Monday, April 1, 2013

Need Some Help Chasing Down Some Laws

I am keeping this near the top of the blog in the hopes that readers will be able to help me find the information that I need.  I am marking in bold the states where I still need some help.  Hawaii remains confusing; some documents indicate that long gun background checks start in 1981; other materials seem to indicate that there is some sort of background check starting in 1933.

According to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, there are sixteen states that require a background check of some sort on private party sales: six that require them on all firearm sales (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI); three that require them on handgun sales (CT, MD, PA); and seven other states that require a permit and background check for handgun purchase (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE). It turns out that CSGV is wrong about Hawaii and New Jersey: both require a permit to purchase not only handguns, but long guns as well.

I am starting to gather information on the effectiveness of these private party firearms purchase background check laws.  I am skeptical that they are effective at reducing total murder rates (although might be effective at reducing gun murder rates).  To find out for sure, I need to know the year that each of these sixteen states adopted these requirements.  Colorado, obviously, is this year, and so is New York.  Especially if you live in these remaining fourteen states (CA, IL, NY, OR, RI, CT, MD, PA, HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE), could I prevail upon you track down:

1. The statute that requires private party sales or transfers to go through a background check or license issuance (and hopefully the URL to that statute).

2. The year first adopted (which ideally should be in the statute that you reference).  If the law was adopted before 1960 (as I suspect will be the case with HI), that is really all I need to know (before there's no useful murder stats before then).

Please either add what you find to the comments (so that others can see what states are done) or email them, and I will update here.

California


2) Effective 1 Jan 1991

Connecticut

This is curious.  There is, of course, a background check for handguns at Connecticut General Statutes 29-33, and there is a requirement for long guns at 29-37a, but it appears to be specific to dealers:
(a) No person, firm or corporation may deliver, at retail, any firearm, as defined in section 53a-3, other than a pistol or revolver, to any person unless such person makes application on a form prescribed and furnished by the Commissioner of Public Safety, which shall be attached by the vendor to the federal sale or transfer document and filed and retained by the vendor for at least twenty years or until such vendor goes out of business. Such application shall be available for inspection during normal business hours by law enforcement officials. No sale or delivery of any firearm shall be made until the expiration of two weeks from the date of the application, and until the person, firm or corporation making such sale, delivery or transfer has insured that such application has been completed properly and has obtained an authorization number from the Commissioner of Public Safety for such sale, delivery or transfer.
 There is a provision for background checks for gun sales at gun shows at 29-37g, but nowhere else (because guns sold in dark alleys in New Haven will never be criminally misused).  Does anyone know of any general requirement in Connecticut law for background checks for private party sales?  I can't find it.

Hawaii

Hawaii Revised Statutes 134-2:

(a) No person shall acquire the ownership of a firearm, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or by a prior owner or unregistered, either by purchase, gift, inheritance, bequest, or in any other manner, whether procured in the State or imported by mail, express, freight, or otherwise, until the person has first procured from the chief of police of the county of the person's place of business or, if there is no place of business, the person's residence or, if there is neither place of business nor residence, the person's place of sojourn, a permit to acquire the ownership of a firearm as prescribed in this section....

(e) Permits to acquire a pistol or revolver shall require a separate application and permit for each transaction. Permits issued to acquire any rifle or shotgun shall entitle the permittee to make subsequent purchases of rifles or shotguns for a period of one year from the date of issue without a separate application and permit for each acquisition, subject to the disqualifications under section 134-7 and subject to revocation under section 134-13; provided that if a permittee is arrested for committing a felony or any crime of violence or for the illegal sale of any drug, the permit shall be impounded and shall be surrendered to the issuing authority.  
It appears from the legislative history under WestLaw that this law dates back to "Laws 1988, ch. 275, § 2."  On the other hand, the Hawaii Police Department web page says,
Registration is not mandatory for rifles and shotguns acquired in the state of Hawaiʻi prior to July, 1994.  However, one permit per rifle or shotgun was required for acquisitions between 1981 and July, 1994.
This suggests that there was a permit requirement starting in 1981.  I have not found it yet.  This article seems to have the history of it, but I have not yet found the full article anywhere.  Here is the full text of that article.  On p. 55, it claims that for the first time after passage of 1981 session law ch. 239, Hawaii required a permit to purchase all long guns.  Another reader points to State v. Auwae (Hawaii.App. 1998) which seems to indicate that purchase permits go back much further:

