Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration! Another Chicago Ruling!

[d90king]

Appeals Court: Government Can Require Gun Registration

Posted by Declan McCullagh
(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.

Update 1:38am ET: A helpful CBSNews.com reader, James E., was kind enough to point me toward the text of the town of Cicero's regulation. You can find it on Municode.com. The interface is awful, but if you poke around on the menus to the left under Chapter 62, Article VI, you'll find it.

It's a remarkable read. Cicero makes it illegal to possess "any slingshot," or any "laser sight accessory." Non-dealer firearm transfers are prohibited. Carrying a "concealed" knife is prohibited. The unlicensed sale of a "Bowie knife" is prohibited. A quick read shows that it is illegal to "fire or discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm within the town" except at licensed shooting ranges -- which I imagine poses a problem for residents hoping to use a gun for legitimate self-defense.

Anyway, the portion relevant to today's story says: "All firearms in the town shall be registered in accordance with this division. It shall be the duty of a person owning or possessing a firearm to cause such firearm to be registered. No person shall within the town possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm. No person shall, within the town, possess, harbor, have under his control, transfer, offer for sale, sell, give, deliver, or accept any firearm which is unregisterable under this division." (Police, of course, are exempt.)

LINK:http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/taking_liberties/entry5253857.shtml

[Patriotic]

What is interesting is that in Heller the SC ruled a person can possess a firearm in their home for self protection. It did not stipulate the firearm must be registered. Maybe my understanding is wrong about Heller but wouldn’t laws requiring registration as a condition for ownership be infringement?

[Old Fashioned]

If the Cicero ordnance makes it illegal to discharge any firearm within the town except at licensed shooting ranges, then doesn't it in effect deny a person the right to self defense in their home?

[DanR]

In many places it is illegal to defend yourself. Until recently here, we were required to attempt to retreat from any criminal confrontation, even inside our own homes. We are lucky that we were able to get the laws changed. Now, just why would anyone live in a place that did not accept your right to life and self defense?

[d90king]

What is interesting is that in Heller the SC ruled a person can possess a firearm in their home for self protection. It did not stipulate the firearm must be registered. Maybe my understanding is wrong about Heller but wouldn’t laws requiring registration as a condition for ownership be infringement?



Unfortunately it appears Heller actually left "open" State regulation in its ruling... Not a judge but have spoken with a couple who agree that it was not as concrete as we might have liked it to be based upon the case that it was decided on...

[Aguila Blanca]

To split hairs, "registration" is not "regulation" in and of itself. "Registration" is just a list. (Not that I'm in favor of the gummint having a list of my possessions, mind you.)If registration is simple, easy, and automatic, it doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

However, if they start making it selective, such as "Well, you can register this type of gun but not that type, of gun" or "You have to take a class before we'll allow you to register a gun" or "You are required to regsiter your guns but we'll only allow you to register __ guns in this jurisdiction" ... then (IMHO) you're over the line into unconstitutional regulation under the guise of registration.

Let us not forget that back in colonial times firearms were registered, too. The commander of each local militia had a roster of who was in his militia, and what arms each member had. It's not the fact of registration that is the problem, it's the mischief that a registration can be used for that's evil. If my local police wanted to keep a roster of my guns so they'd know they could call on me if a company of terrorists was headed our way, I'd be all for it. But when they want a list so they'll know who they have to take guns away from when some politician tells them to "get the guns" ... then I have problems.

[d90king]

To split hairs, "registration" is not "regulation" in and of itself. "Registration" is just a list. (Not that I'm in favor of the gummint having a list of my possessions, mind you.)If registration is simple, easy, and automatic, it doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

However, if they start making it selective, such as "Well, you can register this type of gun but not that type, of gun" or "You have to take a class before we'll allow you to register a gun" or "You are required to regsiter your guns but we'll only allow you to register __ guns in this jurisdiction" ... then (IMHO) you're over the line into unconstitutional regulation under the guise of registration.

Let us not forget that back in colonial times firearms were registered, too. The commander of each local militia had a roster of who was in his militia, and what arms each member had. It's not the fact of registration that is the problem, it's the mischief that a registration can be used for that's evil. If my local police wanted to keep a roster of my guns so they'd know they could call on me if a company of terrorists was headed our way, I'd be all for it. But when they want a list so they'll know who they have to take guns away from when some politician tells them to "get the guns" ... then I have problems.



