LA to fingerprint gun buyers.

U

USP45

New member
This BS needs to be stopped... right now!

http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-20010122-222043.html

City Considers Law To Fingerprint Gun Buyers
Activist Says State Law And Citizens' Rights At Stake
Paul J. Young, Staff Writer
January 23, 2001, 12:50 a.m. PST

LOS ANGELES -- Some members of the Los Angeles City Council are prepared to vote for a measure that would require gun buyers to provide fingerprints before they could purchase a firearm.

Monday morning, a City Council panel approved the proposal, which now goes to the entire 15-member council for consideration.

Councilman Mike Feuer is the measure's author and says that it would be an effective tool for local prosecutors to use when building cases against people who try to illegally purchase guns.

"This provision paves the way for tough enforcement when prohibited persons attempt to buy guns, and it also will deter many from trying in the first place," Feuer said Monday.

Under his proposal, anybody trying to purchase a gun inside city limits would have to agree to be fingerprinted first.

The prints apparently would be kept on file and later utilized by prosecutors to help identify ex-cons trying to procure firearms.

According to Feuer's office, there have been 5,000 such instances statewide in the last year, but prosecutors have failed to bring solid cases against the suspects because of questions about their identities.

The councilman believes that fingerprinting "will help prosecutors win convictions of potentially dangerous criminals who illegally attempt to buy firearms."

Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California, says that Feuer and those sympathetic to his proposal have a lot to learn about state law and citizens' rights.

"The council panel has just looked at state law and completely ignored it," Paredes told Channel 2000 Monday.

"In California, we have what's called a preemption law. Under its provisions, the whole area of regulation of firearms ownership is usurped by the state.

"This is not the purview of local communities. And that's so we don't have a checkerboard of laws on firearms from one locality to another. The state is the guiding light in these matters."

According to Paredes, the state attorney general has an obligation to step in and stop the city of Los Angeles from trying to enforce a measure like the one proposed by Feuer.

If Sacramento doesn't get involved, Paredes told Channel 2000 that his organization and other pro-self-defense groups will challenge fingerprinting.

"We'll go to court ourselves," he said.

As for what Paredes thinks of Feuer's proposal in general….

"It's hokum! In reality, it's a whole bunch of smoke. It's what I like to call 'slogan legislation.' It sounds good.

"They're pushing this piece of legislation [fingerprinting gun owners] whether it has any impact or not.

"There's no secret that L.A. wants fewer gun owners in city limits. And what better way to intimidate people than have them fingerprinted or photographed?"

Paredes told Channel 2000 that gun owners already undergo background checks and fill out pages of state and federal forms before they can purchase a firearm.

He added that "law-abiding" citizens shouldn't be fingerprinted like common criminals when they wish to avail themselves of their Second Amendment right.
Click to expand...
 
This will not hold up in court.

It will have the same finding as the Supreme Court case Haynes v. U.S.

The Haynes decision stated that people that are not allowed to posess a certain kind of firearm are not obligated to register it. If they did, they would be incriminating themselves, so it goes against their fifth amemdment rights. Basically, only law-abiding citizens are required to register their NFA guns, criminals don't have to. Can't you see the same thing happening here? The criminals won't be required to get fingerprinted because it will be like turning themselves in for whatever outstanding warrants they may have.

I would encourage our members in California to fight this one, even though it often seems like California is a lost cause. Don't let the big cities determine the path for the entire state.
 
So in theory NO ONE can be arrested for an "unregistered machine gun", but can be arrested for a "machine gun", no? Since possession an unregistered machine gun is a CRIME.

Ok no more coffee for me... I am thinking too much.
 
Blueman,

I have a question for you.. Lets say someone has a Postban gun, in a pre-ban config. Since there is a good chance that the gun is indeed a pre-ban, is there any legal right for an officer to "look at" the gun?? One would have to think that since there is NO reasonable way by the mere look of a gun, with out really looking it over, if it is a pre-ban or a post ban gun that is in pre-ban config.
 
bearer of bad news....

Guys, I hate to be the bearer of Bad news, but here in the People's Republic of New York State you are required by law to have a pistol permit BEFORE buying a pistol. This is in essence no different than what LA wants to do. IT SUCKS, but if their judges are anything like in NY, I'm sure it'll hold up in court.

New York used to have (maybe still does) a judge that asks "What Second Amendment" when people go before him to request a pistol permit or an upgrade to a carry permit. (Right now counties can restrict permits to "home" or "business" or "hunting/target shooting"). This question is in reference to the fact that the S.C. hasn't "incorportated" the second amendment through the 14th. In other words, the courts still have not officially recognized the second as a "fundamental right".

See a pic of my permit here (and beware):

http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~ds23/pistol.jpg

Yes I KNOW it says it's a carry permit, but ANYONE who wants to even OWN a pistol in NYS MUST GET THIS PERMIT and it ussually has a "restriction" typed in at the bottom left hand corner (like mine). :( This permit requires an FBI background check and fingerprinting just like a carry permit in Right to Carry States. They don't have to issue you one though.
 
Notice the last part of the fifth line:
". . . is hereby GRANTED" - not ISSUED, mind you. Freudian slip?

Thank you m'lud! (Spoken on bended knee after kissing the ring.)
 
More bad new, people.
<P>
Here in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts you must have a license before you can buy ANY firearm, or even ammo, or even percussion caps for antique firearms. To get a license you are finger-printed and examined and must provide references and must take a beginners' firearms course (even if you are already a weapons instructor) and must renew every four years. AND if the local chief of police doesn't like your looks, you get no license, and guess what? It is unappealable. Period. Go pound sand. And all your firearms must be immediately turned-in to the police for melt-down. And all this has been upheld by the courts.
<P>
Sorry, California. Coming soon to you.
 
In NJ you need a PERMIT (FID)to buy a Rifle / Shotgun!!! To get a pistol you need a FID, AND a Pistol permit(one for each pistol)!!!!

DSL if that is true about Judge's in NY, they shouldnt be Judges anywhere in America!
 
>>Why hasn't MA or NJ taken this to the USSC?

Because you can't just jump to the USSC. You have to go up through ALL the federal courts to get to the USSC. Approximate time: 3-8 years a(and then the USSC may refuse to hear it). Approximate cost: $300,000 - $ 1M.

Got bucks?

Perhaps it will be appealed with the help of national pro-gun organizations, but none are yet on the horizon.

The Liberals were right about one thing re. the 2000 election: it's about the COURTS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top