7th Circuit Says Gun Registration is OK. Guns at Obama protests:

[blackwolfe]

For years in Michigan a permit to purchase hand guns was required before purchase along with a "safety" inspection which was done at the local law enforcement agency after purchase.  The "safety" inspection was defacto registration.  The law changed this year and it is now dejuro (by law) registration.  With the law change the mechanics of purchasing a handgun became a little easier as you no longer are required to return to the local police for the "safety" inspection, but just turn in the completed purchase forms.  If you have a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) that is your permit to purchase and you don't have to obtain a purchase permit beforehand. 

[fightingquaker13]

In your opinion, would SCOTUS have to find 2A as "fundamental right" first before affirming that it is incorporated to the states? If they ruled it was not a fundamental right, then it would not be subject to strict scrutiny, which would mean that it probably would not be incorporated to the states.

I'm just a layman, so any analysis of this scenario is appreciated....

Fullauto
What we have in re. the Bill of Rights is called "selective incorporation plus". Bottom line is this. In 1805 the Court held that the Bill of Rights applied to the feds not the states due to dual soveirenty. This started to change in the twenties with certain parts of the Bill of Rights being applied to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment, plus other "fundamental"rights such as the right to privacy. Where we now stand is that all of the Bill of Rights except the 2A and the 8A's prohibition on excessive fines and bail have been applied to the states as they are deemed "fundamental". This is the magic word. Get this magic word, and the "shall not be infringed" wording hits Mass. as  well as the feds. Heller is nationalized.
A fundamental right is subject to "strict scrutiny". Two other magic words. What they mean is that the burden of proof falls on the state to show that  a law does not infringe a "fundamental" right, rather than you having to prove that it is an infringement. If however, the right is not incorporated and thus "fundamental", all the the state needs to to do is meet the "rational basis" test. This means that the law was non-discriminatory, within the power of the body passing it and served a legitimate public interest. The burden of proof is on you to prove its unconstitutional. This is the Cliff notes version but I hope it helped.
FQ13

[fullautovalmet76]

Fullauto
What we have in re. the Bill of Rights is called "selective incorporation plus". Bottom line is this. In 1805 the Court held that the Bill of Rights applied to the feds not the states due to dual soveirenty. This started to change in the twenties with certain parts of the Bill of Rights being applied to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th Ammendment, plus other "fundamental"rights such as the right to privacy. Where we now stand is that all of the Bill of Rights except the 2A and the 8A's prohibition on excessive fines and bail have been applied to the states as they are deemed "fundamental". This is the magic word. Get this magic word, and the "shall not be infringed" wording hits Mass. as  well as the feds. Heller is nationalized.
A fundamental right is subject to "strict scrutiny". Two other magic words. What they mean is that the burden of proof falls on the state to show that  a law does not infringe a "fundamental" right, rather than you having to prove that it is an infringement. If however, the right is not incorporated and thus "fundamental", all the the state needs to to do is meet the "rational basis" test. This means that the law was non-discriminatory, within the power of the body passing it and served a legitimate public interest. The burden of proof is on you to prove its unconstitutional. This is the Cliff notes version but I hope it helped.
FQ13

Mucho gracias!!

[tombogan03884]

Agreed, but understand that your guns already are registered with the 443. Unless you got them by inheiritance or a private sale there is a record, its just a question of how many hoops the cops have jump through to get it. Personally, I believe that if you think the instant background check records really are destroyed without a "back up" being stored you're a sucker. I don't care what the law says, I think ATF has "destroy those records" right below "wash the cat" on their to do list.
FQ13

Even if you got it through Private sale or inheritance the the gun itself, if manufactured after 1968 is registered with the Federal Govt, they know when and where it was made, and they know at least ONE dealer who sold it.
I did read somewhere though that the instant check honestly does not keep any records, Some one called Tom Gresham with a story that during the call the DEALER misspelled the guys name when they called back minutes later they could not correct it because there was no record.

In your opinion, would SCOTUS have to find 2A as "fundamental right" first before affirming that it is incorporated to the states? If they ruled it was not a fundamental right, then it would not be subject to strict scrutiny, which would mean that it probably would not be incorporated to the states.

I'm just a layman, so any analysis of this scenario is appreciated....

The way I understand it the in the Heller Case the SCOTUS ruled that the 2A is binding on the FEDERAL govt. (The City of DC is administered directly by Congress not a State legislature. ) Obama CAN'T take all our guns.
A further lawsuit needs to be argued against a STATE for the 2A to be incorporated by SCOTUS ruling that the STATE can't take all our guns either. Then there have to be fights over weather or not they can take particular TYPES of guns.

As to the "DUAL SOVEREIGNTY" thing that FQ is talking about, you are on much better ground if you Federal 2A rights are reiterated in your State Constitution, We could wind up with "Gun states" and Gun Free" States.

[philw]

Registration should NOT be legal!

and I know what happens after registration   

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

and I know what happens after registration   

Yeah!  Scary, ain't it!

I of course, know about the 4473 and such but mandatory LOCAL or national  is BS!

[tombogan03884]

Yeah!  Scary, ain't it!

I of course, know about the 4473 and such but mandatory LOCAL or national  is BS!

Which is why the GCA 68 and NFA need to be overturned.

[fightingquaker13]

Which is why the GCA 68 and NFA need to be overturned.

The only good thing about the GCA 68 is the no guns through the mail part. I do like the idea of an instant background check without records kept, to keep guns out of the hands of felons. You shouldn't be able buy a piece on your way home from jail. Beyond this its all BS.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

The only good thing about the GCA 68 is the no guns through the mail part. I do like the idea of an instant background check without records kept, to keep guns out of the hands of felons. You shouldn't be able buy a piece on your way home from jail. Beyond this its all BS.
FQ13

When John Wesley Hardin was released from prison for murder they returned his pistols with the rest of his PROPERTY.
Who has weapons, How they were delivered, how they are set up, or the owners past history are, in truth, irrelevant. The ONLY thing that is relevant, which can never be controlled by any law, is how they are used in the future. Hardin became a lawyer, never had another gun fight, and died of illness.

[MikeBjerum]

I'll just go on record as saying that this is pure BS ... But, I think most of you already understood that.

What purpose does registration serve beyond imposing a tax to posess or a record of who to contact for a round up?

I would also like to get a fair answer to how much gun violence declined when background checks were imposed, and the ability to purchase through catalogs, etc went out the window.  I believe that if we dug into the numbers we would find that all the limitations on our Rights have not done a single thing to change reality.