1927 Sess. L., Act 206, § 4, at 209 *fn9 (emphasis added). In 1933, the legislature amended the 1927 Sess. L., Act 206, §4 to read, "No person who has been convicted . . . of having committed or attempted a crime of violence, shall own or have in his possession or under his control a pistol or revolver or ammunition therefor." 1933-34 Sess. L., Act 26, § 6, at 38. The reason for the amendment was as follows:
[T]o give the law enforcing agencies of the Territory a better means of controlling the sale, transfer and possession of firearms and ammunition. [The Bill] provides for the registration of all firearms now possessed by persons living in the Territory, prohibits the subsequent acquisition of firearms other than shotguns by non-citizens and provides an effective method of registration, etc.
House Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 89, in 1933 House Journal, at 427. The legislature did not specifically address the language of § 6 or comment on the addition of the words "or ammunition therefor."*fn10

This particular case was primarily involved with a different question, but it seems to indicate that purchase of all guns were subject to some sort of background check as early as 1933.

A reader who is very industrious and skilled in searching has found:

Revised laws of Hawaii 1945 are archived here:
http://www.llmcdigital.org/docdisplay.aspx?textid=37781834

7183 and 7186 are the bits on license and posession. They appear pretty similar to the 1935 version in snippet view on Google books as sections 2542 and 2545:
No person shall take possession of any firearms of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or unregistered, or of any ammunition of any kind or description, except shotgun ammunition, either through sale, gift, loan, bequest, or otherwise, whether procured in the Territory or imported by mail, express, freight, or otherwise, until he shall first have procured from the chief of police of the county wherein is his place of business, or if there be no place of business, his residence, or if there be neither place of business nor residence, his place of sojourn, a permit to acquire as prescribed herein.

It appears that Hawaii's background check law is considerably older than the beginning of useful murder rates data.

Illinois

The requirement is that no one may transfer a firearm except to someone with a Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID), which requires a background check to obtain, in 430 ILCS 65.  While I can only find snippet text indicators of when the law was passed, it is clear that it is 1967, so in effect for the full year of 1968.

Iowa

The current law's requirement for a permit to purchase a handgun appears to date back to 1977. Iowa Code 724.16, requiring a permit to purchase a handgun, replaced what this 1977 supplement to the Iowa Code refers to as a permit to sell (see p. 64).  The current law is here.

Maryland

Maryland Code 5-124 requires all "Secondary Sales" (private parties) to go through a background check. This was first adopted as part of the Gun Violence Act of 1996, and readopted in 2003.  The session law Ch. 561. starts here.  It requires handguns and assault weapons to go through a background check for all sales.

Massachusetts

 Very curious.  The 1968 law that requires a Firearms ID card or License to Carry to purchase a firearm apparently did not explicitly require private party sales to have a background check.  (This was added in 1998.)  Still, it is quite apparent that you needed an FID or LTC to purchase a firearm in Massachusetts starting in 1968, and both required a background check.  I think it is clear that Massachusetts has required a background check to get either FID or LTC, and you could not legally buy a firearm from anyone without one or the other.

Michigan

As I kinda remembered, Michigan's first permit to purchase a pistol (effectively, a background check law) dates back to 1927 (p. 14).  It is widely believed that the unmitigated gall of a black man, a physician, who bought a house in a white neighborhood, then used a pistol to defend his home from a white mob, caused passage of this law.

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. 624.7132 requires a transfer of a handgun or "semiautomatic military-style assault weapon" to undergo a background, including private party sales.  The handgun provision was adopted May 24, 1977; assault weapons were added to the requirement in 1994.  However: it does not apply to private party sales unless the transferee commits a crime of violence within a year of receiving the weapon, could not lawfully possess a weapon on the date of transfer, then the seller can be punished with a misdemeanor.  In short, there is no background check requirement for private party sales.

