Judge says Baltimore gun registry unconstitutional

[hack89]

Baltimore's gun offender registry is unconstitutional, a Circuit Court judge ruled Friday, calling into question one of the city's signature programs against gun violence.

Judge Alfred Nance said the Police Department had "failed or refused to comply" with establishing clear regulations for the registry, which required people convicted of gun crimes to provide addresses and other information with the city every six months for a period of three years.

The city judge also called the program, created in 2007, "unconstitutionally vague and overly broad." Among the data registrants must provide, according to a list, is "any other information required by the rules and regulations adopted by the Police Commissioner," language that Nance said appeared to give police "limitless discretion." The city said it was considering whether to appeal.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-gun-registry-judge-20110408,0,2937442.story

[inademv]

1. I wonder

if he would rule the same way in favor of sex offenders.

[hack89]

4. Only if the law was "unconstitutionally vague and overly broad." nt

[inademv]

10. Registry laws in many states are such that

once a person is on the list, they are there for life. Additionally, things like statutory rape by boys under 18 are considered sex offenses that are thrown into the registry and are then forced to do the whole notifying their neighbors and being forced to live X miles from a school.

So yeah, I'd say that in most cases it is "unconstitutionally vague and overly broad" at least in the same sense that this judge seems to think that the gun registry is.

[PavePusher]

6. Last I checked, there was no right to be or own a sex offender.

Maybe I missed a memo?

[inademv]

11. Just like there's no right to commit a gun crime

[PavePusher]

13. Correct.

But you seem to be trying to conflate a legal, Constitutionally protected action with a criminal, non-protected action.

I don't think it's a fair comparison.

Edit: Disregard, I missed part of the O.P. and misinterpreted the entire subject of the conversation. Trying to do too many things at once, my apologies .

[cleanhippie]

17. \

[Euromutt]

9. I would certainly hope so

There is, frankly, a better case to be made for maintaining registries of violent firearm offenders and burglars than of sex offenders. But even so, it needs to be reasonably feasible to comply with registration requirements.

[cleanhippie]

16. Considering one goes through due process to get on a sex offender registry

your analogy is worthless.

[inademv]

23. Are you saying that people who commit gun crimes

don't go through due process?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

25. To get on the list, yes... there was due process.

But there should also be strict scrutiny when you consider curtailing the rights of people. Giving a Police Comissioner arbitrary limitless authority over your ability to comply with registry requirements is NOT constitutional. There is a requirement in the legislation that basically equates to "the Commissioner can require *whatever* he wants and if you're on the list you must comply".

An absolute authority requirement, as found in the registry legislation, may violate two requirements for achieving scrutiny

Per Wikipedia...

To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

[inademv]

35. Still not seeing how it is different

from sex offender lists.

[Glassunion]

37. It very well may not be different.

Is the sex offender list plagued by the same issues as outlined in the OP? If so then there would be no difference.

It is not the list that is being contended. It is its lack of establishing clear regulations for the registry and unconstitutionally vague and overly broad language.

[cleanhippie]

38. I misread the article.

I failed to realize that this was a post-due process list for offenders, my apologies.

But GSC outlines the problems with this list and why it is unconstitutional.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. Are the requirements for sex offender registry arbitrary or well defined?

If they're not well defined, like the gun-offender registry in the OP, then perhaps the sex offender registry needs some judicial review as well. Unconstitutional means for tracking sex offenders should not be allowed either - if that is also the case.

[Taitertots]

2. Has the registry lead to a single case being solved or crime prevented?

What possible justification could there be to keep it?

[Avant Guardian]

3. Yes

[DonP]

5. I'm sorry you seemed to have hit send before offering any kind of proof of your claim.

I'm sure you meant to add a cite of a crime being solved when you said "Yes".

Or do you just assume everyone will take you at your word that the registry, unlike all the other versions that have been tried, is somehow a success at stopping or solving crime?

[PavePusher]

7. And.....?

Don't you just love one-word responses?

[cleanhippie]

18. Really? Proof please.

I think you made it up, though, and we will not hear back from you.

[Hoyt]

12. Well, if a gun criminal knows they are on a watch list, maybe they won't accumulate a weapons cache.

On other hand, I can see how many pro-gunners would feel better if they knew they would escape scrutiny if they use their gun improperly.

[PavePusher]

14. Self-delete, I missed part of the O.P. and misinterpreted the entire conversation.

[DonP]

15. You seem confused between "pro gunners" and criminals

There is a difference. One is law abiding and the other is not. But you're confused about many things - and very shrill about them too.

[Hoyt]

21. That's what the registry is for -- a former law-abiding gun owner who commits a gun crime.

If you have not committed a gun crime, you won't end up on the list. Don't really see the problem.

