PDA

View Full Version : Registration Doesn't Lead to Confiscation?


QQQ
10-11-2011, 1:16 PM
I read in another thread that long gun registration, if it doesn't get thrown out by 2014, will assuredly not be a precursor to confiscation.

I didn't really understand the reasoning behind this. Especially in light of the fact that SKS's were confiscated, and that this law was never (as far as I know) thrown out.

Could someone please explain, in layman's terms, why registration will definitely not be followed up by confiscation? I'm a little worried and am hoping that an explanation could allay my concerns.

thedonger
10-11-2011, 1:20 PM
I don't think anyone can say for certain that it will or will not lead to confiscation.

The problem is that it COULD lead to confiscation, and for confiscation to work registration before hand would be required, how else would anyone know what to confiscate...

FullMetalJacket
10-11-2011, 1:22 PM
What does registration--identifying who owns what--accomplish aside from possible aid in confiscation?


Not much.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 1:24 PM
If the 2A situation was to go horribly wrong for us like the Heller 5 left the SCOTUS and every gun case was ruled against us, with Heller and McDonald being overturned, then registration may eventually lead to confiscation but I highly doubt that will happen.

goodlookin1
10-11-2011, 1:46 PM
No one can explain this. Because Registration DOES lead to confiscation! Otherwise, what possibly goal could be achieved by it? Law enforcement? Yeah, right....does nothing to fight crime. Law abiding citizens dont commit the crimes! It has happened in Australia, it happened in Germany to the Jews, it happened in the UK, etc, etc.

Show me a time when registration has NOT led to confiscation over a good period of time. Eventually, a corrupt government comes to power and gets all the info they need to begin confiscation. And so it begins.

It may not be Jan 1st, 2014, it may not be Jan 1st, 2020.....but it will come eventually, mark my words. It's already happened on a small scale in the U.S. a few times: Katrina, CA AW ban, and I'm sure some other incidents.

a1c
10-11-2011, 1:55 PM
No one can explain this. Because Registration DOES lead to confiscation! Otherwise, what possibly goal could be achieved by it? Law enforcement? Yeah, right....does nothing to fight crime. Law abiding citizens dont commit the crimes! It has happened in Australia, it happened in Germany to the Jews, it happened in the UK, etc, etc.

Show me a time when registration has NOT led to confiscation over a good period of time. Eventually, a corrupt government comes to power and gets all the info they need to begin confiscation. And so it begins.

It may not be Jan 1st, 2014, it may not be Jan 1st, 2020.....but it will come eventually, mark my words. It's already happened on a small scale in the U.S. a few times: Katrina, CA AW ban, and I'm sure some other incidents.

Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.

green grunt
10-11-2011, 1:56 PM
Red Dawn...the movie..........."go get all the 4473's and collect all the guns" ....sorry , not word for word , but you get the pic........any form of reg. WILL lead to confiscation , someday .........

a1c
10-11-2011, 1:57 PM
What does registration--identifying who owns what--accomplish aside from possible aid in confiscation?

Not much.

It's to score points with the Brady camp. It's a feel-good piece of legislation for the soccer moms. It's politics.

a1c
10-11-2011, 1:57 PM
Red Dawn...the movie..........."go get all the 4473's and collect all the guns" ....sorry , not word for word , but you get the pic........any form of reg. WILL lead to confiscation , someday .........

It's nice to see how you get your perspective from John Milius movies.

otalps
10-11-2011, 1:59 PM
Why is that insulting exactly? Registration leading to confiscation has been the mantra for as long as I can remember. The German thing was an actual event, where is the insult?:confused:

yellowfin
10-11-2011, 1:59 PM
Dr. Volokh had a lot to say about this recently at FedSoc meeting at Harvard Law: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/10/04_volokh-feldman-slippery-slope-arguments.html Generally according to the most informed people here, Dr. Volokh's ideas are pretty important, and in this presentation he very precisely elaborates on how registration can lead to bad things in the future by means of several mechanisms. Everyone here would benefit greatly from seeing this, and in particularly to incorporate it into your thoughts in this thread.

a1c
10-11-2011, 2:01 PM
Why is that insulting exactly? Registration leading to confiscation has been the mantra for as long as I can remember. The German thing was an actual event, where is the insult?:confused:

Anytime you compare your situation to that of Nazi Germany Jews, you're being a drama queen making a tasteless comparison.

Whether you like it or not, you live in the freest country there is on earth. You still have legal ways to fight this. Forget mantra and look at the avenues, the context, and the politics. Because that's all it is - it's not a conspiracy, it's politics. You are spoiled and don't even know it.

Doheny
10-11-2011, 2:02 PM
Red Dawn...the movie..........."go get all the 4473's and collect all the guns" ....sorry , not word for word , but you get the pic........any form of reg. WILL lead to confiscation , someday .........

And now for your viewing pleasure...

3OaF-j8x5Vc

otalps
10-11-2011, 2:06 PM
Anytime you compare your situation to that of Nazi Germany Jews, you're being a drama queen making a tasteless comparison.

Whether you like it or not, you live in the freest country there is on earth. You still have legal ways to fight this. Forget mantra and look at the avenues, the context, and the politics. Because that's all it is - it's not a conspiracy, it's politics. You are spoiled and don't even know it.

I didn't see him comparing our situation to that of 30's Germany. I saw him mentioning it as an example. JPFO has said the same. History proves as much that registration leads to confiscation. How is bringing up a historical example tasteless? I'm still missing the insult.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 2:08 PM
Anytime you compare your situation to that of Nazi Germany Jews, you're being a drama queen making a tasteless comparison.

Whether you like it or not, you live in the freest country there is on earth. You still have legal ways to fight this. Forget mantra and look at the avenues, the context, and the politics. Because that's all it is - it's not a conspiracy, it's politics. You are spoiled and don't even know it.

He is using it as an example. You know, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

a1c
10-11-2011, 2:09 PM
He is using it as an example. You know, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

The circumstances are completely different.

Bhobbs
10-11-2011, 2:11 PM
The circumstances are completely different.

I agree completely and would never compare our government to the Nazis. I am just saying the point that registration has led to confiscation throughout history is valid.

tenpercentfirearms
10-11-2011, 2:12 PM
My own personal opinion is that the government should assume I have firearms and that if my rights are oppressed at the expense of government ambition, I can be dangerous. The government should assume that about all citizens.

Now, if the government comes to my house looking for my guns and you managed to stay "off the grid" are you just going to sit in your house and watch them take me away or are you going to fight?

That is what cracks me up about the "off the grid" types who don't want their guns registered. They also buy a hunting license every year or buy ammo with their credit cards. If you plan on fighting tyranny with us, then why would you want to hide? Will you be able to hide?

When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up.

However, you do have a right to privacy and I respect that and for that reason I will fight against registration. It is simply none of the government's business. But don't give me this bull crap about registration leads to confiscation. If you are not ready to fight for your gun rights with your guns, then what good are they buried in the back yard or disassembled in your closet?

Legasat
10-11-2011, 2:14 PM
IMHO - The only reason to know who has what, is so they know exactly where to go to "pick them up!" I know, I know :TFH:

I'm just sayin...

otalps
10-11-2011, 2:19 PM
However, you do have a right to privacy and I respect that and for that reason I will fight against registration. It is simply none of the government's business. But don't give me this bull crap about registration leads to confiscation. If you are not ready to fight for your gun rights with your guns, then what good are they buried in the back yard or disassembled in your closet?

So if it's just merely BS, when it happened in Australia and Britain, the citizens there should have started shooting government officials?

jwkincal
10-11-2011, 2:20 PM
It isn't about whether the government knows who "has guns"

It's the government knowing exactly how many and which ones.

Because anyone can tell you that searching for something is impossible when you don't know what you are looking for. The reason given for this legislation by its promoters is spurious because the 4473 exists for exactly that purpose... to trace guns used in crimes! There is no real need to have a registry in the state other than to make an incremental step in the direction of total banning. There are people on the other side who have actually said this, I'm sure... I just don't have the time right at this moment to look it up. Tonight perhaps.

green grunt
10-11-2011, 2:35 PM
[QUOTE=jwkincal;7305221]It isn't about whether the government knows who "has guns"

There is no real need to have a registry in the state other than to make an incremental step in the direction of total banning.QUOTE]




this is spot-on.............imho

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 2:57 PM
Quite a few constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue do think that registration is a core 2A issue and is "bad." I had been of the opinion that we couldn't win it, but the more data I see the more I think that registration of non handguns may not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Registration absolutely leads to confiscation if you become prohibited. Make no mistake that the DROS raid is all about disarming people who've been convicted or 5150'ed. Do not assume that the dems on this issue are driving at more than that. Irwin loves him some registration to disarm the 5150's. It's not specious either as it does mildly protect we law abiding gun owners from the spree shooting incidents by crazy folks that create such horrible political problems...

That said, the comfort about general confiscation is Heller.

-Gene

Werewolf1021
10-11-2011, 3:07 PM
Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.

Acting the douche does not become you, A1c...

OleCuss
10-11-2011, 3:08 PM
Gene:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that long gun registration is found to be unconstitutional. Is there any chance that this could eventually then extend to handgun registration?

The reason I ask is that the definition of what is a long gun and what is a pistol seems at time to be arbitrary and might even be considered vague? So if long gun registration is found unconstitutional is there a chance that the handgun registration could eventually be found to be unconstitutionally vague?