Nebraska

The current statute is Nebraska Revised Statute 69-2403, which applies to effectively all handgun transfers, with exemptions for family members, rental or range use, and the like.  It appears to date back to 1991.  Here is a source that indicates that the session law is LB 355, ch. 69, 1991.  That would the first full year of the law would be 1992.

New Jersey

Current statute is N.J. 2C Code of Criminal Justice 58-3.  Handgun permits and firearms ID cards are different, but in both cases, it is a criminal matter to transfer a firearm without a background check.  The current law seems to date to 1966, but it turns out:

HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES

Repealed § 2A:151-32, enacted by L.1951, 1st Sp.Sess., c. 344, eff. Jan. 1, 1952, amended by L.1954, c. 67, p. 419, § 1; L.1966, c. 60, § 25, required a permit and an identification card to purchase firearms.

Repealed § 2A:151-33, enacted by L.1951, 1st Sp.Sess., c. 344, eff. Jan. 1, 1952, amended by L.1966, c. 60, § 26; L.1973, c. 174, § 2, specified who may obtain a permit to purchase firearms.
At least as early as 1951 there seems to be a law in New Jersey requiring a permit and ID card to buy firearms.

North Carolina

The pistol permit to purchase law was adopted in 1919, so there is no way to do useful research on the effects of the law on murder rates.

Oregon
There is a background check requirement for all firearms at gun shows (ORS 166.438, apparently passed by initiative in 2000.)  But not, apparently, anywhere else.  (I guess that the evil rays that cause criminal acts only emanating from guns when they are displayed for sale in close proximity.)  Oregon does not have a mandatory background check for private party sales.

Pennsylvania

18 Penn. Cons. Stat. Ann. 6111 seems to be what requires all private party handgun sales to go through a background check.  No luck on finding when this was adopted.  Even though section 6111 says "firearm" section 6102 defines it as a concealable firearm.  BATF's Firearms State Laws and Published Ordinances (1994) still does not have the requirement for private party background checks for handguns; this session law 1997-5 appears to be what creates the current 18 Penn. Cons. Stat. Ann 6111; it would appear that the first full year of private party handgun sales being subject to background check is 1998.

Rhode Island

Mandatory background checks for all handgun sales are in Rhode Island General Laws 11-47-35; for rifles and shotguns in Rhode Island General Laws 11-47-35.2.  The long gun provision, 11-47-35.2 was 1990 R.I. ALS 37; 1990 R.I. Pub. Ch. 37; 1990 R.I. SB 2165, adopted 1990, effective July 1, 1990.  For handguns, in effect at least as early as 1956, appearing in Rhode Island Gen.Laws 1956, § 11-47-35.

Thanks to all for your help!

23 comments:

TOTWTYTR said...

Private party sales in MA do not directly require a background check.

MA does require anyone who wants to possess a firearm, even in the home, to have License To Carry Firearms (LTC) issued by the state. That requires a NCIC criminal check, fingerprints, and photo. That is done through the local police agency. In addition, the chief of police has full discretion on who to issue a license to.

In addition, all private party sales must be reported to the state Firearms Record Bureau on a FA 10 form. That's done electronically now, which requires a computer and internet connection.

The state also limits private party sales to four per year per licensee. After that, sales must go through a FFL, have a NICS check, 4473 and a FA10 done by the dealer.

MA firearms laws are mostly contained within various sections of Chapter 140 of the general laws.

The last major revision was in 1998.

Douglas2 said...

Massachusetts -- no sale by dealer or private party unless the buyer is a holder of a "Firearms Identification Card" or license, both of which require background check


1 http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131E

Part of that refers to http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section128A
shall not apply to any resident of the commonwealth who, without being licensed as provided in section one hundred and twenty-two, sells or transfers ... not more than four firearms... in any one calendar year; provided, however, that the seller has a firearm identification card or a license to carry firearms... and the purchaser has... a firearm identification card ...... or has been issued a license to carry firearms

2 passed in 1998, effective October 21, 1998:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/1998/Chapter180

An organization called GOAL seems to be the expert on MA legislation.