It makes sure law enforcement knows where gun criminals are, so LE can make they don't acquire another one, two, three, . . . . . . .

So what is your fear of the registry?

[inademv]

22. I can understand the argument

that if the parameters of who gets added to the registry and what information is added are vague to the point of confusion that it might be a workable complaint but not really unconstitutional. I mean, hell, we have the "terrorist watch list" and the "no fly list" that I've not heard any complaints about from the right or from explicitly pro-gun groups (other than complaints that some people on those lists would be barred from buying guns).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. The judge has no problem with a registry or the concept of registering gun offenders...

it's the execution and wording of the legislation that the judge is ruling against.
He's claiming that the merits required for complicity are "unconstitutionally vague".

Among the data registrants must provide, according to a list, is "any other information required by the rules and regulations adopted by the Police Commissioner," language that Nance said appeared to give police "limitless discretion."

A Police Commissioner could request *ANY* information, no matter how personal or private, and by law a person in the registry *MUST* comply. I agree with the judge, the above requirement for complicity is unconstitutionally vague. The outline for complying with the registry must be thoroughly laid out with no ambiguity. To be constitutional, due process and strict scrutiny must be applied wen curtailing rights... giving the Police Commissioner essentially complete authority/discretion does not meet constitutional guidelines.

I do not object a registry, but I do object to unconstitutional means in achieving one.

[DonP]

27. The same as my "fear" over tracking your library books

Using your logic, "if you haven't done anything wrong you won't mind us searching your house/car/papers/library record - right?" . That's not how things work in this country, unless of course you're Bush or Cheney who thought that kind of 4th amendment violation was just fine to protect us all from "Terrah".

The police already know who committed crimes with guns, it's in their own records. The same as they can already track the serial number on any firearm purchased as part of an ongoing investigation but not for a fishing expedition.

Are you suggesting that somehow a robbery committed with a knife or by brute force is somehow less of a crime than one committed with a gun?

[Hoyt]

30. The registry is for people who HAVE DONE something WRONG. Read the account.

Or are you for helping them do something wrong again?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Seems like you're claiming "The ends justify *any* means".

If I am reading it wrong, please do correct my interpretation.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

29. Criminals who have used guns are already on a registry

It's called being a convicted felon.

[Hoyt]

31. But, no one checks on them to make sure they haven't acquired a gun at a gun show, or on the street,

The only time they would get checked is if they tried to buy a gun in the places that actually abide by the law and check on one's background. Unfortunately, there are crooked gun dealers, gun show loopholes, private transactions, etc.

[Taitertots]

19. That doesn't sound like a sufficient reason to keep the watch list

Especially, if there is no documented decrease in gun crime.

No one is going to escape scrutiny. They just won't have to deal with an additional arbitrary system that has no demonstrable effect.

[rl6214]

20. How do you define a weapons cache?

Is it only a cache if something illegal is done with them?

[DonP]

28. "Weapons cache = 1 more firearm than the poster owns"

I haven't even seen the news people using that or the old arsenal canard anymore. Maybe people are waking up and realizing they were sold a line of BS?

When one of my gun control minded sisters was stunned by an article that referenced an "arsenal with 2,000 rounds of ammunition", I showed her a couple of bricks of .22 LR and one or two loose cartridges and told her by news media standards she was now holding "over 1,000 rounds" in her hands, was it still that scary?

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. I thought it was "1 more firearm than the poster thinks the subject should have"

Or-

A .22 derringer in the wrong hands is a 'dangerous arsenal'. 50 semi-automatic pistols in the hands of a law abiding person is a

nice collection....

[oneshooter]

40. A "arsenal" is where weapons are built. A "armory" is where they are stored. n/t

[DonP]

41. Correct, but it doesn't matter to the media, they're all AK-47s anyway! Ha!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. So a rarely used and ineffective list is going to stop a criminal from doing illegal things?

Real sound reasoning you have there

[Euromutt]

8. Note that Judge Nance didn't take issue with the principle, just with the execution

Nance said the city could legally create a gun offender registry, but the Police Department had failed to give "reasonable guidance and fair notice to the public" on the specifics of the law. "The rules and regulations are not simply unclear, they are unknown and unreviewable outside of the walls of the Police Department," he wrote.

Prosecutors argued that there is ample discussion of the expectations — at sentencing hearings, through a printed acknowledgment form, and inquiries at the time of registration, according to court papers

Nance disagreed, saying that placed the burden on defendants to "go to the bowels of the Police Department to learn what constitutes the law and then instantly comply with its requirements or be found in violation of the law."

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable take to me; if "ignorance of the law is no defense," you have to be able to figure out what the law actually is.

[Glassunion]

34. +1.

[Katya Mullethov]

36. Endless needless and most importantly vague laws and regulations

Bellwethers of tyranny and or serious fuckings .