I feel like I'm making a stretch here. But I'm curious.

And honestly I don't even mind registration all that much. I don't favor it by any stretch, but there are a lot of other things that I think are higher priority.

jwkincal
10-11-2011, 3:11 PM
Quite a few constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue do think that registration is a core 2A issue and is "bad." I had been of the opinion that we couldn't win it, but the more data I see the more I think that registration of non handguns may not be upheld by the Supreme Court.


That's because (with all deference to the plaintiffs in Heller) the framers weren't thinking in terms of handguns when they wrote the 2A...

And yeah, I meant 'specious' (thanks Gene) but I'm about 18% of a brain down today, probably because 809 is such an affront to my sensibilities.

At least he stuffed the ammo ban. For now.

a1c
10-11-2011, 3:18 PM
Acting the douche does not become you, A1c...

Alright. I won't be a douche as long as comparisons with Nazi Germany are avoided.

From now on, I'm making a commitment to up my donations to CGF and donate 5% of what I spend on firearms to the Foundation. That means $30 today, and another $30 in a couple of weeks.

EDIT: I'm getting a cookie-related error when I try making a payment to CGF. And there's nothing wrong with my router nor computer settings. Anybody know what could be going on?

green grunt
10-11-2011, 3:22 PM
I understand about the convicted or 5150'd....but if we already have the 4473's to fall back on........why would we need a new law for "Registration" if it was not to lead to confiscation (someday), anti-rights law after law after law...etc...is eating away at us , just a small bite at a time , and what we think is "not to bad" now....will be built on by the anti-rights people , and will be a pain in neck later , and much harder to fight down the road.....

yes I seem to be wearing my tin foil hat today.....got to put the cork back in that nice bottle of wine ....these "new" law by JB have got my Scotch up abit.....jmho

huntercf
10-11-2011, 3:25 PM
Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.

It would be an insult to forget and dismiss what they endured at the hands of the nazis. Hitler did enact gun registration and celebrated it as a way towards a better society, when in fact it was used to disarm those that might stand up to his tyranny.
Please keep in mind that nazi is short for National Socialism. What we have seen in this state and the US for awhile is national socialism and unfortunately if the populace doesn't wake up soon it might be too late. Just ask the Germans.
If you fail to know history then you are destined to repeat it.

Untamed1972
10-11-2011, 3:31 PM
Anytime you compare your situation to that of Nazi Germany Jews, you're being a drama queen making a tasteless comparison.

Whether you like it or not, you live in the freest country there is on earth. You still have legal ways to fight this. Forget mantra and look at the avenues, the context, and the politics. Because that's all it is - it's not a conspiracy, it's politics. You are spoiled and don't even know it.

I think the more fair comparison is that law that was also just signed to redirect the DROS fee monies. So a law gets passed and it promised to only be used for one thing. And maybe initially it is, but then on down the road someone else comes in later with different ideas and agendas and sees an easy opportunity to convert something already in place to further that agenda.

If the notion is to register things that could be used in crimes......then why aren't computers registered? I think computer crime and identity theft are much bigger issues than gun crimes are.

stix213
10-11-2011, 3:35 PM
My answer would be its very unlikely for general confiscation in this climate, but no one can tell us what the political climate will be in two decades.

a1c
10-11-2011, 3:52 PM
I think the more fair comparison is that law that was also just signed to redirect the DROS fee monies. So a law gets passed and it promised to only be used for one thing. And maybe initially it is, but then on down the road someone else comes in later with different ideas and agendas and sees an easy opportunity to convert something already in place to further that agenda.

If the notion is to register things that could be used in crimes......then why aren't computers registered? I think computer crime and identity theft are much bigger issues than gun crimes are.

Do you know that every laser printer that's been manufactured in the past few years has a unique signature?

jwkincal
10-11-2011, 3:53 PM
Do you know that every laser printer that's been manufactured in the past few years has a unique signature?

I hope you're not trying to make folks feel better with that statement...

proclone1
10-11-2011, 3:54 PM
It's to score points with the Brady camp. It's a feel-good piece of legislation for the soccer moms. It's politics.

You go ahead and hand the government every personal detail you have for them to keep on record for whatever use they may come up with. It's just politics, right?

Some people believe in a fundamental right to privacy.

a1c
10-11-2011, 3:54 PM
It would be an insult to forget and dismiss what they endured at the hands of the nazis. Hitler did enact gun registration and celebrated it as a way towards a better society, when in fact it was used to disarm those that might stand up to his tyranny.
Please keep in mind that nazi is short for National Socialism. What we have seen in this state and the US for awhile is national socialism and unfortunately if the populace doesn't wake up soon it might be too late. Just ask the Germans.

Trust me. The Germans I know (I have many German friends, and I work with a lot of them) would just laugh in my face if I even asked them.

This is not national socialism. You are no more credible than the hippies who were calling Bush Jr. a fascist and comparing him to Hitler.

otalps
10-11-2011, 4:04 PM
It's not fascism but it is the antithesis of Liberty.

a1c
10-11-2011, 4:08 PM
It's not fascism but it is the antithesis of Liberty.

Trust me, you have more freedoms in California than in any other country you can name in the world.

So if you think this is the "antithesis of Liberty", then you would hate living anywhere else outside the US. Even though there are some nice places out there too.

We have options. We have a system that is painfully slow but that - overall, in the grand scheme of things - works. Things don't get solved in weeks, months or even years. The Founding Fathers were smart people. Trust the system, trust the Constitution. Five years ago, there were plenty of naysayers in here who were chuckling at the idea of SCOTUS writing a majority opinion defining the 2A as an individual right.

7x57
10-11-2011, 4:18 PM
I had been of the opinion that we couldn't win it, but the more data I see the more I think that registration of non handguns may not be upheld by the Supreme Court.


What will the constitutional argument be about the difference between handguns and long guns?

7x57

donw
10-11-2011, 4:18 PM
some very thought provoking and emotional responses given here.

i, personally believe, "registration" is a mechanism, route to or a device to be used however the controlling entity designates.

the historical examples cited are all true.

at this point in history, here in the United States, we cannot tell where we are headed; we can only speculate. we are still, historically, a young nation.

historically all nations/empires disintegrate. in my lifetime I've/we've witnessed the demise of "Empires"; British, French, German, USSR etc...

i suspect, handguns will be targeted much more in the future and semi-auto ANYTHING will, possibly, be severely restricted.

will "registration" lead to confiscation? i suspect it may happen, sooner or later, in one way or another...especially if we let that which occupies the whitehouse now, is allowed to continue.

GWbiker
10-11-2011, 4:21 PM
Trust me. The Germans I know (I have many German friends, and I work with a lot of them) would just laugh in my face if I even asked them.

This is not national socialism. You are no more credible than the hippies who were calling Bush Jr. a fascist and comparing him to Hitler.

You have many German friends. Then you should know mandatory gun registration with the police in Germany came in 1928 during the Weimar Republic, years before the advent of National Socialism.. The mid to late 20's was a time of economic, labor and political unrest in Germany......sound familiar?

It was Hitler's chums five years later who took those gun registration records and to cross referenced with Synagogue attendance files of Jewish families. No need to explain what occurred next.

Gun registration in this country should be a major concern for all gun owners.

chris
10-11-2011, 4:25 PM
why don't you ask the Ausie's and the English if registration leads to confiscation.

otalps
10-11-2011, 4:27 PM
Trust me, you have more freedoms in California than in any other country you can name in the world.

So if you think this is the "antithesis of Liberty", then you would hate living anywhere else outside the US. Even though there are some nice places out there too.


But we're not in another country and in California there are less freedoms than in other parts of this nation that was founded on Liberty.

Agent Orange
10-11-2011, 4:47 PM
But we're not in another country and in California there are less freedoms than in other parts of this nation that was founded on Liberty.

This X100. And "freedoms" needs to be defined. I've lived in parts of the former USSR where I had far more personal level freedom (gun freedom aside) than I'll ever have in California. Constitutional level freedom was a different story but simple everyday living kinds of freedoms were much better.

SteveH
10-11-2011, 4:59 PM
Quite a few constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue do think that registration is a core 2A issue and is "bad." I had been of the opinion that we couldn't win it, but the more data I see the more I think that registration of non handguns may not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Registration absolutely leads to confiscation if you become prohibited. Make no mistake that the DROS raid is all about disarming people who've been convicted or 5150'ed.

Dont forget guys going through seperation/divorse and the wife gets a TRO based on her lies alone. The DOJ is going to come looking for his guns before he even has a chance to defend himself in the first hearing. In fact because those guys are less likely to run or fight than criminals i expect DOJ will make the TRO victims a priority. Bigger seizures taking some collectors entire collection instead of some career criminals loricin.

Tarn_Helm
10-11-2011, 5:18 PM
I read in another thread that long gun registration, if it doesn't get thrown out by 2014, will assuredly not be a precursor to confiscation.

I didn't really understand the reasoning behind this. Especially in light of the fact that SKS's were confiscated, and that this law was never (as far as I know) thrown out.

Could someone please explain, in layman's terms, why registration will definitely not be followed up by confiscation? I'm a little worried and am hoping that an explanation could allay my concerns.

Don't let anyone here, including a well-intentioned, highly educated person, convince you that "registration" does not lead to confiscation.

Just listen to your common sense and ignore all the fancy words and talk you encounter here.