I rarely disagree with you AB but in this case I think I do a little. I believe this is a violation of my fundamental right to privacy. The government has no business knowing anything about me in regards to me exercising my rights. Think about in a different way... Does the government have a right to know my faith? What I think or say? Or in this matter what I own? Owning a firearm is not a privilege and therefore I don't believe that they have a "right" to that information.

I think I feel stronger in regards to birth rights in some regard because they were meant to be understood not given to you by others. 2a is not what gives me a right to self protection it gives the people the ability to protect themselves from a out of control government. In fairness I should say that's what it was supposed to be, not what it is today...

In the colonial era you mentioned, the motivation of "registration" was different than the motivation here. They are not trying to find out if the population has enough weaponry to defend it borders... I don't believe our government should have anymore power than it already does. As a side note Pa law does not allow a registry, therefore it violates state rights...

The really sad part of this is, our newest member on SCOTUS had to be backed into a corner to admit that you have a right to protect yourself... It was an exchange with Coburn that is mind numbing.

[Aguila Blanca]

I rarely disagree with you AB but in this case I think I do a little. I believe this is a violation of my fundamental right to privacy. The government has no business knowing anything about me in regards to me exercising my rights. Think about in a different way... Does the government have a right to know my faith? What I think or say? Or in this matter what I own? Owning a firearm is not a privilege and therefore I don't believe that they have a "right" to that information.
I don't like to surrender any more of my privacy than absolutely necessary, either, but there is no "fundamental right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. I thought my post was sufficiently clear that I wished only to point out a very technical distinction: The 2nd Amendment guarantees us (supposedly) the right to keep and bear arms. It does NOT guarantee us a right to do so in privacy or secrecy. The mere fact of a government office (or three) having a list of one's firearms does not, in and of itself, in any way infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

If the government decides to use such a registration list to facilitate confiscation of privately-owned firearms, that's a different matter.

As it happens, I am strongly opposed to registration of firearms. Nonetheless, I understand that a court is supposed to rule on what the law says, not on what people like or don't like. Registration quite simply is not an infringement, irrespective of how distasteful you or I or anyone else finds it to be.

[d90king]

I don't like to surrender any more of my privacy than absolutely necessary, either, but there is no "fundamental right to privacy" anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Very true. However, the courts have utilized it at their discretion in the past and it has become implied in some settled case law. In one of the biggest cases in the courts history it was utilized.

Here is some interesting reading.... Read the 4th hard and think about the fact that if you are giving up the right to basically have to "search" for an item because the government can already prove that it is there because it is "registered". In this case wouldn't a firearm be an "effect"...

I enjoy your perspective and am interested in your opinion and is the only reason I further the discussion.
Enjoy:

The Right of Privacy
The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?
Introduction

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in two decisions in the 1920s, read the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause to prohibit states from interfering with the private decisions of educators and parents to shape the education of children. In Meyer v Nebraska (1923), the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of German and other foreign languages to children until the ninth grade. The state argued that foreign languages could lead to inculcating in students "ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country." The Court, however, in a 7 to 2 decision written by Justice McReynolds concluded that the state failed to show a compelling need to infringe upon the rights of parents and teachers to decide what course of education is best for young students. Justice McReynolds wrote:

"While this court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Two years late, in Pierce v Society of Sisters, the Court applied the principles of Meyer to strike down an Oregon law that compelled all children to attend public schools, a law that would have effectively closed all parochial schools in the state.

The privacy doctrine of the 1920s gained renewed life in the Warren Court of the 1960s when, in Griswold v Connecticut (1965), the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the possession, sale, and distribution of contraceptives to married couples. Different justifications were offered for the conclusion, ranging from Court's opinion by Justice Douglas that saw the "penumbras" and "emanations" of various Bill of Rights guarantees as creating "a zone of privacy," to Justice Goldberg's partial reliance on the Ninth Amendment's reference to "other rights retained by the people," to Justice Harlan's decision arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause forbade the state from engaging in conduct (such as search of marital bedrooms for evidence of illicit contraceptives) that was inconsistent with a government based "on the concept of ordered liberty."

