Government Can Require Gun Registration

chefdennis

Veteran Expediter
from barry's state.....This will be in court for a few yrs.....

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

Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

registration is terrible public policy, especially because world history shows that it often leads to confiscation.


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.

I haven't been able to find the full text of Section 62-260 online (update: I've found it and attached it below), 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.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
It makes no difference what ones personal views are or the reason someone might have that view
What matters is what our constitution says.
 
Last edited:

greg334

Veteran Expediter
OVM,
here is the thing and most miss this. It is not the registration that matters, it will be just like health card cards with all the medical records on them.

But that's not what wanted to say.

Gun Dealers have to follow something to the effect that they can be inspected at any time of day or night and a refusal means they are out of business. Detroit did exactly this to rid themselves of a lot of home run businesses where they had a city permit.

Now I can see where a city like DC can harass the people by demanding that they produce their registered weapon and when they can't arrest them.

Registration is not the issue, it is what abuses that it leads to.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Well.... I don't know... you have to wait and see.

One thing that you may be forgetting is that people have their own little agendas and politics is full of the little people.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
and registration does not violate the constitution...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Infringe, frangere, to break, and infringere to break or weaken, even in the smallest fraction thereof.

What part of "infringed" do these judges, and apparently semi-Canadians, not understand?

A right that "shall not be infringed" means no strings attached, no conditions, no encroachments, it means unencumbered, it means without restrictions. Registration and/or licensing is a restriction, an encroachment, an impediment to the right to keep and bear arms.

It's doesn't say "sort of shouldn't be infringed," or "may not be infringed, except with some exceptions as allowed by law," it says, wholly unambiguously, "shall not be infringed" in very Commandment-like language.

If someone wants to own a gun, something they have an absolute right to, but they don't want to register the gun, then if you require them to register, you are de facto infringing on their free and unencumbered right to keep and bear arms.

The thing is, our country came with an Owner's Manual. We're supposed to read it, cuuuuuz it details how the country works and how we're supposed to operate it. If you attempt to operate the country in a manner which is inconsistent with the Owner's Manual, damage to the country or personal injury may result. The Manual has a list of things we must do, and a list of things we must not do. It's not a menu in a Chinese restaurant where you get to pick one from Column A and two from Column B, and be able to make substitutions. It's a list. Always stick to the list. If the list says something "shall not be infringed," then, well, we're not to infringe it, in any way.

Judge Diane Wood said, "
Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

Judge Diane Wood needs to be repeatedly and relentlessly bіtchslapped by a 12 year old crack :censoredsign: for not reading and fully understanding the Owner's Manual before attempting to operate the country.
 
Last edited:

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Infringe, frangere, to break, and infringere to break or weaken, even in the smallest fraction thereof.

What part of "infringed" do these judges, and apparently semi-Canadians, not understand?

A right that "shall not be infringed" means no strings attached, no conditions, no encroachments, it means unencumbered, it means without restrictions. Registration and/or licensing is a restriction, an encroachment, an impediment to the right to keep and bear arms.

It's doesn't say "sort of shouldn't be infringed," or "may not be infringed, except with some exceptions as allowed by law," it says, wholly unambiguously, "shall not be infringed" in very Commandment-like language.

If someone wants to own a gun, something they have an absolute right to, but they don't want to register the gun, then if you require them to register, you are de facto infringing on their free and unencumbered right to keep and bear arms.

The thing is, our country came with an Owner's Manual. We're supposed to read it, cuuuuuz it details how the country works and how we're supposed to operate it. If you attempt to operate the country in a manner which is inconsistent with the Owner's Manual, damage to the country or personal injury may result. The Manual has a list of things we must do, and a list of things we must not do. It's not a menu in a Chinese restaurant where you get to pick one from Column A and two from Column B, and be able to make substitutions. It's a list. Always stick to the list. If the list says something "shall not be infringed," then, well, we're not to infringe it, in any way.

Judge Diane Wood said, "Cicero has not prohibited gun possession in the town. Instead, it has merely regulated gun possession under Section 62-260 of its ordinance."