It may be possible that there was some restriction before that, I've not been able to find what those particular sections of the law were before summer of '98

Douglas2 said...

Further on MA:
http://www.ma-rooned.com/2011/06/massachusetts-gunshow-loophole-defined.html?showComment=1306941503910#c1254628869752587860

It seems that some organizations count MA as having a "gun show loophole" in spite of the restrictions TOTWTYTR outlined. How wone gets from the actual law to the CSGV outline that MA requires "a permit and background check for handgun purchase" but not for all other firearms is a mystery.

Douglas2 said...

And yet more on MA, I've looked over the history of changes to the licensing law on the GOAL webpage http://massgunlawreform.com/facts.html#History_of_Gun_Licensing_in_Massachusetts_

and it is indeed the case that post Chapter 737 of the Acts of 1968 (which took effect on January 1, 1969) it was illegal to own a firearm without a FID or LTC, but specific language in the law restricting private sales to FID or LTC holders came only with the passage of Chapter 180 of the acts of 1998.

http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/actsResolves/1968/1968acts0737.pdf

Jim Dunmyer said...

MI adopted their "permit to purchase" and "handgun safety check" laws in about 1927, after a race riot in Detroit. The "safety check" was registration, of course. Although the "safety check" is no longer required, a sales record is still kept. No P2P is required if the buyer has a Concealed Pistol License.

I once asked the county prosecutor how many crimes had been solved by the pistol registration, and he couldn't/wouldn't answer. We have attempted to eliminate the registration requirement, but haven't yet been successful.

Billll said...

Somehow I have doubts that the burglar who stole the gun will ask the dope dealer he sells it to to come down to the gun shop and go through a background check.

SJ said...

From page 14 of this document,

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/firearms.pdf

The oldest laws about pistol purchases in Michigan are from 1927. However, it isn't quite clear which sections were enacted in 1927, and which were enacted in later, amending acts.

I've been told that Michigan's Permit-to-Purchase-a-Handgun was enacted in that original law in 1927.

These laws may have resulted from the after-effects of a riot outside the home of Dr. Ossian Sweet in 1925.

SJ said...

Some further research on the Michigan law, and the Sweet trial:

The Clarence Darrow library at U-Minnesota has a page full of documents related to Darrow's work in the Sweets trial. It also has a link to a scan of Public Act 327 of Michigan as enacted.

I guess I didn't feel happy with just the current version of the law (which is an amended version of the 1927 law), but wanted to see the law that was passed in 1927.

jdege said...

Minnesota imposes a background check on that is independent of NICS. The check can be done in one of three forms - the buyer presents a Permit to Carry, the buyer presents a Permit to Purchase, or the seller submits a Report of Transfer to the buyer's police chief or sheriff, and waits for approval.

The law requires these only for purchases from federally licensed dealers, but creates a significant legal liability on private sales, if you do not perform the background check, and the buyer uses the firearm in committing a crime within one year.

So, in practice, the Report of Transfer is never used. Sellers simply tell the buyer to get a Permit to Purchase, which is free.

And, in practice, nearly all private sales to strangers involve showing a Permit to Carry or Permit to Purchase, because gun owners generally don't want to sell to criminals, and the PTP/PTC provides a hassle-free way to ensure that they don't.

There has been a "Universal Background Check" bill being debated in the legislature that purport to extend the background check requirement to private sales, but the language of the bill doesn't do that, it rather outlaws private sales entirely, requiring every transfer to be done through a federally licensed dealer.

Extending the PTP/PTC system to apply to all transfers, rather than only to purchases from FFLs, has been floated as a reasonable compromise. The gun control proponents have been unwilling to discuss it. Instead, they backed the private transfer ban until it went down in flames.

Sigivald said...

Here in Oregon, the statute is ORS 166.438 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/166.438).

Only transfers at "gun shows" require a background check for a private sale.

It was enacted via ballot measure in 2000 as Measure 5.