Dave Kopel is a lawyer and an internationally recognized 2nd Amendment scholar who knows what he is talking about:

Bait-’n’-Switch: Gun-prohibition lobbyists are after much more than AK-47s (http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200409130630.asp)

The Founding Fathers of this country who wrote our constitution wanted us to never merely trust the government they were setting up.

That is why they put the Second Amendment in the Consitution.

The Founding Fathers of this country who wrote our constitution believed that the study of all history available to them proved that institutionalized power can never be trusted.

And if they did not believe that we citizens might someday need to resort to armed violence to restore the constitution, they would not have hard wired gun ownership into the constitution.

Who are you going to believe?

Guys on this board?

Smart though they might be.

Or the guys smart enough and educated enough to conceptualize one of the shortest and most perfect constitutions on the planet?

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
~James Madison author of the Bill of Rights (comment made in a speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 6 June 1788) Reference: http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
~Thomas Jefferson http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html#Intro

“[A]ll experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms [of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed.”
~Declaration of Independence http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html#Intro
courtesy of John Locke http://history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/Locke%20DecIndep.htm
via Thomas Jefferson

“[W]e know that it is the nature of power to seek its own augmentation, and thus the loss of liberty is the necessary consequence of a loose or extravagant delegation of authority.”
~Founding Father Robert Whitehill, speaking at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention on November 28, 1787 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s29.html

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
~John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton, KCVO (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), commonly known as “Lord Acton” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalberg-Acton,_1st_Baron_Acton#Lord_Acton.27s_dictum

REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION.

GOEX FFF
10-11-2011, 5:21 PM
Dont forget guys going through seperation/divorse and the wife gets a TRO based on her lies alone. The DOJ is going to come looking for his guns before he even has a chance to defend himself in the first hearing. In fact because those guys are less likely to run or fight than criminals i expect DOJ will make the TRO victims a priority. Bigger seizures taking some collectors entire collection instead of some career criminals loricin.

^^^
When/before LEO show up to a domestic violence dispute in particular they'll know if the person in the home has a long gun... (IMHO, so if they feel the need to confiscate it).

Der Feuer himself says thats what part of the bill does.

bGUfwvH00Gk

Apocalypsenerd
10-11-2011, 5:36 PM
Registration leads to confiscation.

Look at all the countries where they registered over the past century. The proof is right there in the annals of history. It's pretty well documented and pretty obvious. With perhaps 1-2 national exceptions, all registration has led to confiscation.

Are we in a climate where the politicians could order this? No. Could it happen in 2 weeks? No. Could it happen in 2 years? Probably not.

How about 20 years?
How about 200 years?

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Just because you think you are safe, doesn't mean that those we leave the country too will be.

Registration leads to confiscation. Would you leave that legacy to those that follow after?

jaymz
10-11-2011, 5:58 PM
Nope. Registration (http://www.maitreg.com/politics/others/guncontrol_british.asp) doesn't lead to confiscation. :rolleyes::facepalm:

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 6:12 PM
What will the constitutional argument be about the difference between handguns and long guns?

7x57

I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was one. More a commentary on the early jurisprudence.

-Gene

croc4
10-11-2011, 6:12 PM
Is what he stated true 30% of all gun violence is from long guns?

One thing I have noticed for some time now, the anti gun groups spout statistics, etc.

But I have yet to see our side publicly call them on them, and every time. Most people are not stupid........, they are fed by the media what is good and what is bad, just like an urban legend, enough people hear something and it becomes almost fact.

If there was a counter point given that refuted / corrected the false statements made each time and every time from the other side I think people would start to separate the lies from the truth.

the problem is not the politicians (ok, that was hard to type), they are only doing what will get them re-elected, its the mind set of the people we need to change, if that does not happen then no amount of court cases or constitution will make a bit of difference in the long run, because everything can be 'amended' for good or bad.

Croc4

jwkincal
10-11-2011, 6:18 PM
Is what he stated true 30% of all gun violence is from long guns?

One thing I have noticed for some time now, the anti gun groups spout statistics, etc.

Croc4

For US murders, at least, it appears to be erroneous.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Agent Orange
10-11-2011, 6:27 PM
...Most people are not stupid...

If you say so. Regrettably, my experience has shown otherwise.

gobler
10-11-2011, 6:28 PM
The answer to this is a simple two word sentence...





































Boating Accident!! :D

otalps
10-11-2011, 6:36 PM
I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was one. More a commentary on the early jurisprudence.

-Gene

This paper (http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/marshall_final.pdf) written by a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General is about felons owning a gun but he does lay out an argument showing how bans against felons originally only pertained to concealable fire arms. So there is a lot of precedent of long arms being treated differently than handguns.

Capt.Dunsel
10-11-2011, 6:37 PM
" Registration leading to confiscation has been the mantra for as long as I can remember. The German thing was an actual event":(

And this is a big part of the reason why my Grand Father left Germany and came to America , just before WWII.

If we don't learn from history , we repeat it , over, and over again.

spencerhut
10-11-2011, 6:41 PM
My own personal opinion is that the government should assume I have firearms and that if my rights are oppressed at the expense of government ambition, I can be dangerous.

. . . .

When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up.

. . . don't give me this bull crap about registration leads to confiscation. If you are not ready to fight for your gun rights with your guns, then what good are they buried in the back yard or disassembled in your closet?

:83:

Springfield45
10-11-2011, 6:43 PM
While everyone is worried about gun confiscation in the future. It should be noted that the next step for the antigun crowd to do will be to require a Licence for you to use your legally registered rifle or handgun. All the countries I have looked at that have registration also require licences. They could make us get licences for every aspect of our hobby. They will try and limit gun use to the point were a small % of people will actually bother with the hassle (see the UK). Registration opens the door for allot more than just gun confiscation.

goodlookin1
10-11-2011, 7:01 PM
Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.
Funny. What's your interpretation of the events that transpired?

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?
My simplistic approach: TRUTH

Do you have a better method? Oh, wait...you must be one of those historical revisionists, like Ahmadinejad.

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.
It would taste a lie to say that I am not concerned with everything that's going on. Yes, I believe it's coming. But you clearly chose to have a moment of selective reading, or amnesia, because you obviously only read the part that I believe it's coming. What you would have understood if you have been paying attention is that I dont know when it's coming. It could be 2014, 2024 or 2124. I dont know. All I know is that one day, a corrupt power will one day take over and abuse and misuse the information that is stored deep in the government taverns. I say this because if you were to actually take my "simplistic" approach to history, you would find that registration does, in fact, lead to confiscation....plain and simple. I'm not putting a time frame on it, I'm not saying this new law should make us all run for the hills. All I'm saying is that one day, when the wrong group of people come into power of this nation and have the backing of the people (YES, this happened in Nazi Germany, according to my simplistic approach), they got whatever laws passed that they wanted, including but not limited to Jews not being allowed to own firearms.

Next time you reply to a post that made NO ATTEMPT to compare Nazi Germany to the U.S.A., you might think about fully reading the post before manifesting conclusions from BFE regarding any of the points trying to be made. My conclusions were simply that it happened, not that we are Nazi Germany.

Cnynrat
10-11-2011, 7:12 PM
Quite a few constitutional scholars on both sides of the issue do think that registration is a core 2A issue and is "bad." I had been of the opinion that we couldn't win it, but the more data I see the more I think that registration of non handguns may not be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Registration absolutely leads to confiscation if you become prohibited. Make no mistake that the DROS raid is all about disarming people who've been convicted or 5150'ed. Do not assume that the dems on this issue are driving at more than that. Irwin loves him some registration to disarm the 5150's. It's not specious either as it does mildly protect we law abiding gun owners from the spree shooting incidents by crazy folks that create such horrible political problems...

That said, the comfort about general confiscation is Heller.

-Gene

Do you worry at all about a future court that may walk back the Heller and/or McDonald decisions. I know there is stare decisis, but the court has reversed itself 130 times from 1946-1992, an average of 3 times per year!

While I'm feeling pretty comfortable today about general confiscation in light of these recent decisions, I'd rather not see the tools to accomplish that end be put in place lest we suffer some future setback.

I know elsewhere you've commented that there are many other ways to determine who owns firearms, and I agree you on that point. Guess I'd just like to make it as hard as possible.

chris
10-11-2011, 7:31 PM
If you say so. Regrettably, my experience has shown otherwise.

how true look who is in the white house and the people of this state were dumb enouhg to re-elect Jerry Brown again.


but if registration does lead to confiscation i doubt we will have the fortitude to do what our forefathers did at Lexington and Concord when the British came to consfiscate powder and shot. will we? i doubt it.

vantec08
10-11-2011, 7:33 PM
Registration ALWAYS preceeds confiscation. Without fail. Eventually. Period.


next

hoffmang
10-11-2011, 7:57 PM
This paper (http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/marshall_final.pdf) written by a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General is about felons owning a gun but he does lay out an argument showing how bans against felons originally only pertained to concealable fire arms. So there is a lot of precedent of long arms being treated differently than handguns.
That has historically been the case, but Heller seems to imply that if they're common, all arms are going to be treated the same. Now, I could see in the future that felons or MCDV cases might evolve to only getting their long guns back or something - but that is for people somewhat outside the right. For as many people who don't think we reached for enough in Heller, they forget that Heller was un-conservative on one item. The went for both handguns and long guns and got handguns clearly protected out of the gate. Most gun control was really about handguns as long guns were considered ok and less likely to be used criminally.
Do you worry at all about a future court that may walk back the Heller and/or McDonald decisions. I know there is stare decisis, but the court has reversed itself 130 times from 1946-1992, an average of 3 times per year!

