Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml

    An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.

    The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.

    Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

    In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.

    "There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

    If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.

    What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."

    The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.

    The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.

    Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.

    Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."

    There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).

    David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)

    I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."

    Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.

    But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.


    [line]


    Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.

    It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.

    Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml

    An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.
    And don't you dare speak out against the Seventh Circuit, or they'll arrest you, just like Hal Turner.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Sec. 62-260. Required.
    (a)All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division.

    (b)This section shall not apply to the following:

    (1)Firearms owned or under the direct control or custody of any federal, state or local governmental authority maintained in the course of official duties.

    (2)Duty-related firearms owned and possessed by peace officers who are not residents of the town.

    (3)Duty-related firearms owned or possessed by corrections officers, provided that such corrections officers are not residents of the town.

    (4)Firearms owned, manufactured or processed by licensed manufacturers of firearms, bulk transporters or licensed sellers of firearms at wholesale or retail, provided that such persons have all licenses as required by law.

    (5)Any nonresident of the town participating in any lawful recreational firearm-related activity in the town or on his way to or from such activity in another jurisdiction, provided that such weapon shall be unloaded and securely wrapped and that his possession or control of such firearm is lawful in the jurisdiction in which he resides.

    (6)Full-time certified peace officers.

    (7)Private security personnel who possess or control any firearm or ammunition within the town, provided that such firearms shall be owned and maintained by the security firm employing such personnel and shall be registered by the security firm in accordance with this division.

    (8)Those persons summoned by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace while actually engaged in assisting the peace officer. (Code 1958, § 38-26; Ord. No. 60-93A, § 1, 7-13-1993; Ord. No. 131-04, § 1, 6-22-2004)

    Sec. 62-261.
    Unregisterable firearms.
    No registration certificate shall be issued for any of the following types of firearms: (1)Sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, or short-barreled rifles.
    (2)Firearm mufflers or silencers.
    (3)Assault weapons, as defined in section 62-256.

    (Code 1958, § 38-27; Ord. No. 60-93A, § 1, 7-13-1993)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Actually, felons cannot be required to register their firearms; it violates their right against self-incrimination. Only the law-abiding are affected by this ruling.

    I'm glad I don't live in the Seventh Circuit's jurisdiction.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    Pointman wrote:
    Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml

    An appeals court in Chicago has ruled that the federal, state or local government can require all citizens to register their firearms under penalty of law.

    A three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that, even after the Supreme Court's high-profile gun rights decision last year, the Second Amendment is no obstacle to mandatory gun registration.

    The case arose out of the Chicago-area town of Cicero's mandatory registration requirement for firearms. A local man named John Justice was raided by the Cicero police on suspicion of violating business ordinances including improper storage of chemicals; the police discovered six unregistered handguns during the raid.

    Justice runs the Microcosm laminating company on 55th Ave., which sells special adhesives and does custom coatings for customers, and argued in a civil lawsuit that the local ordinance violated the Second Amendment. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

    In a 3-0 opinion published last Friday, the judges said that this was a different situation from the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which led the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s law effectively prohibiting the ownership of handguns.

    "There is a critical distinction between the D.C. ordinance struck down in Heller and the Cicero ordinance," the court said in an opinion written by Judge Diane Wood, a Clinton appointee. "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

    If the court had merely written that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states (a concept called incorporation), this would not have been especially newsworthy. After all, a different three-judge panel from the 7th Circuit already has rejected the incorporation argument.

    What's unusual -- and makes this case remarkable -- is that Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered," she wrote. "Nor does Heller purport to invalidate any and every regulation on gun use."

    The other judges on the panel were William Bauer, a Ford appointee, and John Tinder, a George W. Bush appointee.

    The Legal Community Against Violence's summary of firearm laws says that in Cicero, "all firearms in the City must be registered prior to taking possession of the firearm" and that registration certificates must be renewed every two years.

    Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in an interview that registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.

    Last week's decision should remind us that Heller won't be the last word on gun rights, Gottlieb said. "It starts building blocks on a foundation -- you don't win everything in one case," he said. "As you and I know, criminals aren't going to register their guns. Prohibited persons aren't going to register their guns. Someone prohibited from owning a gun isn't going to register it. Registration would apply only to law-abiding citizens."

    There is no national registration requirement for firearms, although anyone buying a gun from a dealer fills out a Form 4473, which the dealer must keep on file in paper form for 20 years. My home state of California says that all handguns be registered, but it's not as strict as Cicero's requirement (rifles and shotguns are exempt from registration).

    David Kopel, research director at the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute, said: "I think Heller at least hints that (Cicero's regulation) might be unconstitutional. Registration of non-commercial transactions might be unconstitutional. At least it leaves the question open." (Kopel has pointed out that four Chicago suburbs repealed their handgun bans post-Heller.)

    I happened to interview Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, earlier on Wednesday and asked him about what the Heller decision means for gun control. He replied: "Outside D.C.'s gun ban and perhaps Chicago's, there really probably aren't that many gun laws that are going to be affected by Heller. What I've argued is that Heller, in a way, took the extremes off the table. It said you can't have a total gun ban like D.C.'s. They also took the other extreme off the table, which is that anyone can have any gun, anywhere, any time."

    Read literally, the Seventh Circuit's decision means that the U.S. Congress could enact a mandatory registration requirement tomorrow -- a law saying that you must report your handguns, rifles, and shotguns to the FBI and ATF or go to prison -- and at least one federal circuit would uphold it as constitutional.

    But would the Supreme Court justices? A number of gun cases, including one brought by the National Rifle Association, another out of New York, and a third out of California, are headed in their direction. By next summer we may have an answer.

    [line]


    Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.

    It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.

    Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)
    Well, we'll see if any of these cases go to SCOTUS.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    I am a pround NRA member and was wondering if the NRA is making plans to appeal the ruling?
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    I think those justices should "register" their mouths.
    Wood went out of her way to say that even if the Second Amendment does apply to states, mandatory gun registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some weapons, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice's guns fall within the group that may not be registered,"
    Let's change that to:
    Wood went out of her way to say that even if theFirst Amendment does apply to states, mandatorymouth registration would be perfectly constitutional. "The town does prohibit the registration of some peoples mouths, but there is no suggestion in the complaint or the record that Justice'smouth falls within the group that may not be registered,"
    What a bunch of Keeerap!
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Norfolk, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,000

    Post imported post

    falcon1 wrote:
    Actually, felons cannot be required to register their firearms; it violates their right against self-incrimination. Only the law-abiding are affected by this ruling.

    I'm glad I don't live in the Seventh Circuit's jurisdiction.
    Wouldn't this also apply to LACs? If I have to go register a firearm, wouldn't I be admitting to having an unregistered firearm in the first place?

Posting Permissions

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