In 1969, the Court unanimously concluded that the right of privacy protected an individual's right to possess and view pornography (including pornography that might be the basis for a criminal prosecution against its manufacturer or distributor) in his own home. Drawing support for the Court's decision from both the First and Fourth Amendments, Justice Marshall wrote in Stanley v Georgia:

"Whatever may be the justifications for other statutes regulating obscenity, we do not think they reach into the privacy of one's own home. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds."

The Burger Court extended the right of privacy to include a woman's right to have an abortion in Roe v Wade (1972), but thereafter resisted several invitations to expand the right. Kelley v Johnson (1976), in which the Court upheld a grooming regulation for police officers, illustrates the trend toward limiting the scope of the "zone of privacy." (The Court left open, however, the question of whether government could apply a grooming law to members of the general public, who it assumed would have some sort of liberty interest in matters of personal appearance.) Some state courts, however, were not so reluctant about pushing the zone of privacy to new frontiers. The Alaska Supreme Court went as far in the direction of protecting privacy rights as any state. In Ravin v State (1975), drawing on cases such as Stanley and Griswold but also basing its decision on the more generous protection of the Alaska Constitution's privacy protections, the Alaska Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the right of a citizen to possess and use small quantities of marijuana in his own home.

In more recent decades, the Court recognized in Cruzan v Missouri Department of Health (1990) that individuals have a liberty interest that includes the right to make decisions to terminate life-prolonging medical treatments (although the Court accepted that states can impose certain conditions on the exercise of that right). In 2003, in Lawrence v Texas, the Supreme Court, overruling an earlier decision, found that Texas violated the liberty clause of two gay men when it enforced against them a state law prohibiting homosexual sodomy. Writing for the Court in Lawrence, Justice Kennedy reaffirmed in broad terms the Constitution's protection for privacy:

"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.'”

One question that the Court has wrestled with through its privacy decisions is how strong of an interest states must demonstrate to overcome claims by individuals that they have invaded a protected liberty interest. Earlier decisions such as Griswold and Roe suggested that states must show a compelling interest and narrowly tailored means when they have burdened fundamental privacy rights, but later cases such as Cruzan and Lawrence have suggested the burden on states is not so high.

The future of privacy protection remains an open question. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed. The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.


Cases
Meyer v Nebraska (1923)
Griswold v Connecticut (1965)
Stanley v Georgia (1969)
Ravin v State (1975)
Kelley v Johnson (1976)
Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't. of Health (1990)
Lawrence v Texas (2003)


Estelle Griswold, of the Planned Parenthood League, whose lawsuit led to the invalidation of a state law banning contraceptives.

Bill of Rights (and 14th Amendment) Provisions Relating to the Right of Privacy
Amendment I
(Privacy of Beliefs)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment III
(Privacy of the Home)
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
(Pivacy of the Person and Possessions)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
(More General Protection for Privacy?)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.


Tyron Garner and John Lawrence (with their attorney), the gay men
who successfully challenged Texas's sodomy law.

Questions
1. Assuming that there exists a general right of privacy, what sort of conduct to you think lies at its very center? What sort of conduct lies at its periphery? What sort of conduct should be considered outside of the protection of a reasonably interpreted right of privacy?
2. Is there a stronger basis in the Constitution for protecting personal privacy rights as opposed to personal economic rights, such as the liberty of contract recognized in Lochner v New York?
3. When the state burdens an important privacy right, what sort of justification should the state have to make to sustain its regulation? What arguments would be likely to convince the U. S. Supreme Court (unlike the Alaska Supreme Court) that the Constitution protects the right to possess obscene materials but not marijuana or other drugs?
4. Some state constitutions provide express protection for privacy. Would you favor including such a provision in your state's constitution? What wording would you suggest for a constitutional amendment protecting privacy?
5. The Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to marry, as well as the right to live a homosexual lifestyle. Should it also be interpreted to protect the right of homosexuals to marry?
6. Are a person's choices with respect to personal appearance protected by the Constitution? Should the Constitution protect the right of students or police officers to wear their hair in any style they see fit? Why or why not? Would a tax on beards, such as the one adopted by Peter the Great, be constitutional?
7. The choice of a woman to have an abortion was found in Roe v Wade to be the sort of fundamental personal decision deserving privacy protection under the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause. In what respects is abortion a private matter, and in what respects might it not be? If you don't believe that the Constitution protects the decision to have an abortion, do you believe that it would prevent the government from forcing a woman to have an abortion and, if it would, what is the constitutional basis for that protection?