Sure, but two things counter the worry. First, on the big stuff the court rarely back tracks. See abortion and the progress on the 1A. Second, the more victories we add on to Heller and McDonald, the more entrenched the core of Heller gets - especially as time passes and those jurisprudential lines become common in the courts and in law schools.

-Gene

croc4
10-11-2011, 8:16 PM
miss-informed does not mean stupid, but 'most' was a little over stating it I will admit, the reason 'most' people to you seem stupid is because they have been fed a pack of lies, those lies fit into their world perfectly, then to them this become 'truth' and they mindlessly regurgitate it and don't question it. so when someone tells them just what they are used to hearing they take it as fact.
If we were to constantly counter that with reality then they would slowly see the truth. our gun laws were not enacted over night, it took decades of brain washing of the general public to get them to agree, it will some time to re-educate the public, courts don't re-educate, mark my words unless we change the publics perception at large we are only going to slow the bleeding.

Croc4

IntoForever
10-11-2011, 8:34 PM
Trust me, you have more freedoms in California than in any other country you can name in the world.

So it's OK if they take a few away?

a1c
10-11-2011, 8:36 PM
So it's OK if they take a few away?

Where did I say that?

Oh that's right - I didn't.

Here was my point - since apparently some don't get it.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany have to go. They were irrelevant when Bush Jr. was in power, and they're still irrelevant now.

This kind of extreme language doesn't make gun owners look like reasonable people. It makes them look like tin foil-hatted, paranoid, extreme wingnuts who prove Godwin's law instead of having a reasonable debate.

We need new allies more than ever. The current gun owners community is not enough. We need to convert as many antis and fence-sitters as possible into realizing we are reasonable, intelligent, safe-minded people who happen to be gun owners. Invoking the Holocaust, Hitler or Stalin just makes us like like wackos. You know how you hate Sean Penn's antics and Michael Moore's crazy analogies? Well, to the public opinion, when you earn Godwin points, you look like a gun-loving version of those nuts to the libs, the soccer moms, but also those who could be easily brought to our side with convincing and reasonable arguments.

7x57
10-11-2011, 9:34 PM
....mandatory gun registration with the police in Germany came in 1928 during the Weimar Republic, years before the advent of National Socialism.

...

It was Hitler's chums five years later who took those gun registration records and to cross referenced with Synagogue attendance files of Jewish families. No need to explain what occurred next.


Thanks for caring about the Weimar origin of those laws, because this is a gripe of mine. The JPFO's line of argument (which is the common one when this comes up) obscures what I think is the real historical lesson: the gun laws were not nazi laws, they were just normal social engineering by statists. Incompetent ones at governing, at least economically, but let's be overly generous and assume they earnestly pursued the noblest of goals. What did they actually accomplish? They passed the restrictions and made the lists of doors to kick in, and then spent money until the economic collapse created an opportunity for those harder and more ruthless than they--men who knew how to use a collapse and what to do with lists.

I think that is far more profound, as well as far more widely applicable, lesson than the JPFO-style "the Nazis created gun control to kill jews!!!" line, and it also has the advantage of being true. I am more afraid of the Weimar wanna-bes than I am of potential Hitlers.

7x57

Flopper
10-11-2011, 9:35 PM
Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

The worst thing about "Godwin's Law" is that it is constantly misapplied and misunderstood.

It is not logically sound to completely cut off discussion or negate an argument simply because a distasteful subject, in this case Nazis/Hitler, is brought up.

And contrary to your assertion of this particular analogy somehow being insulting to victims of Nazis, I contend it is exactly the opposite.

In serious discussions it certainly would be difficult to "Never Forget" if we had to constantly type in fear of the Godwin Gestapo.

IntoForever
10-11-2011, 10:04 PM
a1c, I apologize if I misunderstood or blew your comment out of proportion, I'm tired and frustrated at the political system and the current abomination in office. Seems like they only do things if they are making money from it somewhere, not making intelligent decisions.

jaq
10-12-2011, 5:44 AM
...In serious discussions it certainly would be difficult to "Never Forget" if we had to constantly type in fear of the Godwin Gestapo.

The Godwin Gestapo! LOL!

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 6:41 AM
Here was my point - since apparently some don't get it.

The comparisons with Nazi Germany have to go. They were irrelevant when Bush Jr. was in power, and they're still irrelevant now.

This kind of extreme language doesn't make gun owners look like reasonable people. It makes them look like tin foil-hatted, paranoid, extreme wingnuts who prove Godwin's law instead of having a reasonable debate.

We need new allies more than ever. The current gun owners community is not enough. We need to convert as many antis and fence-sitters as possible into realizing we are reasonable, intelligent, safe-minded people who happen to be gun owners. Invoking the Holocaust, Hitler or Stalin just makes us like like wackos. You know how you hate Sean Penn's antics and Michael Moore's crazy analogies? Well, to the public opinion, when you earn Godwin points, you look like a gun-loving version of those nuts to the libs, the soccer moms, but also those who could be easily brought to our side with convincing and reasonable arguments.

Turn that finger around, Mr, and point it at yourself. YOU brought up the comparison of Nazi Germany, not anyone else. Stop placing blame on anyone here for bringing this up.

The only thing I or anyone else said was that confiscation happened in Nazi Germany, not that we are going down the same road. There was no comparison being made until you chimed in.


Furthermore to your point, you're talking about people who hate guns. They (rabid anti's) dont use rational thought. They dont use common sense. THAT is why the comparisons to any other registration/confiscation scheme in history seems crazy to them. They dont have the common sense to understand that history repeats itself when you dont learn its lessons. Fence sitters, fine....they might see your point. And yes, we need more allies. But I refuse to pander to the other side and mask the lessons of history with half-truths, or leaving out truths, so that we look less "crazy". Na ahh, no way. They are the crazy ones for not having enough common sense, refusing to learn from the mistakes in history.....I won't stoop down to their level.

a1c
10-12-2011, 6:46 AM
Turn that finger around, Mr, and point it at yourself. YOU brought up the comparison of Nazi Germany, not anyone else. Stop placing blame on anyone here for bringing this up.

Nope, I didn't. Someone brought it up, and that was for comparison's sake. I don't know why you don't get it.

This debate is not headed anywhere good.

As I said, bringing up Nazi Germany is not helping our cause. It makes us look extreme, because it is an extreme comparison. Maybe not to some of us - because we're talking about gun rights. But to the rest of the public opinion, it does not make us look good. It gets people to roll their eyes like we're drama queens comparing their struggle to that of 30s Germany Jews. Stop characterizing "the other side", or "antis", like they're hopelessly stuck in their camp and will never change their minds. I've seen many former "antis" become sympathetic to gun owners, or gun owners themselves. Let's not caricature "the other side" (as you call it) like they do with us.

Let's keep things and perspective, and instead let's follow the advice some among the CGF leadership have suggested, like not talking about "gun rights" anymore, but talking about "civil rights", or "fundamental human rights." That will get us a lot more sympathy on the part of the people we need to get on our side.

ChuangTzu
10-12-2011, 7:03 AM
I've lived in parts of the former USSR where I had far more personal level freedom (gun freedom aside) than I'll ever have in California. Constitutional level freedom was a different story but simple everyday living kinds of freedoms were much better.

Same. And I'm not even sure the gun freedom was so much less. At least it is possible to own full-autos in some of those countries.

Freedom while running a business over there is another story though, but California isn't that far from that either.

yellowfin
10-12-2011, 7:15 AM
I think that is far more profound, as well as far more widely applicable, lesson than the JPFO-style "the Nazis created gun control to kill jews!!!" line, and it also has the advantage of being true. I am more afraid of the Weimar wanna-bes than I am of potential Hitlers.

7x57I really wish that it wasn't so darn hard to teach people that lesson and get them to think and vote with it in mind. People are slower to learn and much less motivated today than in prior decades.

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 7:45 AM
Nope, I didn't. Someone brought it up, and that was for comparison's sake. I don't know why you don't get it.

Dude, you need reading lessons.

Re-read post #'s 1-5. Not one mention of Nazi Germany until post #5, which was me. You then quoted me and brought up Godwin's Law, discrediting my "supposed" comparison. Here, let me quote that for you:

No one can explain this. Because Registration DOES lead to confiscation! Otherwise, what possibly goal could be achieved by it? Law enforcement? Yeah, right....does nothing to fight crime. Law abiding citizens dont commit the crimes! It has happened in Australia, it happened in Germany to the Jews, it happened in the UK, etc, etc.

Show me a time when registration has NOT led to confiscation over a good period of time. Eventually, a corrupt government comes to power and gets all the info they need to begin confiscation. And so it begins.

It may not be Jan 1st, 2014, it may not be Jan 1st, 2020.....but it will come eventually, mark my words. It's already happened on a small scale in the U.S. a few times: Katrina, CA AW ban, and I'm sure some other incidents.

To which you so eloquently replied in post #6:

Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.

Where's the comparison in my statement? There is none. The ONLY mention of Nazi Germany was that confiscation happened (bolded above in my quote). How is this a comparison? Did I say that millions of Americans are dying/going to die because of ethnic cleansing? Did I say that we have a corrupt gov't in power that's gonna murder millions? ANY comparison whatsoever to what people think of when they hear "Nazi"? No, I stated a fact: Confiscation happened in Nazi Germany. You emotionally replied to a comparison that you conjured up in your head that never truly existed.

