Does anyone know of a supreme court decision/case where gun registration was rules unconstitutional? Not ownership, background checks, but registration itself?
Does anyone know of a supreme court decision/case where gun registration was rules unconstitutional? Not ownership, background checks, but registration itself?
Though there is no gun registration law, I believe that the background checks are a type of quasi registration. I am not sure exactly what info is transmitted during the background check (i.e. most definitely your personal info (duh), but maybe not the make and model of the gun you are purchasing, though probably the check is classified by the type of weapon [pistol or long gun]), but I have a hard time believing that after an individual has a background check done for the purchase of a firearm, that the inquiry just "poof" disappears as if it never happened. Even though they may not have the information "Joe Schmo owns a .45 Caliber Colt 1911, serial # xxxxxxx, etc), I think it's highly likely that they have "Joe Schmo, SSN XXXXXXXXX, underwent background check for firearm purchase on xx/xx/xxxx, possible firearms owner).
__________________
"Well if it ain't loaded and c0cked, it don't shoot." -Rooster Cogburn
I believe that there is a rule requiring that the background check information be discarded after a certain period of time. Not sure of the exact parameters, but, it seems to me there was some complaining several years ago that they were keeping the info too long.
Here is the result of a quick google search:
Quote:
Summary of Federal Law
Background Check Records: Until 2004, information on approved NICS background
checks was retained by NICS for ninety days. This information helped ATF deter fraud
and detect dealers who might be providing false information about a prohibited person, by
inspecting a dealer’s records within the ninety-day period and verifying that the records
matched the information earlier submitted to NICS. If discrepancies were found, ATF
could conduct a further investigation of the dealer to determine whether the dealer
submitted false information to NICS. In a recent review of trafficking investigations,
ATF determined that corrupt dealers are a significant source of trafficked firearms.
As of July 2004, approved purchaser information is no longer kept for ninety days but is
instead destroyed within twenty-four hours of the official NICS response to the dealer.
As a result, ATF inspectors are no longer able to compare the information on file with the
dealer to the information the dealer submitted to NICS. The Department of Justice
Inspector General noted that the shortened retention time makes it much easier for corrupt
firearm dealers to avoid detection. Federal law also specifically prohibits using NICS to
create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.
The FBI maintains indefinitely the records of prospective purchasers whose applications
are denied.
Last edited by ipscshooter; 01-26-2011 at 09:03 AM.
ipsc - I am not understanding the first paragraph. It seems to indicate that the information from the NICS would be obtained by the ATF, and the ATF would (at random? how would they choose?) audit an FFL's 4473s to see if there were discrepancies. Is this a correct understanding? I hope not. I had understood 4473s to be a paper trail only that the ATF would only see if a gun was used in a crime (e.g. a gun used in a crime was recovered, ATF goes to the manufacturer asks who they sold that gun to, ATF goes to the originial FFL and asks to see the corresponding 4473, and so on).
At any rate, the presence of the law that prohibits the use of NICS info to create any type of registration system (which is of no surprise to me) isn't enough to convince me that it doesn't happen on some level. It's the nature of gov't to be above the law.
__________________
"Well if it ain't loaded and c0cked, it don't shoot." -Rooster Cogburn
Does anyone know of a supreme court decision/case where gun registration was rules unconstitutional? Not ownership, background checks, but registration itself?
I know of no SCOTUS decision on registration schemes. Insofar as the last decision allowed the states to impose 'reasonable restrictions' on firearms, i will assume this would be affirmed as a 'states rights' issue and not in the perview of the Federal Government.
ipsc - I am not understanding the first paragraph. It seems to indicate that the information from the NICS would be obtained by the ATF, and the ATF would (at random? how would they choose?) audit an FFL's 4473s to see if there were discrepancies. Is this a correct understanding? I hope not. I had understood 4473s to be a paper trail only that the ATF would only see if a gun was used in a crime (e.g. a gun used in a crime was recovered, ATF goes to the manufacturer asks who they sold that gun to, ATF goes to the originial FFL and asks to see the corresponding 4473, and so on).
I'm not entirely sure what the process was either, but, I believe the point was that after 2004, they are no longer able to engage in this process.
Quote:
]At any rate, the presence of the law that prohibits the use of NICS info to create any type of registration system (which is of no surprise to me) isn't enough to convince me that it doesn't happen on some level. It's the nature of gov't to be above the law.
thanks for the info. For the "why?" I am in the midst of a gun control debate on another forum and trying to help the other 2 people who are not on teh "ban em all we don't need em" mentality.
I made a statement that I thought the registration was unconstitutional, and was asked to back it up. Looks like got it wrong.
thanks for the info. For the "why?" I am in the midst of a gun control debate on another forum and trying to help the other 2 people who are not on teh "ban em all we don't need em" mentality.
I made a statement that I thought the registration was unconstitutional, and was asked to back it up. Looks like got it wrong.
You're not wrong. It just hasn't been ruled on by the SCOTUS, yet. While there aren't any decisions stating that registration is unconstitutional, I believe there also aren't any decisions stating that it IS constitutional.
gun registration decision/question
