California Democrat proposes mandatory gun registration

By: Declan McCullagh
Topics: Gun Rights

A California Democrat is proposing a new law requiring residents to register their shotguns and rifles or go to jail, CBSNews.com has learned.

Assemblyman Mike Feuer, whose district includes Beverly Hill and West Hollywood, this week introduced legislation ordering law enforcement to "permanently keep" records of anyone who buys a gun from a dealer or an individual. California already stores information about handgun purchases.

Feuer is no friend of firearms owners: his previous legislative effort, which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law, required all new handguns to include "microstamping" technology that can imprint serial numbers on spent ammunition casings. As a Los Angeles city councilman, Feuer proposed limiting city residents to one gun a month.

Feuer spokeswoman Arianna Smith declined to answer questions about the bill on Tuesday afternoon, saying the staff member involved was in a meeting and not immediately available.

The proposal comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is considering a landmark civil rights case, McDonald v. Chicago, which will decide whether Second Amendment rights in the federal constitution trump state anti-gun laws. But California is proposing mandatory registration -- and not a flat ban, as Washington, D.C. once tried and the justices rejected -- and even legal scholars specializing in this area disagree about whether registration is constitutional.

"Even though the constitutionality of such a measure is a close call, it is a horrible public policy choice," says Gene Hoffman, chairman of the CalGuns Foundation. "Just as Canada is about to do away with their long gun registry after squandering $1 billion, California wishes to attack law abiding gun owners for firearms not used in crime."

A CBC News article last month reported that the Canadian parliament is backing away from the nation's gun registry, which was enacted in 1989 and has now come under fire by critics who call it a billion-dollar boondoggle.

Feuer's bill isn't exactly a surprise: He told the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun advocacy group, earlier this year that his forthcoming proposal would give law enforcement another tool to track down people in possession of illegal firearms. "This legislation will close a glaring loophole and ensure that all firearm records, not just handgun records, are maintained for law enforcement purposes," Ellen Boneparth, spokesperson for the California Brady Campaign Chapters, said in a statement at the time.

Feuer appears to have adopted an unusual approach to introducing his mandatory registration bill. He took an existing piece of criminal legislation, AB 1810, that dealt with graffiti and vandalism, and replaced it with a completely new version with the same bill number.

A hearing is scheduled for April 13 in Sacramento before the California State Assembly's Committee on Public Safety.

At the moment, a minority of states including New York, Maryland, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts require mandatory registration for handguns. Others, like Pennsylvania, require sales of handguns to go through a dealer, who keeps records of the transaction.

No federal firearm registry exists, though some anti-gun types have pushed for one in the past. An unsuccessful 1995 bill, H.R. 169, would have imposed California-style registration of handguns nationwide through a "federal handgun registration system." Violations would have been punished by up to 12 years in prison. The author of the bill, Rep. Cardiss Collins, D-Illinois, told her colleagues at the time that "I still believe the best way to control handguns is to ban them outright."

Declan McCullagh is a correspondent for CBS Interactive's CNET News and a contributor to CBSNews.com. You can e-mail him or follow him on Twitter as declanm. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired.

Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET. Declan previously was a reporter for Time and the Washington bureau chief for Wired and wrote the Taking Liberties section and Other People's Money column for CBS News' Web site.
Follow on Twitter »

30 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 30 Comments


by Pottering December 13, 2010 6:58 AM EST: The comment by Ruler4you that "Crime has gone way up in Australia" is just plain propaganda. In 1996 Australia adopted strict, national gun laws with the specific aim of limiting the possibility of firearm mass murders (about 12 in the preceding decade or so). In the 14 years since there have been none, which I'm sure you'd agree is a good thing. And while this has happened gun use in violent crime has fallen significantly. And as a bonus there have been decreases in the violent crime types where guns are used (either offensively or defensively). For example the murder rate is down by a third since 1996.

Ruler4You tried to claim "crime" was up in Australia, but "crime" is a pretty all encompassing term including things like graffiti and fraud. When you are looking at the impact of gun laws you need to look at crimes that are impacted by guns, not at things like embezzlement.; Reply to this comment


by khend123 April 27, 2010 2:32 PM EDT: Adding the huge pile of crap California needs to take care of. There done for. <a href="http://www.electroniccigarettesinc.com">e cigarette</a>; Reply to this comment


by kalisux April 16, 2010 8:07 AM EDT: Yes, my Feuer!!; Reply to this comment


by kalisux April 16, 2010 8:05 AM EDT: Feuer,isn't that what the nazi's called Hitler?; Reply to this comment


by Highlander April 15, 2010 1:29 PM EDT: Democrats should be arrested for being just plain stupid. PERIOD!; Reply to this comment


by Highlander April 9, 2010 12:21 PM EDT: "From among the rights RETAINED by our policy, we have selected those of SELF DEFENCE or BEARING ARMS, of conscience, and of free inquiry, for two purposes; one, to shew the vast superiority of our policy, in being able to KEEP NATURAL RIGHTS NECESSARY for LIBERTY and happiness, OUT of the hands of governmentS; the other, to shew that this ability is the effect of its principles, and BEYOND the reach of Mr. Adams?s system, or of ANY other, unable to RESERVE to the people, and to WITHHOLD from governments, a variety of rights."

- John Taylor, Revolutionary Soldier and U.S. Senator,(1792 ? 94, 1803, 1822 ? 24).[An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the United States: Section the Sixth; THE GOOD MORAL PRINCIPLES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,(1814).]
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed".

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

- Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616

"It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the
police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions."

- Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60

"Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests of the public."

- Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660

"As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language."

Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882.

"But to prohibit the citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm, except upon his own premises or when on a journey traveling through the country with baggage, or when acting as or in aid of an officer, is an unwarranted restriction upon his constitutional right to keep and bear arms... If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

( Wilson V. State, 1878); Reply to this comment


by Archie_Clement April 8, 2010 8:33 PM EDT: The total collapse of the People's Republic of Kalifornia will be a great day in this nation's history. Don't accept the refugees in your state.; Reply to this comment


by kramjam--2008 April 8, 2010 6:49 PM EDT: It is the only logical step to take next, though, isn't it?
You can't enslave an armed people.; Reply to this comment


by zman61 April 8, 2010 11:37 AM EDT: I lived in Kalifornia for 8 years and I got out when things started going downhill in the early 90's. They are off the cliff now and the Communist/Socialist/Marxist are in total control now. This guy Fuer is only a small part of the political problems that exist in Kalifornia. Kalifornia is a beautiful place with so many things to do but it has been ruined by the politicians and the special interest groups. The fact that an individual can own a gun and may actually stand up for his/her rights terrifies people like this Feuer idiot. People like him want total government control of everything. All one needs to know about their right to own a firearm is that it was intended to keep government from taking what they were never intended to have, TOTAL CONTROL!!! Thomas Jefferson said it best..."The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.? and he also said "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from tyranny in government" I think these quotes from one of the founders disproves the Progressives beleif that gun ownership was only meant for government controlled militia.. it was meant for the individual to protect himself and his family from a tyranical government.; Reply to this comment


by cowboy357 April 8, 2010 7:25 AM EDT: And if we follow this logic than PHARMACIES and needing a prescription for legal drugs should eliminate crack....

It's so nice to know we have such genius in GOVERNMENT!; Reply to this comment