Clayton said...

jdedge: I agree that you would have to be a complete fool -- or a criminal -- to make a private party sale without seeing a Permit to Carry or a Permit to Purchase -- but there is nothing that actually prohibits such sales. (Are there people in Minnesota who do such sales? Almost certainly some.) Even the threat of punishment under sec. 609.66 subd. 1f is so uncertain and remote that Minnesota does not really have a mandatory background check.

The Comedian said...

Private party sales of long guns (not including listed semiautomatic assault weapons or machine guns) do not require criminal background checks in Connecticut except at "gun shows".

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?a=4213&q=494616

"Rifles and Shotguns
Sales of long arms between non-licensed dealers, commonly referred to as second hand sales, require no paperwork or notification, however, it is strongly recommended that all firearms be voluntarily registered. In the event of loss or theft of firearm this will provide easy retrieval of information for insurance or police information and assure return of recovered property. (exception: sales conducted at gun shows require NICS authorization check and transfer paperwork) The only restrictions are the seller may not sell to anyone under 18 years of age, or to anyone the seller knows is prohibited from possessing firearms."


The waiting period to purchase long guns from dealers is an odd one. You have to wait two weeks to pick up a long gun from a dealer, but the waiting period does not apply to law enforcement officers, active duty military, CT pistol permit holders, and/or holders of a hunting license.

Douglas2 said...

I had a recollection this morning that Indiana used to have a registration and private sale law, and it was repealed in P.L. 17-1997.

Can't find any details now, however. It might be an interesting addition however, as the ratchet doesn't always go the same way.

Douglas2 said...

IA:
1: http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=724.15

This appears to be the current language adopted in 77 or 78:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ivpLAQAAIAAJ&q=iowa+724.15+%22permit+to+acquire%22&dq=iowa+724.15

Previous wording is in this document from the 1977 code supplement:
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/DOCS/Shelves/Code/OCR/1977%20Iowa%20Code%20Supplement.pdf
Here it is noted that this is a change in concept from requiring a permit to sell to having a permit to purchase. The requirements for the permit to purchase include "shall be issued to the applicant immediately on application", and the only specifications for the form say it must ask for full name, social security number, residence, and age. Nothing about background check there.

Douglas2 said...

NJ: chapter 58 of Title 2C new jersey
2C:58-3 Purchase of Firearms
http://lis.njleg.state.nj.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=304611&Depth=4&TD=WRAP&advquery=2c%3a%2058-3&headingswithhits=on&infobase=statutes.nfo&rank=&record={1BD1}&softpage=Document42&wordsaroundhits=2&x=0&y=0&zz=

The same wording appears in many court cases, indicating it was enacted in 1966 legislation (L. 1966, c. 60; N.J.S.A. 2A:151-1)
e.g.: Staate v Leach:
http://nj.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19760625_0040292.NJ.htm/qx

Douglas2 said...

NE:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2403

Enacted 1991:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040324152600/http://statutes.unicam.state.ne.us/corpus/chapall/chap69.html
(Search on page: Laws 1991, LB 355)

Douglas2 said...

HI:

http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19980918_0110.HI.htm/qx

"The first Hawaii law prohibiting certain convicted persons from owning or possessing certain firearms was enacted in 1927 by the Territory of Hawaii Legislature (the Territorial legislature) as section 4 of Act 206 of the 1927 Session Laws:

Section 4. Persons forbidden to possess small arms. No person who has been convicted in this territory or elsewhere, of having committed or attempted a crime of violence, shall own or have in his possession or under his control, a pistol or revolver.

1927 Sess. L., Act 206, § 4, at 209. In 1933, the legislature amended the 1927 Sess. L., Act 206, §4 to read, "No person who has been convicted . . . of having committed or attempted a crime of violence, shall own or have in his possession or under his control a pistol or revolver or ammunition therefor." 1933-34 Sess. L., Act 26, § 6, at 38. The reason for the amendment was as follows:

[T]o give the law enforcing agencies of the Territory a better means of controlling the sale, transfer and possession of firearms and ammunition. [The Bill] provides for the registration of all firearms now possessed by persons living in the Territory, prohibits the subsequent acquisition of firearms other than shotguns by non-citizens and provides an effective method of registration, etc.

House Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 89, in 1933 House Journal, at 427.

In 1951, the Territorial legislature substituted the word "firearm" for the words "pistol or revolver" ... was amended in 1961 only to change the word "Territory" to "State."

When the HRS were enacted in 1968, ... was recodified as HRS § 134-7 (1968).

ASLEvans said...

For PA, the legislative history for 18 Pa.C.S. §6111 is available here:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.061.011.000..HTM

Nicholas Darkwater said...

For Oregon, the gun show requirement really doesn't exist as a separate stipulation. The vast majority of sales are from licensed (FFL) dealers. They would have to do a background check anyway, just as if they were in their store.

Sales between private parties still do not require a background check, whether they are done at a gun show (or in the parking lot) or in a home.

Thus, there are no "gun show loopholes" in Oregon.

Clayton said...

Unfortunately, this only shows the history of the current section. It appears from reading Commonwealth v. Ray (1970) that the Uniform Firearms Act dates back to 1968 -- but because I can't find a copy of that statute, I don't know if the prohibition on private party transfers of handguns goes that far back.

Douglas2 said...

PA: Here is the bit where the law mentioned in from Comm. V. Ray was passed:

http://www.palrb.us/pamphletlaws/19001999/1968/0/act/0228.pdf


The 1994 version of PA law doesn't have a background check, but the buyer must supply a note certifying that they haven't been convicted of a crime of violence:
Firearms State Laws & Published Ordinances (1994) 20th ed. - Page 42
books.google.com/books?isbn=0788128337

The Section 6111 as it is not seems to have sprung from whole cloth (save minor revisions) in this 1997 act:
http://www.palrb.us/pamphletlaws/19001999/1997/0/act/0005.pdf

This is an interesting search, I can't be certain it is comprehensive:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palrb.us%2Fpamphletlaws%2F19001999%2F+6111+firearms

Douglas2 said...

HI -
At any rate for Hawaii the requirement of a license for purchase precedes your dates for good crime data.

Revised laws of Hawaii 1945 are archived here:
http://www.llmcdigital.org/docdisplay.aspx?textid=37781834

7183 and 7186 are the bits on license and posession. They appear pretty similar to the 1935 version in snippet view on Google books as sections 2542 and 2545:
No person shall take possession of any firearms of any description, whether usable or unusable, serviceable or unserviceable, modern or antique, registered under prior law or unregistered, or of any ammunition of any kind or description, except shotgun ammunition, either through sale, gift, loan, bequest, or otherwise, whether procured in the Territory or imported by mail, express, freight, or otherwise, until he shall first have procured from the chief of police of the county wherein is his place of business, or if there be no place of business, his residence, or if there be neither place of business nor residence, his place of sojourn, a permit to acquire as prescribed herein

Douglas2 said...

HI:

But according to footnote 6 of this Va Law Review article from 1934, the HI license requirement dates from HI act 206 of 1927:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/UniformFirearmsAct.html

6. The model law drafted by the National Crime Commission in 1927 adopts this principle. It has long been in effect in New York under the Sullivan Law, supra note 1. Several other states have recently made a license to purchase necessary: Hawaii Laws 1927, Act 206; MASS. GEN. LAWS (1916) c. 395, § 2; 'Mich. Pub. Acts 1927, no. 374, § 2: N. J. Laws 1927, c. 321, § 6. The West Virginia law seems to approach this principle. W. VA. CODE (1931) c. 61, art. 7, § 2.

The principle of state-wide registration of all pistols was also rejected, on the practical grounds of non-enforceability. Arkansas tried to effect such registration and was compelled to repeal its statute as unenforceable after a trial period of two years. Ark. Acts 1923, c. 340, repeated by Ark. Acts 1925, Act. no. 351, Nothing daunted, the Michigan law of 1927 re--enacted the registration requirement in force in that state. Mich. Pub . Acts 1927, no. 374, § 2. The Virginia statute imposing an annual tax on all pistols approaches the general registration theory. VA. CODE ANN. (Michie, 1930) § 2324-A. It is believed that such laws are out of line with recognized precedent in this country.