[Frank]

...Maybe my understanding is wrong about Heller but wouldn’t laws requiring registration as a condition for ownership be infringement?Perhaps technically, but that doesn't automatically make registration repugnant under the Constitution.

It is very well settled in Constitutional law that Constitutionally protected rights may be subject to limited regulation. There is a significant body of cases defining the standard that would apply to determine if a regulation of a Constitutionally protected right is permissible. Regulations of a Constitutionally protected, fundamental right, which has generally included those rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are subject to a test usually referred to as "strict scrutiny." There are three prongs to this test, as follows:

[1] The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

[2] The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

[3] The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., 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).

Assuming we ultimately get incorporation, a State would still get to make the pitch that its registration scheme satisfies that test. And I also suspect that in most cases a State would be able to do so.

[Patriotic]

Frank,

Forgive me for being “bull headed” here but didn’t the SC rule in Heller that law abiding citizens could exercise their right to own firearms, specifically handguns, in their home for self protection. Doesn’t the registration process come after the actual ownership issue? In states like NY where you must first be granted permission to exercise your right, isn’t this infringement? Also the fact that you must purchase your firearm in NY state after given permission by the state violate interstate commerce?

Case in point, I am a resident of Ohio and have purchased a pistol. I have exercised my right to own a handgun. I have also met the requirements to be licensed by Ohio to carry concealed. If I were to move back to NY, I would have to surrender my pistol and go through their process of granting me a right I already had and have exercised. I would then have to purchase a new firearm within NY State. The concealed carry requirements in NY are identical to those in Ohio, background check, fingerprints and safety training but there is one exception and that is in NY I must appear before a judge who will determine if I have a compelling need to carry a firearm. Personal protection alone is not considered a compelling need.

[Old Fashioned]

I find this legal give and take interesting but I think this discussion points up something much more basic. The best defense is a strong offense. I would suggest that it is far easier to prevent such laws from being passed than it is to challenge the law after the fact. Yes, it can be challenged in court but it takes a long time for a case to wind it's way through the court system and you can never be sure of the outcome. During that time all kinds of mischief can be done and even if the court strikes a law down, it takes a long time to undo that mischief. The subject of this discussion is a stark reminder of how important it is for gun owners to tell their legislators in the strongest possible terms how they feel about more gun control.

[Aguila Blanca]

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
I confess that I could not make it through the entire diatribe. I found it fatally flawed from the outset, and after that my eyes glazed over.

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment),
The 1st Amendment was not concerned at all with the privacy of beliefs. It was (and is) about being able to express beliefs publicly without federal governmental reprisal.

privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment),
One might argue that the intent here was not entirely privacy, but also inconvenience and expense.

privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment),
The purpose of this is related to protection against arbitrary and excessive interference in a citizen's life, as much as about protection of privacy.
and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information.
The 5th Amendment provides no protection for private information as private information. It provides only that a person cannot be compelled to testify against himself. If, in a court of law, a defendant is asked for/about some private information that is related to the case but which would not act to incriminate him, he must answer or be in contempt of court.

In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
Ssssssttttrrrreeetttttttttcccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhh.

[Aguila Blanca]

Forgive me for being “bull headed” here but didn’t the SC rule in Heller that law abiding citizens could exercise their right to own firearms, specifically handguns, in their home for self protection. Doesn’t the registration process come after the actual ownership issue? In states like NY where you must first be granted permission to exercise your right, isn’t this infringement? Also the fact that you must purchase your firearm in NY state after given permission by the state violate interstate commerce?
Not Frank, but I'll weigh in on this, and then Frank can tell me where I've missed the point.

Your point about registration following ownership is probably correct. But it doesn't appear to apply to the remainder of your post. I somewhere read, just a day or three ago, about a jurisdiction in which you must register a firearm before you are allowed to purchase it. That would appear to be a form of prior restraint, rather than a simple registration requirement. Is that the case in New York (state)?

The second part of your post, though, is unrelated to the first.