Let me draw a correct comparison for the first time, since you're looking so hard to find one: Before the Nazi's confiscated weapons, they had their weapons registered. The same thing is happening in our state right now (registration)....[/COMPARISON]. Who knows how long it will be before a power-hungry and corrupt gov't comes into power? Do you have a crystal ball? I sure dont. All I know is that one day, it WILL happen. No nation has lasted forever. Nations rise and nations fall. Personally, I believe we are in the decline stage, but that's just me. Others are much more optimistic. When the new corrupt gov't comes to power, they will naturally fear the people with arms. They will do what they can to find out who has them and begin confiscating them, and having the registration records makes it easy. That's how it works.

Didn't you ever see Red Dawn? "Go to the local gun shops and find forms 4473" (This is a joke, but you get the point).

calibrator
10-12-2011, 8:11 AM
Does the recent statement "Don't worry, we're doing something about it 'under the radar' " sound familiar? :43:

a1c
10-12-2011, 8:11 AM
Dude, you need reading lessons.

Re-read post #'s 1-5. Not one mention of Nazi Germany until post #5, which was me. You then quoted me and brought up Godwin's Law, discrediting my "supposed" comparison. Here, let me quote that for you:

To which you so eloquently replied in post #6:

Where's the comparison in my statement? There is none. The ONLY mention of Nazi Germany was that confiscation happened (bolded above in my quote). How is this a comparison? Did I say that millions of Americans are dying/going to die because of ethnic cleansing? Did I say that we have a corrupt gov't in power that's gonna murder millions? ANY comparison whatsoever to what people think of when they hear "Nazi"? No, I stated a fact: Confiscation happened in Nazi Germany. You emotionally replied to a comparison that you conjured up in your head that never truly existed.

Let me draw a correct comparison for the first time, since you're looking so hard to find one: Before the Nazi's confiscated weapons, they had their weapons registered. The same thing is happening in our state right now (registration)....[/COMPARISON]. Who knows how long it will be before a power-hungry and corrupt gov't comes into power? Do you have a crystal ball? I sure dont. All I know is that one day, it WILL happen. No nation has lasted forever. Nations rise and nations fall. Personally, I believe we are in the decline stage, but that's just me. Others are much more optimistic. When the new corrupt gov't comes to power, they will naturally fear the people with arms. They will do what they can to find out who has them and begin confiscating them, and having the registration records makes it easy. That's how it works.

Just bringing up Nazi Germany in the context of this thread is meant to invoke the comparison.

I don't know why you're trying to nitpick about it here.


Didn't you ever see Red Dawn? "Go to the local gun shops and find forms 4473" (This is a joke, but you get the point).

I actually made a joke about it in this or some related thread yesterday.

AaronHorrocks
10-12-2011, 8:25 AM
Look what happend to machineguns. First there was registration, then "amnesty" and finally registration was cut off. If you didn't register it in time, you now have a firearm that's equal to criminal felony on the federal level. If you're lucky, local police will raid you and you'll spend 10 years in prison. If you're unlucky, the ATF will raid you and kill your dog and half your family.

Even here at calguns, if you happen to find a full-auto, or even an unregistered "AW" for california, the advice usually boils down to cutting up the receiver.

In my grandparent's day you could buy a machinegun through mail order. Can you imagine freedom like that? They fought a war to defend thier country, and it's not even the same country anymore. Millions gave so much, and we still have lost so many freedoms in the last few decades it makes me sick.


For this new registration: I have to ask WHY?

Why do we need to register firearms? What's the point? Because the government wants to know? Why does the government need to know? Nothing good could ever come from privately-owned firearm data being stored at a government. Nothing. No good, whatsoever! There is absolutely no reason for that information to be kept, other than to later to be used against private citizens. It might or might not lead to confiscation, but it will be used to ruin lives of certain individuals that get caught in bad situations.

Rough up the misses? Or she accuses you of it? House gets raided and you loose your guns.

Neighbors call the cops on you? House gets raided and you loose your guns.

Registration gets cut off? Now you have illegal unregistered weapons, and you're an enemy of the state.

Anti-gunners take over? They order you to turn them in. And they know who and where you are.

Communists take over? They go down the list and take you out one by one.


You don't have to take my word for it. You can open a history book.

Wherryj
10-12-2011, 8:30 AM
I didn't see him comparing our situation to that of 30's Germany. I saw him mentioning it as an example. JPFO has said the same. History proves as much that registration leads to confiscation. How is bringing up a historical example tasteless? I'm still missing the insult.

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 9:27 AM
Just bringing up Nazi Germany in the context of this thread is meant to invoke the comparison.
No, it wasn't. That's just the way you interpreted it.


I don't know why you're trying to nitpick about it here.

Gee, I dunno, maybe because of statements like these?

It makes us look extreme

it does not make us look good.

It gets people to roll their eyes like we're drama queens

they're hopelessly stuck in their camp and will never change their minds

This kind of extreme language doesn't make gun owners look like reasonable people

It makes them look like tin foil-hatted, paranoid, extreme wingnuts who prove Godwin's law instead of having a reasonable debate.

makes us [look] like wackos.

when you earn Godwin points, you look like a gun-loving version of those nuts (Sean Penn and Michael Moore) to the libs


Do you really have to ask why i'm being nitpicky here? You have directly associated me with all of the things you said above, and I dont like being (falsely) accused of being a tin-foil hatted, paranoid, unreasonable, wingnutted, hopelessly stuck in my camp, overly dramatic wacko.

Call me crazy...:facepalm:

scarville
10-12-2011, 11:00 AM
History has repeatedly demonstrated that gun registration enables a police state to function better. That alone make it an example of poor civic hygiene.

scarville
10-12-2011, 11:04 AM
Call me crazy...:facepalm:
OK. You;re crazy.

Feel better now?

Yeah, I can be a smart àss. Would you rather deal with a dumb one?
:rofl2:

kcbrown
10-12-2011, 11:39 AM
Sure, but two things counter the worry. First, on the big stuff the court rarely back tracks. See abortion and the progress on the 1A. Second, the more victories we add on to Heller and McDonald, the more entrenched the core of Heller gets - especially as time passes and those jurisprudential lines become common in the courts and in law schools.


Noted, but the court avoided reversing itself on abortion by the skin of its teeth from the looks of it.

I don't know if the Court's recent actions against the 4th and 5th Amendments could be considered "reversals" or not. I'd have to look to see what early jurisprudence looked like for that.


In any case, we can only do what we can do. We need to entrench Heller as much as possible, and prevent incursions into it as much as possible. It's a long term (and, frankly, endless) battle, but it must be fought regardless, and with all the strength and brilliance we can bring to bear.

I like the direction things are going, even though I think it'll be much slower going than most here think.

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 12:03 PM
OK. You;re crazy.

Feel better now?

Yeah, I can be a smart àss. Would you rather deal with dumb one?
:rofl2:

How about just a regular ol':

http://rcmill.com/ryan/ahole.jpg



















:tt2:




Okay, i'm done :)

hoffmang
10-12-2011, 12:12 PM
Noted, but the court avoided reversing itself on abortion by the skin of its teeth from the looks of it.

I don't know if the Court's recent actions against the 4th and 5th Amendments could be considered "reversals" or not. I'd have to look to see what early jurisprudence looked like for that.

Regardless of ones personal feeling about the right to an abortion, it isn't in the text in the way the 2A is. As such, I expect the skin of teeth to be a bit thicker. It also doesn't have the same very broad based national support. Recall that we do have a constitutional convention's worth of states that believe in and support the right to keep and bear arms. We just forget about that living in CA.

-Gene

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Regardless of ones personal feeling about the right to an abortion, it isn't in the text in the way the 2A is. As such, I expect the skin of teeth to be a bit thicker. It also doesn't have the same very broad based national support. Recall that we do have a constitutional convention's worth of states that believe in and support the right to keep and bear arms. We just forget about that living in CA.

-Gene

One would think. But it never seems to play out that way. As of right now, the 2A is treated as a privilege, sometimes a right....but never a fundamental right like the others, deserving of the highest standard of scrutiny. Yes, it is slowly changing, and that it great! But you of all people know that that "broad base" of support differs strongly over what this right implies. Most believe this right is still legitimately subject to moderate/severe restrictions, in which case, IMO, it no longer remains "fundamental". Getting past this hurdle will take a LONG time and changing hearts and minds.....not an easy task.

Ornery Ol Bastard
10-12-2011, 1:01 PM
Registration just makes confiscation that much easier... If they can make me an "undesirable" and take my weapons for "the community good" I won't be able to help you keep yours when they come for them...and sooner rather than later you'll find yourself labeled "undesirable"... trust me...until "they" get them all. That's why uniting with anyone who will help us ALL to keep ALL of our rights is important...

tenpercentfirearms
10-12-2011, 1:13 PM
So if it's just merely BS, when it happened in Australia and Britain, the citizens there should have started shooting government officials?

Yes. When the government stops serving the needs of the people and its own interests, you have an obligation to overthrow it. That was Locke who thought that one up, Jefferson who wrote it down again in your Declaration of Independence, and the patriots who put it into action.

Every police officer and soldier in America needs to fear confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. They need to understand that they very well might have to give up their life to take away your Second Amendment rights.

