It's time to eliminate handgun registration in Michigan

[oneshooter]

In 2008 Michigan admitted that the farce that was the handgun "Safety Inspection" system was simply handgun registration in everything but name. This law required anyone who acquired a handgun to bring it to the local police department within 10 days for a mandatory "Safety Inspection."

The whole concept of the "Safety Inspection" had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control. It was devised back in 1927 as a way to keep handguns out of the hands of "undesirables." Local authorities could deny anyone (typically a minority) their right to keep a handgun by the simple means of declaring any handgun they brought in for the mandatory "Safety Inspection" to be "unsafe" and then confiscate the handgun.

Simply put: This was a joke, and the joke was on the law-abiding Michigan gun owner. The "Safety Inspection" consisted of a bored clerk copying down the owner's name and the gun's serial number. This did nothing to ensure the handgun was safe, but merely gave the police a chance to register the owner and the gun into a centralized state database run by the Michigan State Police.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30265-Detroit-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d16-Its-time-to-eliminate-handgun-registration-in-Michigan

Not my state, so no comment.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[msongs]

1. yes the 2nd amendment allows 6 year olds to take guns to school so lets allow that too :-) nt

[proteus_lives]

2. Usual fail-canard.

:eyes:

[oneshooter]

3. Do you have any idea what you are talking about? n/t

[spin]

5. Obviously not. Sad, very sad. (n/t)

[GreenStormCloud]

6. It would be nice if the pro-gun-control people would actually debate.

Posting comments like that contributes nothing.

[slackmaster]

7. They've got nothing but straw men and appeals to scorn

They haven't put out anything new in about 20 years.

[X_Digger]

4. Has it solved any crime?

Has it "made someone safer"?

*snort*

[safeinOhio]

8. While the safety check was a farce

and has been discontinued, the purchase permit system is valid. It requires both a background check and a test on gun safety, law and operation. This eleminates the private sale loop hole that allows criminals to purchase guns from non dealers without any background check. I found it no problem when I lived in Michigan and wish it was adopted nationally. It is similer in about 7 other states and there has been no Constitutional challenges to it. This system of first obtianing a permit to purchase, taking a test and getting a background check at the police station is a common sense law that can help reduce those can not legally own a gun from easy access.
1. It does not violate the 2nd Amendment
2. Reduces illegal sales
3. Requires hand gun buyers to pass a test on laws and safe gun practices.
4. A way to require a background check at a low cost.
5. Is waved for those that have a CCW because they have had more class room time and proved they already have passed a state and federal background test.
6. Does not apply to long guns.

[X_Digger]

9. There have been no challenges because they're state measures..

.. and the second amendment hasn't been incorporated against the states (yet).

You assume it's constitutional only because there wasn't standing to challenge it in the past.

After McDonald, however, expect a challenge.

[safeinOhio]

10. where would the conflict come from the

wording of the 2nd
“ 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.

Are you saying that people in Michigan, some how can't keep and bear arms? Other than those already restricted by Federal laws, how do these laws infringe?


infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.) : making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright.
• act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on : his legal rights were being infringed | < intrans. > I wouldn't infringe on his privacy.

No right to keep and bear arms is limitted or undermined. To say different would be to say, having to pay money to buy an arm infringes as that restricts those with no money. Why doesn't a Fedral background check not infringe and a state one would? When I lived in Michigan nothing infringed me. I was able to buy a handgun and keep in ready to secure the free state. There were no restrictions, or different than most any other state in keeping and bearing a long gun. Incorporation will not in any way affect these kinds of laws, I'm willing to bet you any handgun I own against any that you own. We will know shortly how much incorporation will take place. The only reason these laws are not at the Fedral level has to do with intrastate commerce, not the 2nd Amendment.

[X_Digger]

11. The conflict would be..

.. much like fees to register to vote. (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections)
.. much like 'registration' to distribute leaflets (Talley v. California)
.. much like 'licenses' to go door to door proselytizing (Cantwell v. Connecticut)

Once the second amendment is incorporated, and has a level of scrutiny applied, any state or local bar to exercise of that right (infringement, per constitutional law) has to pass the test.

We know 'rational basis' is out (see the Heller text), and 'intermediate' is a stretch considering the language in Heller. I'm betting on 'strict scrutiny' (what the first amendment is protected by during judicial review).

Strict scrutiny means that any infringement of a right must meet certain criteria:
1. Must serve a compelling government interest- this interest must be necessary or crucial, not just preferred. This interest must be concrete, not a generalization or vague 'maintain order' kind of interest.
2. Must be narrowly tailored- it must target the compelling interest squarely. Too broad, and it fails this test.
3. Must be the least restrictive (to the right being infringed) means- Another less restrictive means must not exist that achieves the same compelling interest.

So, given those criteria.