Judge Diane Wood needs to be repeatedly and relentlessly bіtchslapped by a 12 year old crack :censoredsign: for not reading and fully understanding the Owner's Manual before attempting to operate the country.


I agree, for the most part. What about violent felons? What about prisoners who are incarcerated? What about mentally challenged or deranged people? What do we do there? Unfortunately I do not see how this right can be unbridled or
quite simply, not infringed upon.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
There are only TWO choices, freedom or NO freedom. The ONLY way to insure that NO felon EVER gets their hands on a gun is to kill them all. EVERY other method infrings on a varity of the Rights of the REST of us law abiding citizens!! Like, Innocense before guilt. Probable cause. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In England the cops are allowed to check any home at any time that has a registerd firearm. NO warrent, un-anounced, anytime of the day or night. They can check the guns and the owners have to account for ALL of the ammunition that is registered as well. Governments cannot be trusted and Barry and Co. can be trusted less than most.

NO Registration!! Don't EVEN TRY IT!!
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
I did NOT support the Patriot Act. There were PARTS that were needed to fix a problem or two but the rest SUCKED!! It is NOT a matter of having anything to hide it is a NUNJA thing. You cannot trust them. It WILL most likely get out of hand. Like back in the late 60's or early 70's when Chicago tried to outlaw Saterday Night Specails. NO one in government could define what one was, SO, they just said that ANY handgun .25cal or smaller was one and set about melting a whole bunch of VERY expensive target pistols owned by law abiding people who shot in competition. OH YEAH, Barry is a PART of the Chicago political machine!! :eek:
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It was NOT the forces that were the problem, it was roadblocks put in MAINLY during the Clinton administration that did NOT allow US intell agencies to share information. That caused a lot of duplication of efforts, a huge waste of scarce dollars and allowed for IMPORTANT information to fall through the cracks. It was those roadblocks AND the closing of MOST of our sites that were targeting terrorists that led to the intell failure that allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.

A lot of the rest was NOT good, some be design I am sure, and some to TRY to bring our intell laws up to snuff to be able to handle modern techknology, like cell phones etc.

It DOES need reviewed and the offending passages struck down. THIS bunch should NOT be the ones to do that. They have NO clue in these or military matters. They just need to go away, QUICKLY!!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Turtle..thanx for the insight on infringed..I did not take that into consideration...BUT
LRE brings up a good point...there are some bad azz people out there, nut cases so to speak, known violent people...how do we as a society separate the curds from the whey so to speak....

Are you promoting a wide open system to where we just hand a gun to anyone regardless of past record....do we arm the Hells Angels as not to infringe on their rights to gun ownership? Lets arm the Crips and the Bloods legally...your definition even makes a simple background check an "infringement"

Whats the answer....

It's not an easy answer, but as an example, what's the difference between the Bloods and the Crips being armed legally or illegally? They're still armed. Gun control and gun registration fails, utterly, to keep them from being armed. So the only people who are inconvenienced with the burden of gun registration or background checks are, ta-da, everybody else. Ergo, ipso factum, gun registration and background checks don't work.

When someone commits a crime, they have taken the liberties or rights of others, and society demands that the criminal also give up some liberties and rights in order to pay for their crime. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with one of those rights they would have to give up is gun ownership.

Once a felon has done their time and paid their debt to society, then they should have all of their rights restored, including gun ownership. If that's a problem and the felon is still likely to be a menace to society, then obviously they shouldn't be out amongst society at all, with or without guns. If the convicted felon is willing to give up his right to keep and bear arms in order to get out of prison, and people think he should be let out with the restriction of no guns, fine, let him out, but if he ever gets caught with a gun at any time in the future, the repercussions for him should be in the ultimate extreme, since he will have proven that he cannot live amongst society.

But there should be no background check. "your definition even makes a simple background check an "infringement"" It is. The background check becomes a condition one must meet in order to exercise a right, and when that happens it is no longer a right, it is a conditional privilege.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Not to mention just how many other rights are "trampled on" by those FBI background checks. MORE infringment of our most very BASIC freedoms.
 
Top