Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

[V65Magnafan]

Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

(AP)
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.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08...y5253857.shtml

[PocketProtector]

This is exactly why Federal Judge appointments are so important. How do you get a majority of an appeals court to vote against the Constitution and their own sworn oath. Infreakingcredible.

[V65Magnafan]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd still like to read the decision. Off the top of my head, I would guess that the word "infringe" had something to do with it.

The judges argued that since gun owners still own their guns, their rights are not infringed. However, suppose a state writes a law stating that all persons must register their guns or go to jail for ten years and pay a one-hundred thousand dollar fine. If you don't obey that bureacratic law, are your second amendment rights now infringed?

Welcome to lots of litigation. Or a revolution. As most of us know, when Paul Revere precipitated the Battle of Lexington in 1775 by yelling "The British are coming!", what he actually meant was that the British were coming to confiscate the Americans' guns.

Welcome to Kanada.

[Eugene V. Debs]

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd still like to read the decision. Off the top of my head, I would guess that the word "infringe" had something to do with it.

The judges argued that since gun owners still own their guns, their rights are not infringed. However, suppose a state writes a law stating that all persons must register their guns or go to jail for ten years and pay a one-hundred thousand dollar fine. If you don't obey that bureacratic law, are your second amendment rights now infringed?

Welcome to lots of litigation. Or a revolution. As most of us know, when Paul Revere precipitated the Battle of Lexington in 1775 by yelling "The British are coming!", what he actually meant was that the British were coming to confiscate the Americans' guns.

Welcome to Kanada.

Have no fear my Canuckistani brother. American liberation forces are on the march North:



In all seriousness, this decision does suck big ones.

[mjfletcher]

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."

Bold is an infringement, so to use her argument of "if it applied to the states" the ordinance would be illegal simply because it prohibits registering some weapons. As to whether mandatory registration violates the 2A, if a fee is charged you've just violated it by charging people to exercise a right.

[LittleRedToyota]

the entire US court system needs remedial training on the definition of the word "infringe"...and the words "shall not be"...and the concept of intellectual honesty.

[mjfletcher]

the entire US court system needs remedial training on the definition of the word "infringe"...and the words "shall not be"...and the concept of intellectual honesty.

That's on the agenda, right after remedial education for the american people on the concepts of republics, independent states, limited government, and individual responsibility.

[phillyd2]

That's on the agenda, right after remedial education for the american people on the concepts of republics, independent states, limited government, and individual responsibility.

lol hope there will be a lunch break in between

[V65Magnafan]

Have no fear my Canuckistani brother. American liberation forces are on the march North:
In all seriousness, this decision does suck big ones.

My Canadian wife and I have discussed how may U.S. Constitutionalist refugees we could take in. (Half serious).

[Yellowfin]

This is exactly why Federal Judge appointments are so important. How do you get a majority of an appeals court to vote against the Constitution and their own sworn oath. Infreakingcredible.

Simple. They have Daley's goon squad outside the court house waiting for them if they don't rule that way. They have to live in that town and they know exactly who is in charge and they don't get that job if they don't know it. As farfetched as it may sound, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Daley would have them killed if they didn't rule how he wants. He controls the other courts and the police, so who's going to stop him?