7/28/2019 Gottlieb Kopel Rebuttal
1/2
David Kopels Claims Regarding the Manchin-Toomey Amendment are
False
Bottom Line: In a statement released on April 15, 2013, David
Kopel erroneously argues
that: (1) the Manchin-Toomey Amendment would permit the creation
of a federal gun
registry, in particular of the records from dealers that have
gone out of business; and (2)
that the Amendment would significantly weaken current
protections on interstate travel.In truth, the Amendment maintains
current prohibitions on the creation of a federal gun
registry and protects interstate travel by gun-owners.Kopels
false registry claim: The Manchin-Toomey Amendment includes a
provision barring
the Attorney General from consolidating or centralizing records
of gun sales and gun ownership.
Kopel argues that because this provision refers only to the
Attorney General, it must thereforeauthorize any other governmental
entity to create a registry, including the Army or the
Department of Health and Human Services.Response: Federal law
expressly and repeatedly prohibits the creation of a gun registry
by any
government entity or political subdivision, including through
the NICS background checkdatabase.[1] And the Manchin-Toomey
Amendment leaves those provisions intact.
Response: Moreover, both the Secretary of the Army[2] and the
Secretary of Health and
Human Services[3] are specifically prohibited from creating a
registry of gun ownership.Response: Finally, Kopel completely
ignores the fact that Section 123 of the Manchin-Toomey
Amendment that makes it a 15-year federal felony to compile or
create such a registry is not
directed simply at the Attorney General or Department of Justice
employees; it is directed at
any person, and makes it a general federal crime to misuse any
of the required federal recordkeeping under the Gun Control Act for
this purpose no matter who attempts do it.
Kopels false claim regarding the use of retired dealer records
to create a registry : Kopel
argues that the Amendment authorizes the centralization of
retired dealer records because it onlyexpressly prohibits the
creation of a registry from the records of a person with a valid,
current
license under this chapter. He argues that because ATF already
has these records under its
control, it can easily centralize them into a registry.Response:
The existing prohibitions on government registries extend to the
records of retired
dealers and while the ATF houses the records, it is prohibited
from centralizing them. The
agency has gone to considerable expense to comply with this law,
maintaining the records on
microfiche rather than in a centralized database. Nothing in the
Amendment would alter thetreatment of these records.
Kopels false interstate travel claim: The Amendments interstate
travel prohibition clarifies
current law. The Amendment provides that regardless of state
law, people in transit may carrytheir unloaded, locked guns across
state lines, unless they are traveling with the intent to commita
crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than a year.
Kopel argues that this
language makes it unlawful for people to travel through states
where possession of a gun without
a permit is crime punishable by a term of imprisonment of more
than one year.Response: The Amendment specifically states that it
supersedes state law which means that
state laws regarding the possession and carrying of firearms are
pre-empted for people traveling
through the state pursuant to this provision.[4] A state law
prohibiting possession without a
permit will be superseded by the federal law allowing interstate
travel.Response: The Amendment explicitly bars arrest or detention
for violations of state law
relating to the possession, transportation, or carrying of
firearms or ammunition unless there is
sufficient cause to believe that the person is not behaving
lawfully under the bills interstate
7/28/2019 Gottlieb Kopel Rebuttal
2/2
travel provisions. In other words, individuals complying with
the amended interstate travel
terms will not be in violation of state law.
[1] 18 USC 926(a); PL 112-55 Division B, Title II. In addition
to express prohibitions on the creation of a registry,
federal statute requires that records generated by successful
background checks be destroyed, and regulation clarifies
that the destruction must take place within 24 hours. 18 USC
922(t)(2)(C); 28 C.F.R. 25.9(b)(1)(ii). Another federalregulation
specifically states that the NICS background check database cannot
be used to create a registry. 28 C.F.R.
25.9(b)(3).[2] Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2011, Pub. Law 111-383, Section 1062(a)
(2010).[3] Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L.
No. 12-110, Sec. 10101(e), March 23, 2010. [4] The section applies
notwithstanding any provision of any law (including a rule or
regulation) of a State or any
political or subdivision thereof.
