SCOTUS: "Supreme Court Throws Out Gun Records Case"

[cuchulainn]

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20030226_2092.html

Supreme Court Throws Out Gun Records Case

Supreme Court Throws Out Gun Records Case, Citing New Law Designed to Keep Information Private

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Feb. 26 —
The Supreme Court bowed out of a dispute for now over the openness of government gun records, citing a new law designed to keep information private.

The justices on Wednesday canceled next week's arguments in a case that would have settled whether the government had to make public details of a weapons database, including names of gun shops and gun owners whose weapons were used in crimes.

The case tested the bounds of the Freedom of Information Act, which allows reporters and other outsiders to get unclassified government records that officials would not otherwise release.

The court's action does not end the dispute between the city of Chicago and the Bush administration, which will not release information that the city wants for its lawsuit against the gun industry.

The justices instructed an appeals court to consider if a congressional provision restricting the release of gun information affects the case.

Congressional Republicans included the restriction in a spending bill passed this month. It prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from spending money to release the data.

The city is trying to recover money spent fighting gun violence. Lawrence Rosenthal, Chicago's attorney, said the ban should not affect the case because Chicago is willing to pay the costs of providing the data, as is routine under the information act.

Congressional supporters "did not have the votes to actually forbid the release of this data," Rosenthal said. "All they had enough support to do was make sure the taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill for releasing this information."

The administration, the National Rifle Association and other groups had argued that confidential records are needed to safeguard investigations and protect people's privacy.

NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook said the case's dismissal is a victory for the government.

"The records aren't going to be divulged as long as this case continues," he said.

Halbrook said he had expected the justices to protect the information, and after more fights in a lower court the case "will probably end up back in the lap of the Supreme Court."

At issue is access to information on about 200,000 firearm traces a year, in which police, after confiscating a weapon in a crime, track down who made it, sold it and bought it.

The ATF releases some information now, after a time lapse, but erases items such as the name of the seller and the buyer.

Matt Nosanchuk, litigation director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit gun control research group, said that the congressional provision "was designed to cut the city of Chicago's case off at its knees."

"It just postpones a resolution of this important issue, not only for the city of Chicago but everyone else," he said.

Arguments in the case had been scheduled for Tuesday.

The case is Department of Justice v. City of Chicago, 02-322.


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit gun control research group

Shoot! I thought VPC was a political special interest group. And here they turn out to only be a non-profit research organization.

 

[lapidator]

FWIW -- this is from a SCOTUS email list i subscribe to:

Greetings once again, sportsfans. For the FOIA geeks out there, this
afternoon the Court took the unusual step of GVR'ing (grant, vacate, remand)
a case scheduled for oral argument next Tuesday. The case is Department of
Treasury v. Chicago (02-322).

Here's what I said when it was granted back in November: The Court will
determine whether the Freedom of Information Act entitles the City of
Chicago to a variety of firearms sales data collected and maintained by the
ATF. The dispute arose out of a public-nuisance lawsuit Chicago filed
against certain gun manufacturers in Illinois state court, alleging that the
manufacturers' marketing efforts targeted individuals likely to possess or
use weapons in the city in violation of Chicago's gun-control laws. In
order to examine national and local firearm distribution patterns, Chicago
filed a FOIA request with the Department of Treasury seeking access to ATF's
"Trace" and "Multiple Sales" databases. The Trace Database comprises data
collected when law enforcement agencies recover a firearm in connection with
a crime and then trace the weapon to the manufacturer, to the dealer who
first sold it, and, ultimately, to the individual purchaser. The Multiple
Sales Database (a.k.a. The Charlton Heston Christmas Card List) contains
data reported under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A), which requires dealers to
inform ATF when a nonlicensed purchaser buys more than one gun from the same
dealer within five days. The Seventh Circuit held that certain specific
information from these databases was not exempted from disclosure under
FOIA. The specific questions presented are: (1) Whether individual names
and addresses in the Trace Database and the Multiple Sales Database are
exempt from compelled disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(C), which
encompasses "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes"
when the production of such records "could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." (2) Whether
various categories of information contained in the Trace Database are
protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 7(A), which encompasses law
enforcement records when the production of such records "could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings."

Today, the Court GVR'd and directed the Seventh Circuit to consider what
effect, if any, Div. J., Tit. 6, section 644, of the Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution, H.J. Consol. Res. 2, 108th Cong., 1st Sess.
(2003), has on this case. I wish I could tell you what effect the
appropriations bill has on these FOIA requests, but I haven't the foggiest
idea and would prefer to just get in my dog sled and head home. I welcome
our Hill wonks to weigh in.

Thought you'd want to know. Until next time, that's this afternoon's
baseball.

Mark T. Stancil is an associate in the Washington, D.C., office of Baker
Botts LLP. The statements, opinions, and subtle emotions expressed herein
do not necessarily represent those of Baker Botts LLP; to the extent they
are correct, insightful, and not offensive, they most definitely represent
the views of the author. Limit: one disclaimer per day.

If you would like to subscribe to these updates, or, more to the point,
unsubscribe, please send an e-mail to [email protected].

 

[Standing Wolf]

The city is trying to recover money spent fighting gun violence.

Nope. Chicago is trying to get away with further predations of its tax payers' civil rights.