I praise God we are no where near that point and that we have a system where you can vote and make change peacefully. Even though the votes don't always go the way I want, I still maintain most of my rights as outlined in the 1st through 8th amendments. They haven't crossed the line yet and I hope they don't.

jwkincal
10-12-2011, 1:20 PM
The difference is that before Sunday, in order to make an attempt at mass confiscation, the State of California would have to come and get your bound book FIRST, which would kinda tip their hand (and probably violate some Federal laws).

Now they can do it incrementally... Felons, then DV offenders, then drug offenders, MM users, traffic offenders, jaywalkers, etc.

goodlookin1
10-12-2011, 1:21 PM
I praise God we are no where near that point and that we have a system where you can vote and make change peacefully. Even though the votes don't always go the way I want, I still maintain most of my rights as outlined in the 1st through 8th amendments. They haven't crossed the line yet and I hope they don't.

Amen!

Apocalypsenerd
10-12-2011, 2:17 PM
The difference is that before Sunday, in order to make an attempt at mass confiscation, the State of California would have to come and get your bound book FIRST, which would kinda tip their hand (and probably violate some Federal laws).

Now they can do it incrementally... Felons, then DV offenders, then drug offenders, MM users, traffic offenders, jaywalkers, etc.

This.

Remember, the anti-gunners work in increments. This year NYC tried to ban firearms ownership based on outstanding traffic tickets.

Imagine if your weapons were registered and when you received a speeding ticket you had to turn the steel in until it was paid. Then they could further hassel you by saying you had to pay a "per weapon" storage fee.

Registration is the first step. Confiscation is the endgame of registration.

1859sharps
10-12-2011, 3:02 PM
The difference is that before Sunday, in order to make an attempt at mass confiscation, the State of California would have to come and get your bound book FIRST, which would kinda tip their hand (and probably violate some Federal laws).

Now they can do it incrementally... Felons, then DV offenders, then drug offenders, MM users, traffic offenders, jaywalkers, etc.

actually before Sunday all they would have to do is cross reference the current handgun registration DB with credit card purchases and have a vast majority of us ID as rifle owners and never tip their hand until they started knocking on doors. Come 2014, things might start to be a bit easier for making lists for confiscation, but that assumes that the law will still be in effect.

The way I am understanding things post Heller is that while registration often leads to confiscation as evidenced by world history and California's own SKS drama....Post Heller (provided the political process as we know it stays intact) the ability to do arbitrary mass confiscations becomes very difficult.

The real threat in the US isn't registration per say, it's how/what defines someone from being able to own a gun.

should we lose the political process as we know it, who cares if they take our "sporting arms", there will be plenty of the military kind laying around, and when the dust settles what are the odds freedom as we know it today will exist? My gut says slim to none. So you had better hope we can continue to keep things peaceful and continue to work the political system as we know it.

I always shake my head at those that are in such a rush to "use arms" to fix things. for one, things are no where near bad enough to justify that, and second what makes you think that when the dust settles from a armed rebellion, a armed restoration or whatever you want to call it...that rights like the 2nd will exist? or that the constitution will be "restored" rather than be obliterated. I think the odds are that the US as we know it would cease to exist and something worse will be in it's place.

jwkincal
10-12-2011, 3:15 PM
actually before Sunday all they would have to do is cross reference the current handgun registration DB with credit card purchases and have a vast majority of us ID as rifle owners and never tip their hand until they started knocking on doors.

But that wouldn't tell them WHICH ONES I HAD... it is a very different thing (and I paid cash for some of mine, too)! This bill is intended to catch ALL of them, cash purchases, familial gifts, personal imports... EVERYTHING.

And it is foolish to think that the enacting of a long arm registry is cause for an armed uprising... I don't believe anyone has suggested that in this thread; seizure/confiscation is another thing, and in your scenario above it would have to be done in a way which could foment the aforementioned uprising -- going door-to-door is never going to happen for that very reason.

Again, it is about INCREMENTAL loss of rights. In a generation (assuming the present law stands), California will have papered every firearm in the state (not really, but functionally close), and at the present rate of infringement-creep, they will have cause to seize most of them (on a case-by-case basis, of course) in two more generations. That means that we'll have a governor sometime around 2080 beaming proudly from the holovision: "California is now a gun-free zone from the Mexican border to the Cascades, and from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean!" while the grabbers gush and preen behind him.

Now I predict that won't actually happen, but if you don't believe that there are some in the anti-camp who recognize registration as a step in that direction, then you are just naive.

anthonyca
10-12-2011, 3:22 PM
Here come the Godwin points again. How insulting for people who actually had to endure Nazi Germany. They would shake their heads listening to your inept comparison.

What kind of simplistic approach of history do you have?

If you really believe confiscation is looming, what are you waiting for? You should be heading for the hills and digging a bunker right now.

On the other hand, those people were being pushed into a gas chamber thinking , how did we get here? Not one inch.

Nobody is saying we have Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or Maoist China. All those places started some where and governments doing similar things lead to similar situations. Where have they not?

bwiese
10-12-2011, 3:31 PM
a
The way I am understanding things post Heller is that while registration often leads to confiscation as evidenced by world history and California's own SKS drama....Post Heller (provided the political process as we know it stays intact) the ability to do arbitrary mass confiscations becomes very difficult.

Yep, that's the premise of my argument. Post-Heller and post-McDonald we have a lot of security.

That doesn't mean there won't be specific incidences but those will be fixable/attackable.

As for the SKS drama: anyone who read "SKS with Detachable magazine" in Roberti-Roos list in 1989 and registered their rifles properly was not affected/seized. Yes, there was some incorrect information supplied at various times but someone with fundamental reading ability having an SKS rifle and having magazines that could readily and manually come out that didn't register was not too bright.



The real threat in the US isn't registration per say, it's how/what defines someone from being able to own a gun.

Yes, some want misdemeanants of any type to not have gun rights (excessive parking tickets or rather trivial driving violations etc.)

However loss of a fundamental right is a Big Thing and I think we can keep the threshold pretty high. I think it's possible to clean up some of the DV stuff (Lautenberg) and/or ensure there's a high threshold of proof required for loss of right.

NIB
10-12-2011, 3:35 PM
Nope, I didn't. Someone brought it up, and that was for comparison's sake. I don't know why you don't get it.

This debate is not headed anywhere good.

As I said, bringing up Nazi Germany is not helping our cause. It makes us look extreme, because it is an extreme comparison. Maybe not to some of us - because we're talking about gun rights. But to the rest of the public opinion, it does not make us look good. It gets people to roll their eyes like we're drama queens comparing their struggle to that of 30s Germany Jews. Stop characterizing "the other side", or "antis", like they're hopelessly stuck in their camp and will never change their minds. I've seen many former "antis" become sympathetic to gun owners, or gun owners themselves. Let's not caricature "the other side" (as you call it) like they do with us.

Let's keep things and perspective, and instead let's follow the advice some among the CGF leadership have suggested, like not talking about "gun rights" anymore, but talking about "civil rights", or "fundamental human rights." That will get us a lot more sympathy on the part of the people we need to get on our side.


You might want to tell that to the JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP. Let them know we shouldn't bring up Nazi Germany anymore.

And besides....

Were you even around when the State of California told those that registered their Chinese SKS rifles to turn them in?

CaliforniaLiberal
10-12-2011, 4:54 PM
Yes. When the government stops serving the needs of the people and its own interests, you have an obligation to overthrow it. That was Locke who thought that one up, Jefferson who wrote it down again in your Declaration of Independence, and the patriots who put it into action.

Every police officer and soldier in America needs to fear confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. They need to understand that they very well might have to give up their life to take away your Second Amendment rights.

I praise God we are no where near that point and that we have a system where you can vote and make change peacefully. Even though the votes don't always go the way I want, I still maintain most of my rights as outlined in the 1st through 8th amendments. They haven't crossed the line yet and I hope they don't.


I see Gun Registration making it easier for a Bad Government to consider and attempt confiscation, but this is America; Law Enforcement, the Military, many Bureaucrats would rebel and refuse to follow such un-constitutional actions. If it was pushed there would be blood in the streets and civil war.

Australians and British citizens voluntarily turned in their weapons. No one went confiscating door to door with lists of guns in hand.

As in so many ways the US is exceptional in its Citizens feelings about firearms. When CA passed Assault Weapon Registration less than half of all those guns were reported and properly registered. Maybe only 20-30%, no one knows. No one considers forceable gun confiscation in this country without weighing the possible body counts. There is a strong spirit of rebellion, defiance and self-confidence in the citizens of this country that is like no where else on Earth.

Perhaps the authors of the 2nd Amendment saw an armed populace as the last resort against tyranny.

So, Gun Registration is a bad idea, but it's not the end of an Armed Citizenry.


Also, Americans are not like Germans living in the first half of the 20th Century.

a1c
10-12-2011, 6:15 PM
You might want to tell that to the JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION
OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP. Let them know we shouldn't bring up Nazi Germany anymore.

Seriously - I'm the last person you want to bring up the Jewish card with.

And besides....

Were you even around when the State of California told those that registered their Chinese SKS rifles to turn them in?

Actually, I was. I also remember no door-to-door confiscation occurred, and that there were avenues to make those pesky Chinese SKS with detachable mags legal before the 1/1/00 deadline.

