be the most reliable source
    .

  4. #4
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Quote Originally Posted by Skinnedknuckles View Post
    Rich,

    From your excerpt "No such rule or regulation ... 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".

    I had understood that the prohibition of the establishiment of a system of registration (italicized section) applied to the states as well as the Feds (bold and underlined section), but to repeat IANAL. And it came to mind again with this TTAG post http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...arms-database/, Which may not be the most reliable source
    .

    Again, this is an issue with the 4473s that they put in place. CT does not use the 4473, it uses its own DPS-3s as 'registration'.

    I am sure there are ways to challenge the scheme in place, but the FOPA angle sounds weak. Comparing us with other states isn't likely to be successful since we are not like most states in those regards.

    And yeah, TTAG is about the last place I would be going for information.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  5. #5
    Regular Member Rich B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Branford, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,910
    Here is some commentary from people better versed than I am:

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...resting_16.php

    Please remember, there are differences between Washington state and Connecticut and how they perform their registration. Our situation requires some extra thought. It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, this might go in Washington.
    Last edited by Rich B; 11-20-2012 at 11:07 AM.
    Connecticut Carry is dedicated to advancing and protecting the fundamental civil rights of the men and women of Connecticut to keep and bear arms for self defense of themselves and the state as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Connecticut.

    Join us and discuss the issues: http://ctcarry.com/Forum

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    OP is free to file a writ ....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •