Are gun registries and forced notification of gun sales legal?

[Aim1]

Under the Constitution are gun registrations and forced notification of gun sales/purchases legal?




http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/court-keeps-cle-gun-registry-overturns-other-gun-laws/308313434

Court keeps CLE gun registry, overturns other gun laws

Tom Beres , WKYC 2:58 PM. EST August 25, 2016

CLEVELAND - In a split decision, a Cuyahoga County judge has ruled some new Cleveland gun laws are unconstitutional but has left a gun registry that riled gun-rights groups in place.

Judge Shirley Strickland-Saffold found that three of Cleveland's new gun laws put in place in April, 2015 violate a state law that gives the state overriding authority on gun laws.

The ruling upheld:

-prohibiting leaving a firearm where it is accessible to a minor.

-requiring people who are not gun dealers to report gun sales

-requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms in Cleveland

-requiring gun offenders to register with the city

-requiring notifying police if a gun is found on school property

-banning the negligent transfer of a gun to someone who is drunk or a convicted felon

-a tougher penalty for failing to secure a dangerous ordnance, such as explosive material.

 

[Red Wind]

So does this mean that the ruling will go back to the Ohio Supreme Court?

 

[barnbwt]

Yes until the court says otherwise, since that's how the law works anymore.

 

[Red Wind]

Yes until the court says otherwise, since that's how the law works anymore.

Thank you.

 

[RavenTai]

The other side would argue, perhaps correctly, is that none of these laws alone prevent someone in Cleveland from bearing a firearm. And therefore would pass a constitutional test.

What many on our side dislike about preventing the private sale of firearms, or in this case tracking of private sales is that it creates the ability to have a registry of sorts or at least a paper trail that can be used to track down a firearm.

There are some legitimate law enforcement reasons to be able to track a particular firearm. But the ability to track a particular firearm is also the ability to confiscate firearms from those who follow the law. it could be a tool of some pretty serious oppression in the wrong hands but not necessarily un-Constitutional

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Carl N. Brown]

On gun registries, New Zealand abandoned theirs in 1983; Canada abandoned their rifle and shotgun registry after 17 years of experience; Australia used theirs to confiscate 600,000 rifles and shotguns in knee-jerk reaction to a mass shooting.

New Zealand and Canada's decision was that the registries did little good despite the hypothetical promises; the funds would have done more for public safety if spent on programs with a track record of actually doing something.

I suppose a gun registry that did not prevent legal gun ownership might pass a legal test. I would still object that most gun control is based on fundmentally flawed theories about human nature and criminal behavior, will never do as promised, and is really a sort of voodoo criminology, like burning Beatles' White Albums in the wake of the Mansion Family murders.

The Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act withstood constitutional challenge, until it was decided the eugenics theory was flawed, and few people wanted to defend it after the 1967 Loving case (a Virgina interracial couple were prosecuted by Virginia for getting married in Maryland).

 

[HankB]

Note that under the SCOTUS decision of Haynes vs. US (1968 I believe) convicted felons - and presumably other prohibited persons - cannot be prosecuted for firearm registration violations, as requiring them to register something the law prohibits them from possessing would amount to requiring them to incriminate themselves, which is unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm closing this unless/until someone can provide a link to the actual decision.

Based on this article it appears that the article linked to in the OP may be misleading or inaccurate regarding the bases for the decision.

The article I linked to specifies that the bases for the decision are the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law. But the OP, and comments posted in the thread, suggest that folks, based perhaps on the vague article linked to in the OP, mistakenly believe that the ruling had something to do with the United States Constitution.

Unless/until this can be cleared up, there's no way to have a useful discussion.

If someone can clarify this, send me a PM; and I'll re-open the thread.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'm re-opening this thread.

Thanks to Librarian, we have this link to the ruling of the Ohio court. It doesn't go into great detail, but it appears that the ruling is based on the Ohio Constitution and Ohio law. Apparently no issues were raised, nor decided, under the United States Constitution.

Discussion in this thread should relate to the decision and the bases for the decision as outlined in the ruling.