1859sharps
10-12-2011, 7:20 PM
However loss of a fundamental right is a Big Thing and I think we can keep the threshold pretty high. I think it's possible to clean up some of the DV stuff (Lautenberg) and/or ensure there's a high threshold of proof required for loss of right.

Of course, it should go without saying that any loss of, or chip away at, or infringement to a fundamental right is a BIG DEAL.

There is no doubt that having to now treat rifle sales and register them like a handgun is yet another erosion to a fundamental right.

5 years ago I might have been on of those expressing frustration and hopefulness. It would have been a devastating loss. but today, there is a lot of reason to be optimistic. I am not so sure it's as big a loss as some feel/think...yet. I am not so sure it is as big a threat as some feel/think...yet.

Lets work together to make it never become a threat. Hopefully come 2014 we will look back on this week and laugh...remember when they thought they could register our rifles...HA!

After all, 5 or 6 years ago who would have thought we would have had a win like Heller, followed soon there after by McDonald. I know I didn't. what kinds of wins will happen tomorrow that don't seem possible today?

otalps
10-12-2011, 7:24 PM
Yes. When the government stops serving the needs of the people and its own interests, you have an obligation to overthrow it. That was Locke who thought that one up, Jefferson who wrote it down again in your Declaration of Independence, and the patriots who put it into action.

Every police officer and soldier in America needs to fear confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. They need to understand that they very well might have to give up their life to take away your Second Amendment rights.

I praise God we are no where near that point and that we have a system where you can vote and make change peacefully. Even though the votes don't always go the way I want, I still maintain most of my rights as outlined in the 1st through 8th amendments. They haven't crossed the line yet and I hope they don't.

I agree with that. But the Aussies and the Brits weren't that far from where we are now. I mean I didn't see anybody shooting Feds when the AWB went into effect. It started off incrementally in both those countries as well. I still don't see anyone here taking up arms, so I still don't understand what part of registration leads to confiscation is BS?

kcbrown
10-12-2011, 7:33 PM
I see Gun Registration making it easier for a Bad Government to consider and attempt confiscation, but this is America; Law Enforcement, the Military, many Bureaucrats would rebel and refuse to follow such un-constitutional actions. If it was pushed there would be blood in the streets and civil war.


Uh huh. Just like how law enforcement, the military, and bureaucrats rebelled and refused to follow the confiscation orders during Katrina, right?

Sorry, you're living in a fantasyland if you think any of those institutions will show any real respect for the fundamental right to keep and bear arms when they've been told by their superiors to begin weapons confiscation. They will follow orders, just like they always have.

And blood in the streets and civil war? Didn't happen in Louisiana post-Katrina, did it? And that was with a state constitution with an RKBA clause in it.


No, if the order to confiscate comes, what follows will happen here in the same way it has happened everywhere else: with minimal resistance. Those that have the determination to resist with force will, of course, lose their lives because they'll be vastly outnumbered by the law enforcement personnel tasked with disarming them.

Those that band together to resist will be branded "terrorists" and treated as such. The military will treat them as enemies of the state, just the way terrorist organizations are treated now (the latter is, of course, sensible, so I'm not saying this to make excuses for terrorist organization, only to illustrate how such domestic groups will be regarded by our military).

End result: the confiscation will succeed here, just as it has everywhere else. It is hubris in the extreme to believe that we are somehow so "special" that we as a people would be such an exception. It feels good to believe that, but there are many falsehoods that feel good to believe. How good something feels to believe has nothing to do with its truth. If anything, there is an inverse correlation, because in the real world, evil usually wins.

GWbiker
10-12-2011, 9:21 PM
Seriously - I'm the last person you want to bring up the Jewish card with.

Then, I hope you're a member of JPFO.

Apocalypsenerd
10-12-2011, 11:00 PM
End result: the confiscation will succeed here, just as it has everywhere else. It is hubris in the extreme to believe that we are somehow so "special" that we as a people would be such an exception. It feels good to believe that, but there are many falsehoods that feel good to believe. How good something feels to believe has nothing to do with its truth. If anything, there is an inverse correlation, because in the real world, evil usually wins.

By all the Gods, I love your pessimism.

History suggests different possibilities. Most successful rebellions result from a divided elite suffering from internecine conflict combined with corruption and failure of government services. One of the elite sides combines with the less fortunate masses providing money and direction with the grassroots anger. The conflicting elite can be arguing rulers of the same government or remnants of an existing government after invasion by a foreign power.

The side that wins will confiscate weapons, land, money, and power from the losing side. A historical example of this is Nazi Germany. Hitler left in place gun ownership for the master race but demanded disarmament of the "subject races" as he called them.

In the event a powerful, stable government demands confiscation, forward thinking people will secret away weapons for the day that the government becomes corrupt and fails under its own weight.

Maintaining secret weapons for a rebellious day is probably superfluous to the nation as a whole. The elite that side with them will arm the masses for the rebellion/civil war.

The vigilant will be well served by having some means of self defense. While the nation on a large scale most likely won't benefit, individual families will. The danger in a society undergoing social/political collapse can really only be defended against on an individual level. Government services will not protect people.

Now, if somehow, out of 1 in 1000 odds, the conflict between the elites turns into a righteous rebellion based on liberty, things might be different.

In any case, it will be good to have a little bit of unpapered iron waiting somewhere safe and sound.

Databyter
10-12-2011, 11:09 PM
I read in another thread that long gun registration, if it doesn't get thrown out by 2014, will assuredly not be a precursor to confiscation.

I didn't really understand the reasoning behind this. Especially in light of the fact that SKS's were confiscated, and that this law was never (as far as I know) thrown out.

Could someone please explain, in layman's terms, why registration will definitely not be followed up by confiscation? I'm a little worried and am hoping that an explanation could allay my concerns.

The important thing to note here is the very simple fact that there is no other logical reason to register long guns than to know where they are for confiscation.

This at least makes some sense regardless of how wrong it may be.

But the excuse for this law, which is that it will in some way have ANY impact on crime, we know is total fantasy, not supported one iota with any facts, statistics, or history.

While the history and statistics of forced registration are clear.

This is OFTEN a precursor to confiscation in most of the cases where it is instituted.

As I said, the assurances are not what is important.

Ask yourself what the real purpose of this law is REALLY.

There can only be one.

nyj09
10-12-2011, 11:16 PM
I didn't see him comparing our situation to that of 30's Germany. I saw him mentioning it as an example. JPFO has said the same. History proves as much that registration leads to confiscation. How is bringing up a historical example tasteless? I'm still missing the insult.

+1, saying that "it's not gonna happen!!" makes it approach that much faster. I believe by mentioning it, you're not trivializing the holocaust, but it brings up a good point. Any jew that lived through that time would be the BIGGEST opponent of registration.

nyj09
10-12-2011, 11:18 PM
When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up

EPIC!

DannyInSoCal
10-12-2011, 11:26 PM
The circumstances are completely different.

I'm sure they thought the same thing in Berlin.

Right around 1938.

"It's just feel good politics to make naive people feel safer..."

DannyInSoCal
10-12-2011, 11:27 PM
Then, I hope you're a member of JPFO.

Jewish Princesses For Obama...?

blakdawg
10-13-2011, 12:52 AM
When the Walther P22 was first produced, the end of the barrel was threaded on the outside, and a bushing was screwed onto the threads. The gun was approved by the CA DOJ BOF for sale and was on the "safe handgun" roster.

Then some idiot complained to the DOJ that, if the bushing was removed, that created a pistol with a threaded barrel, which would be a (prohibited) assault weapon under CA law.

The CA DOJ proposed a settlement to Smith & Wesson (importers/US seller of the Walther line) where Smith & Wesson would recall all of the guns and retrofit them to avoid the threaded barrel issue, at no cost to the consumer.

The settlement also provided that S&W would pay for two mailings to people listed in CA's database of gun owners as owning a Walther P22.

The proposed settlement also provided that:

"Smith and Wesson to reimburse the Department of Justice for costs associated with division law enforcement staff pursuing owners not responding to either mailing."

This happened in 2004.

CA DOJ wanted to force gun makers to pay for LEO's to "pursue" owners who didn't respond (for whatever reason) to a proposed modification to a gun which had been approved for sale by CA DOJ at the time it was sold. CA DOJ estimated that there would be 525 owners who would not respond to the mailings and who could expect personal contact from LEO's regarding ownership of the P22, and they estimated the cost of those contacts at $92,000 including "investigation, overtime, travel, and per diem." (19 staff at 30 hrs/month for 3 months)

The handwritten notes from an unidentified DOJ staffer described the message in the proposed letter as threatening "prosecution and confiscation".

bwiese
10-13-2011, 7:22 AM
When the Walther P22 was first produced, the end of the barrel was threaded on the outside, and a bushing was screwed onto the threads. The gun was approved by the CA DOJ BOF for sale and was on the "safe handgun" roster.

Then some idiot complained to the DOJ that, if the bushing was removed, that created a pistol with a threaded barrel, which would be a (prohibited) assault weapon under CA law.

The CA DOJ proposed a settlement to Smith & Wesson (importers/US seller of the Walther line) where Smith & Wesson would recall all of the guns and retrofit them to avoid the threaded barrel issue, at no cost to the consumer.

The settlement also provided that S&W would pay for two mailings to people listed in CA's database of gun owners as owning a Walther P22.