1. What compelling government interest that is necessary or crucial does registration serve?

"Keeping guns out of criminals' hands" seems to be the most common reason cited. Funnily enough, there is little evidence that it actually does this.

2. Is it narrowly tailored to only affect those identified in the interest?

Since criminals can't be jailed for failing to register their handguns (US v. Haynes), no, this doesn't fit. It only affects, and can be held against, those who are otherwise law-abiding (and therefore eligible to own guns.)

3. Is there another way to achieve the same result that infringes the second amendment less?

A single law? Probably not. Mandatory, non-plea-bargainable sentences for gun crimes would be a start, though.

If any one of those three criteria can't be met, the measure fails to pass strict scrutiny.

No right to keep and bear arms is limitted or undermined.

Straw man.

Nobody claimed that it is. No person had standing to challenge any state restrictions due to the fact that the second amendment has never been held to apply to the states. (There have been state challenges that relied on the state analogues of the second amendment in their states' respective founding documents.) Once it is incorporated, then various state and local laws will be challenged, and the 'test' decided by the SCOTUS will be the lens through which these laws are judged.

To say different would be to say, having to pay money to buy an arm infringes as that restricts those with no money.

I have a right to privacy. That doesn't mean the government must buy me a paper shredder. Nobody's asserted anything like that. That's the difference between 'may' and 'can'. Permission versus ability. Generally, government can't deny me permission to exercise a right; that doesn't mean it has to give me the ability to do so.

Why doesn't a Fedral background check not infringe and a state one would?

Who says that a federal background check is infringement? We're talking about registration.

We will know shortly how much incorporation will take place.

Incorporation is binary- yes or no. Or did you mean that yes, it will be incorporated, but we'll have to see which level of scrutiny is attached?

The only reason these laws are not at the Fedral level has to do with intrastate commerce, not the 2nd Amendment.

Have anything to back that up? If you look at the transcripts of the congressional debates surrounding the 1968 Gun Control Act, you'll find that it originally had handgun registration, but it was cut due to constitutional concerns. (Felons and ex-convicts have already given up many of their rights by their actions and those of the State, those protected by the second amendment among them. Disbarring their use by felons was agreed as constitutional in the debates.)

[Statistical]

12. Very nice rebuttal.

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections is a very good one.

Eventually I think fees on licenses will be found Unconstitutional much like poll tax was found Unconstitutional while many may think that will never happen never is a long time. Prior to 1966 it was 100% legal to charge for people to vote and it some respects it does make sense, elections are expensive to operate.

Today the idea of someone charging to vote in an election would seem insane yet less than 50 years ago it was legal.


From Harper v. Virginia:

It is argued that a State may exact fees from citizens for many different kinds of licenses; that, if it can demand from all an equal fee for a driver's license, it can demand from all an equal poll tax for voting. But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting, is limited to the power to fix qualifications.

...

To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination is irrelevant. In this context -- that is, as a condition of obtaining a ballot -- the requirement of fee paying causes an "invidious" discrimination (Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 316 U. S. 541) that runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

Essentially the court makes two statements.
First that in the case of elections the sole responsibility/power of the State is to "fix qualifications". To use more modern language the State is responsible to ensure only eligible people vote, only eligible people run, and the proper person is declared winner.

By adding a tax on voting the courts find the State errs in determining qualification of voters by disenfranchising poorer voters.

Next the court makes statement that any fee no matter how small is Unconstitutional. Any tax no matter how small has the effect of disenfranchisement some percentage of the eligible population. Someone will not be able to pay and even more may be able to pay but choose not to because of the cost.

Sorry to go off topic but I think Harper can eventually be used as a precedent to get all fees associated with firearms found Unconstitutional because it violates equal protection under the law. Poorer citizen's rights are infringed by excessive cost.

[X_Digger]

14. Here's another good quote from Harper..

"a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

[safeinOhio]

13. I don't think fees are important to

a law that reqires a permit to purchase. It can be done just like voter registration and cost nothing. I said nothing about registering all handguns, only the sale of them. That destroys most of your arguments. As it is already a Federal law for background checks on the sale of guns by dealers, there is nothing new involved with extending that to private sales. While not infringing on ownership of those already legally qualified, it only regulates the sale of handguns. Federal laws regulate sale of dynomite, stock, real estate and many items. You assume I am talking about registration. That would require constitutional problems, not so regulating the sales of handguns. Can Federal law violate rights? Sure they can, draft laws violate most incorportaed rights that I can think of. Why? "compelling government interest". Just like the right to property, fees, taxes and registration of deeds, all kinds of restrictions on a fundamental right.
You are not going to see unfettered sales of guns. Not going to happen.

[X_Digger]

15. Of course we're talking about registration

from the article in the OP-

"The "Safety Inspection" consisted of a bored clerk copying down the owner's name and the gun's serial number. This did nothing to ensure the handgun was safe, but merely gave the police a chance to register the owner and the gun into a centralized state database run by the Michigan State Police.

Last year the legislature finally 'fessed up to the joke. They eliminated the ruse of the "Safety Inspection," and instead just required Michigan pistol owners to fill out the registration paperwork on their own and provide it their local police, who will then forward it to the Michigan State Police."

(link to form- http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ri-060_6454_7.pdf )

I said nothing about registering all handguns, only the sale of them.

Michigan's law covers both sales, gifts, and even moving to Michigan with pistols you already own.

http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html#Pistol_Registration__Purchase____Transfer

5. In Michigan, what is a License to Purchase and is one needed in every case where a pistol is acquired?

MCL 28.422 A License to Purchase is a license required prior to acquisition of a pistol by purchase or gift.

<snip>

10. I have just moved to Michigan from another state. How much time do I have to register my pistols?

MCL 28.422 Upon establishing legal residency, you should immediately contact your local law enforcement agency, pass the basic safety questionnaire, and complete a License to Purchase.

[safeinOhio]

16. I'm talking about

registering the sales of all handguns. Not going back on those already legally owned or long guns. This I feel would be constitutional. I find no problem with registering all handguns, but understand the problems involved with trying to go back to record those already owned. Registering all sales is different and only compliance would have to be solved. Enforcement could be done at the sale of a handgun. If the owner has a gun and tries to sell it and it has not be registered after the last sale or if in possession after a registered sale and not recorded by new owner, strict penalties is one way.
You come up with all the reasons we can't get illegal guns off the street and don't think illegally owned guns are a problem. The public does and if gun crime goes up, will demand much stricter rules than I'm proposing.

[X_Digger]

17. Yet gun crime is going down..

How do you justify arguably ineffective measures (can't be applied to felons) that only targets a small percentage of guns used in crime (per DOJ's 'firearm use by offender' data) while crime is going down?

Seems like a solution in search of a problem, to me. Or a solution way out of proportion to the problem.

[safeinOhio]

22. Yes gun crime is going down.

Oil well spills were rare until a few weeks ago. Habeas corpus and the 4th Amendment were safe along with hassle free flying until 9/11. It only takes one incident to change the public view on anything. If the Hutaree militia had completed it's alleged plans to murder a cop and then kill hundreds more at the funeral, gun control on assault type weapons would be in question by the public now. If the NY car bomber had decided to spray bullet instead of a car bomb? Think about all of the youtube videos of those yelling drill baby drill and how stupid they look now.

My solutions may be way out of proportion to any threats I see to my Second Amendment rights. I may seem to have a solution looking for a problem. Just like those that were against deep drilling or warned of terror attacks before 9/11. I think it is the responsibility of those that own and use guns responsibly to look forward and do everything possible to prevent the types of things that do happen in this world. Will the public think the NRA was a part of the problem or there to help prevent the problem? If the public sees gun organization as helping to keep guns out of the hands of criminal and terrorist, they will have a seat at the table when a tragedy happens and solutions are demanded by the public, like on oil spills, no one is listening to BP at the moment.

[X_Digger]

23. So.. Chicken little is eventually right given enough screaming?

The public is less and less swayed by the pols and the media pissing and moaning. People are more rational about problems and solutions.

How much extra gun legislation was passed post-Columbine? ATF stepped up enforcement.

How much extra gun legislation was passed post-VT? Virginia made sure it was reporting mental health records to NICS.

People realize that laws that are narrowly targeted at the problem area is better than bullshit feel-good broad strokes that impact joe six pack more than they do the local crook.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. I am personally in favor of a registration scheme crafted BY GUN OWNERS

And I have little love for the NRA, BUT, the NRA itself, to the best of my knowledge, always promotes enforcement of the laws, has proposed and pressured actual gun control measures like the NFA registry into law, as well as NICS, and some other measures.

If you think they 'don't have a seat at the table', I think you are strongly mistaken.

As a for instance, if you can find an organization that puts more money into firearms training materials for safe handling and use, by all means, point them out.

[oneshooter]

21. The "coflict" is in the way it was being , and may still be used.

"The whole concept of the "Safety Inspection" had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control. It was devised back in 1927 as a way to keep handguns out of the hands of "undesirables." Local authorities could deny anyone (typically a minority) their right to keep a handgun by the simple means of declaring any handgun they brought in for the mandatory "Safety Inspection" to be "unsafe" and then confiscate the handgun."


Gee, if the cops don't like you, you have no rights.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[PavePusher]

18. Would similar restrictions violate the First Amendment?

If they don't violate one, how could they violate another...

But I bet the screams of outrage could be heard several solar systems away.

[oneshooter]

20. Would you still like it if it was extended to ALL firearms? n/t

[Taitertots]

19. The Safety inspection card says it doesn't mean the gun was checked for safety

It is absolutely not a safety inspection, it is a handgun registry. Even calling it a safety inspection is double think.