Case in point, I am a resident of Ohio and have purchased a pistol. I have exercised my right to own a handgun. I have also met the requirements to be licensed by Ohio to carry concealed. If I were to move back to NY, I would have to surrender my pistol and go through their process of granting me a right I already had and have exercised. I would then have to purchase a new firearm within NY State. The concealed carry requirements in NY are identical to those in Ohio, background check, fingerprints and safety training but there is one exception and that is in NY I must appear before a judge who will determine if I have a compelling need to carry a firearm. Personal protection alone is not considered a compelling need.
You are now discussing carrying of a firearm, not registration. That's not to say that I think New York's laws on this are reasonable or proper (or even constitutional), but it's a separate issue entirely from registration and whether or not a requirement for registration is an infringement on the right to keep and bear.

[Patriotic]

AB, You are correct, my posting does cover two different issues. In NY State, in order to own a handgun you must first apply for a permit to purchase the gun. This involves fingerprints, picture of yourself, background check and safety certification. If approved, you receive a coupon to go out and purchase a handgun from a NY State dealer. You buy it and take the receipt back to the pistol permit office and apply for a permit to own the handgun. Note that at this point you have purchased the handgun but do not have possession, the dealer still has the gun. If all goes well you receive your permit for the gun with the information from the receipt printed on it (make, model, serial etc.). Now you can return to the dealer, show him or her the permit and pick up the gun. You can only keep the gun in your home or travel with it to and from a licensed shooting range. Mind you, in my case, I cannot move to NY State and register or apply for a permit for a handgun I already own.

This all came to light when I purchased a 1911 pistol while serving in the military in Germany. Before I could bring the gun back into the states, I had to get authorization from the ATF which I did. I tried at that time to register the gun in NY State and was told by the Pistol Permit Office that I had to surrender the gun and buy a new one in NY State. For the next 35 years it remained disassembled in a box in the closet. Most likely even that was illegal. For the last 5 years I have been living in Ohio and enjoying my 2A rights, have a CCW license and have purchased a second 1911. One day I will move back to NY State because my family is back there but when I do I will still have the dilemma regarding my handguns. You see, NY does not allow non-residents of the state to register a weapon in NY. Even if I establish residency in NY I cannot register what I already own.

I would think the entire NY process regarding handguns is infringement on my 2A rights.

[Aguila Blanca]

I had no idea that lawful owners from other jurisdictions could not move into NY (state) and bring their lawfully-owned firearms with them. I agree with you, that is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.

[Patriotic]

Not only that AB, if I were to participate in a sanctioned shooting event in NY, I could bring a handgun into the state provided it was locked in my trunk and ammunition in a separate locked container. I could only travel to and from the event but I would have to prove I was participating. Given my family lives in NY and I go home regularly to be with them, I cannot follow the same rules for competition shooters and have my handguns with me. I would be charged with a Class A felony, have to serve time in prison and have my 2A rights taken away for life. There is something very wrong with this picture.

[Old Fashioned]

New York really makes you jump through hoops. After the Heller decision, If I recall correctly, DC re-wrote their gunlaws but made it such a maze to go through that those laws were challenged and found to be unreasonable? Anyway, DC wrote them again. It seems that the New York requirements could be challenged as unreasonably restrictive. Not being a lawyer, maybe I am being too simplistic. Or, is that all hostage to the 2nd being incoporated under the 14th?

[Patriotic]

My understanding, although not through first hand knowledge, is that there have been cases in NY regarding handguns that would have ended up in the SC but before the case went in that direction the charges were dropped. It becomes a non-issue. It is a shame in a country like ours you need money to defend your rights and often times a person doesn’t have the money to do so.

Incorporation would be one of the few ways to address the situation in NY but NY has so many gun laws on the books, you go from one trap to another. I think of the Bernhard Goetz case where a man defended himself against 4 muggers on the subway. He had been mugged several times in the past and decided that enough was enough. At first he was charged with murder but the charges were dismissed over time. He ended up serving prison time for illegal possession of a handgun, which opened up civil lawsuits by the muggers. He can no longer possess a gun because of his felony conviction for illegal possession.

My understanding, again from a third party source, that he did seek to acquire a pistol permit prior to the incident but was turned down due to insufficient need. In NYC it is virtually impossible to get a pistol permit unless you are a LEO or politically connected.

In addition to the 14A I would think their restrictions would also be infringing on interstate commerce since you must purchase your handgun in NY State. The reciprocity bill should have passed, it would have made things much better and I hope it comes up again maybe in Obama’s health reform bill.