I contacted the lawyer handling this case, who referred me to the plantiff. Here's a statement direct from Mike Stollenwerk:
===========================================
Judge Sanchez ruled yesterday in my favor in Stollenwerk v. Miller et al. that the Pennsylvania State Police demand for Social Security Numbers from citizens buying (transferring) guns or when applying for a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms violated Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act ("Section 7"). This lawsuit was filed in 2004 under Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act, and the ruling also applied to the other Defendant, Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Bergman.
This was a privacy case, not a gun case. Of course state governments can continue to regulate the purchase/transfer and license the carrying of guns if they want to - they just have to follow federal SSN privacy law when carrying out such schemes.
See Federal Court's Opinion and Order at:
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0225P.pdf
This is the first federal court case on point re: SSNs and gun control, but many circuit courts of appeals have previously ruled favorably on the clear (statutory) rule of law in Section 7 - that is, that "It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number" unless:
1. A specific federal statute exists permitting the government agency to require SSN disclosure.
2. The agency SSN demand is "grandfathered" as a pre-1975 use mandated by a published statute regulation in effect pre-1975.
Many other areas of state actor demands for SSNs in Pennsylvania and other states need citizen scrutiny pursuant to this ruling. Judge Sanchez emphasized the statutory duty of state actors to provide Section 7(b) Federal Privacy Act warnings whenever a government agency asks for SSN disclosure: "Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it."
This court ruling follows the contours of recent state Attorney General opinions in Tennessee and Ohio, as well as the 2004 decision by the Virginia State Police, upon advice by the Virginia Attorney General, to clearly warn gun purchase and concealed handgun applicants that citizen disclosure of SSNs is NOT required.
The federal Brady Act does not require SSN disclosure for instant background checks when buying guns, and there system works just fine (see BATFE Form 4473 for federal gun dealer record keeping on background checks for transfers). Many states are already in compliance with federal privacy law and do not absolutely require SSN disclosure in gun regulation schemes, including New Hampshire and Florida.
Because Judge Sanchez held the federal statute controlling, Sanchez did not need to rule on the potential Constitutional question presented re: the right to bear arms. Sanchez wrote, perhaps tongue-in-cheek: "It is beyond cavil the legal ability to purchase or obtain a license to carry a handgun is a right, benefit, or privilege...Fortunately, I need not decide which of the three it is."
While no federal court has ever held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, the PA Supreme Court HAS held that Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution ("The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned") DOES provide an individual right to bear arms in Pennsylvania. See Ortiz v. Commonwealth, 681 A.2d 152, 156 (Pa. 1996) (striking down locality gun regulation and holding that the “ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected” under the Pennsylvania constitution).
-----------------------------------------
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/13977647.htm
Posted on Tue, Feb. 28, 2006
Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms
Requiring prospective owners to provide their Social Security numbers violates the U.S. Privacy Act, the judge ruled.
By John Shiffman
Inquirer Staff Writer
Pennsylvania's requirement that buyers provide a Social Security number to purchase a gun or obtain a concealed-weapons permit was struck down yesterday by a federal judge.
The state law violated the federal Privacy Act, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez ruled.
"This issue has been largely overlooked in Pennsylvania and other states for a long time," said lawyer J. Dwight Yoder, who brought the case on behalf of a retired U.S. Army officer from Lancaster. "This ruling is about privacy, not guns. We weren't looking to circumvent gun laws."
Lawyers for the Pennsylvania State Police are reviewing the decision and considering an appeal, spokesman Jack Lewis said. By requiring applicants to provide Social Security numbers, Lewis said, his agency "simply has followed the requirements of the state's Uniform Firearms Act."
The wider impact of yesterday's ruling - whether, for example, other Pennsylvania Social Security requirements would be deemed invalid - was uncertain.
One reason is that there are two large exceptions to the Privacy Act's protection of Social Security numbers. The act does not apply to state and local government programs specifically exempted by federal law, such as driver's license applications, or to programs from before 1974, such as voter registration.
Sanchez's ruling noted that the right of privacy as to Social Security numbers exists under a federal law, not as a right the U.S. Supreme Court had interpreted as protected by the Constitution.
Still, Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the Privacy Journal in Providence, R.I., said yesterday's ruling was "significant because it comes at a time when most government agencies are requiring more and more information from people."
"The decision is part of a trend in the last 10 years as courts realize the importance of keeping Social Security numbers confidential because of identity theft," Smith said. Smith, who is also a lawyer and journalist, was a paid expert for Michael Stollenwerk, the retired Army officer who brought the case in federal court in Philadelphia.
Stollenwerk said yesterday he hoped the ruling would inspire others to challenge government demands for Social Security numbers. He also said he hoped it would encourage local and state officials to review application requirements.
"A lot of state governments have blown off this law," said Stollenwerk, now a law student at Georgetown University. "I think someone had to stand up to the government and say, 'I'm going to challenge this.' "
Stollenwerk, 42, has pressed the matter on gun permits in other states, he said. In California, without going to court, he said, he was able to convince state authorities that their gun-purchase law violated the Privacy Act. In Virginia, he said, he was victorious in state court.
Stollenwerk began his Pennsylvania effort in June 2003, when he was still an Army lieutenant colonel based in the Washington suburbs.
On June 30, 2003, Stollenwerk tried to buy a Taurus revolver from US Prospectors Sporting Goods in Columbia, Lancaster County.
When the dealer asked for his Social Security number, Stollenwerk declined to provide it. The dealer called state police to try to complete the sale, but the state police refused to run Stollenwerk's name through its database, the Pennsylvania Instant Check System, without a Social Security number.
A few days later, Stollenwerk tried to apply for a concealed-gun permit from the Lancaster County sheriff. He supplied his passport, driver's license, voter-registration card, bank statements, and utility bills as identification. When he refused to disclose his Social Security number, Sheriff Terry A. Bergman denied him a license to carry a firearm.
Bergman referred calls yesterday to his attorney, David Karamessinis, who could not be reached for comment.
Contact staff writer John Shiffman at 215-854-2658 or
[email protected].
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE from Mike Stollenwerk: The above article includes 2 tiny errors:
1. I was registering my importation of handguns in CA when I moved there, not buying guns.
2. I do not think that voting registration in PA is grandfathered to allow the state to require SSNs, although the Help American Vote Act of 2002 allows states to require the last 4 digits of an SSN OR driver's license # from new applicants (applicant's choice), but only if the applicant has such numbers assigned to her.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Section 7 of PL 93-579
[the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, 5 USC 552a note]
Sec. 7 (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to--
(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
(B) any disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(b) Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.
See also a US DOJ overview of case law regarding Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/1974ssnu.htm