The proposed settlement also provided that:

"Smith and Wesson to reimburse the Department of Justice for costs associated with division law enforcement staff pursuing owners not responding to either mailing."

This happened in 2004.

CA DOJ wanted to force gun makers to pay for LEO's to "pursue" owners who didn't respond (for whatever reason) to a proposed modification to a gun which had been approved for sale by CA DOJ at the time it was sold. CA DOJ estimated that there would be 525 owners who would not respond to the mailings and who could expect personal contact from LEO's regarding ownership of the P22, and they estimated the cost of those contacts at $92,000 including "investigation, overtime, travel, and per diem." (19 staff at 30 hrs/month for 3 months)

The handwritten notes from an unidentified DOJ staffer described the message in the proposed letter as threatening "prosecution and confiscation".


1. S&W was under an older mgmt regime.

2. I believe S&W did not use CA gun lawyers :( and got bamboozled.

3. DOJ Firearms approved a gun for sale that was illegal.

4. This won't happen again - the world has turned.

tenpercentfirearms
10-13-2011, 7:38 AM
I agree with that. But the Aussies and the Brits weren't that far from where we are now.Yeah actually they are. We have a metric crap ton of guns and they don't.

I mean I didn't see anybody shooting Feds when the AWB went into effect.Because we still had the electoral process. The consequences of the Federal AWB were immediate to the next election when both houses of Congress changed to the Republicans for the first time in like 40-60 years. It further hurt Al Gore in 2000 in his home state. And finally the AWB has since expired! Our system is working.

It started off incrementally in both those countries as well.And incrementally we are reducing the government's authority when it comes to our guns. The expiration of the Federal AWB, the McDonald and Heller decisions, and armed carry in National Parks to name a couple. What gun rights have either of those countries restored? We are nothing like them.

I still don't see anyone here taking up arms, so I still don't understand what part of registration leads to confiscation is BS?You don't see anyone taking up arms because there is no need to. We still have a responsive government that does serve the will of the people. You just happen to live in a crappy state where the will of the people is to restrict your rights. They should never be allowed to do so and within due time the Supreme Court very well might agree with us and rightly remove these restrictions.

You don't understand how registration doesn't lead to confiscation? Handguns have been registered in California for going on 20 years now. So far, they have yet to be confiscated. Are felons and DV criminals losing their registered guns? Yes. General confiscation? No.

Sorry, so far is is clear that registration has not led to confiscation. Again, I am not justifying registration, I am just trying to get people to calm down and not be so emotionally reactive.

In the end there isn't much you can do about it. You live in a state where you are out numbered. The best you can do is just keep trying to influence your friends and neighbors and mentally and physically prepare for the day you might have to use your firearms to defend your freedom.

Some people might think that is extreme and the 90s definitely planted the idea that I must be a right wing militia whack job. However, anyone who has studied John Locke, The Declaration of Independence, and the foundation of this nation cannot come to any other conclusion. The 2nd Amendment exists as an ultimate check against tyranny. Its mere existence is a check without even requiring action.

I want my government to know I am armed and willing to defend our nation. I hope they never forget it. Not so I can intimidate them and force them to see things my way. Only as a gentle reminder that blatant disregard for my rights beyond the ability for me to change that situation is the justification used to found this country in the first place.

AB809 can be changed. We are no where near revolution.

AaronHorrocks
10-13-2011, 8:08 AM
I see Gun Registration making it easier for a Bad Government to consider and attempt confiscation, but this is America; Law Enforcement, the Military, many Bureaucrats would rebel and refuse to follow such un-constitutional actions. If it was pushed there would be blood in the streets and civil war.

It's already happend here.

-taU9d26wT4

goodlookin1
10-13-2011, 9:40 AM
It's already happend here.

-taU9d26wT4

That is amazing. Burns me up! I'm all hot n' bothered right now....I feel like I need to go hold my AR-15.

Left Coast Conservative
10-13-2011, 10:09 AM
If we were to constantly counter that with reality then they would slowly see the truth. our gun laws were not enacted over night, it took decades of brain washing of the general public to get them to agree, it will some time to re-educate the public, courts don't re-educate, mark my words unless we change the publics perception at large we are only going to slow the bleeding.
Croc4

I am sure most of you have seen some version of this map (http://www.kc3.com/CCW_progress.htm) showing the progress of shall-issue concealed carry in the United States. I believe that all of these laws were passed by votes of legislatures, supported by constituents that believe in the social utility of armed self-defense.

We are making progress.

InGrAM
10-13-2011, 10:16 AM
Interesting read guys, thanks.

My opinion, like many of you, is that it leads to confiscation, plane and simple. It is not "feel good" laws or "politics" it is something more sinister.

Stock up while you can!!!!!!

Does anyone think the price of long guns will increase do to this law?

451040
10-13-2011, 10:27 AM
You are spoiled and don't even know it.

Spoiled? :icon_bs:

GWbiker
10-13-2011, 12:09 PM
Jewish Princesses For Obama...?

Cute.

And immature......:rolleyes:

mosinnagantm9130
10-13-2011, 12:18 PM
It's already happend here.

-taU9d26wT4

That is amazing. Burns me up! I'm all hot n' bothered right now....I feel like I need to go hold my AR-15.

And it won't be happening again, thanks to the NRA.

BAGunner
10-13-2011, 12:37 PM
When it is time to bury your guns, it is time to dig them up.

Sigworthy.

otalps
10-13-2011, 1:26 PM
.
Yeah actually they are. We have a metric crap ton of guns and they don't.

Because we still had the electoral process. The consequences of the Federal AWB were immediate to the next election when both houses of Congress changed to the Republicans for the first time in like 40-60 years. It further hurt Al Gore in 2000 in his home state. And finally the AWB has since expired! Our system is working.

And incrementally we are reducing the government's authority when it comes to our guns. The expiration of the Federal AWB, the McDonald and Heller decisions, and armed carry in National Parks to name a couple. What gun rights have either of those countries restored? We are nothing like them.


I wasn't saying we were exactly like them but we are alike enough to use them as an example of seeing how creeping incrementalism might be accomplished by a tyrannical government. Luckily while this state has been moving in the same direction as Britain or Australia, the nation as a whole has been moving in the opposite direction.

.
You don't see anyone taking up arms because there is no need to. We still have a responsive government that does serve the will of the people. You just happen to live in a crappy state where the will of the people is to restrict your rights. They should never be allowed to do so and within due time the Supreme Court very well might agree with us and rightly remove these restrictions.


That's the point I was making, in both of those countries some gun owners were and are trying to work through the system.

The difference here is where you say the Aussies should have started shooting government officials. I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of politics in either Britain or Australia. Britain did have the Magna Carta which influenced our own 2A. I do remember seeing protests in both countries when bans were instituted. In Australia I know you can still own guns just not semi-automatics. They were and are equivalent to the frog in the boiling pot and not too dissimilar to us in that regard.


You don't understand how registration doesn't lead to confiscation? Handguns have been registered in California for going on 20 years now. So far, they have yet to be confiscated. Are felons and DV criminals losing their registered guns? Yes. General confiscation? No.

Sorry, so far is is clear that registration has not led to confiscation. Again, I am not justifying registration, I am just trying to get people to calm down and not be so emotionally reactive.


In California I doubt registration will lead to confiscation only because it is one state out of 50. Historically that is not the case. Remember as was stated earlier in this thread it was the Weimar Republic that instituted registration not the Nazi's that eventually used the registration to confiscate guns. (More Godwin for a1c I'm sure.) There is no telling how f'd up an anti-gun CA government can use this information against us in the future whether it be tomorrow or decades from now. Luckily for us they seem to be more incompetent than not for the most part.


In the end there isn't much you can do about it. You live in a state where you are out numbered. The best you can do is just keep trying to influence your friends and neighbors and mentally and physically prepare for the day you might have to use your firearms to defend your freedom.

Some people might think that is extreme and the 90s definitely planted the idea that I must be a right wing militia whack job. However, anyone who has studied John Locke, The Declaration of Independence, and the foundation of this nation cannot come to any other conclusion. The 2nd Amendment exists as an ultimate check against tyranny. Its mere existence is a check without even requiring action.

I want my government to know I am armed and willing to defend our nation. I hope they never forget it. Not so I can intimidate them and force them to see things my way. Only as a gentle reminder that blatant disregard for my rights beyond the ability for me to change that situation is the justification used to found this country in the first place.


Not extreme at all, the only problem is when you're the first and only one to use the 2a doomsday clause the way it was meant you're likely just to be treated as a criminal.


AB809 can be changed. We are no where near revolution.

I agree but it is well worth *****ing about.

notme92069
10-13-2011, 1:44 PM
Confiscation directly from the CADOJ website regarding .50 BMG

.50 BMG Restrictions and Registration Requirements


Effective January 1, 2005.

New California law restricts possession of .50 BMG rifles and requires that anyone who lawfully possessed one prior to January 1, 2005 register it by April 30, 2006.

Effective January 1, 2005, any person who lawfully possesses a .50 BMG rifle prior to January 1, 2005, is required to do one of the following by April 30, 2006:

Complete and submit a .50 BMG Rifle Registration Application form along with $25.00 to the Department of Justice. Any number of .50 BMG rifles can be registered for the $25.00 fee provided they are submitted at the same time on the same day. Note: In addition to complete rifles, only fully functional serialized receivers may be legally registered. .50 BMG Rifle Registration Application forms can be obtained from licensed California firearms dealers, and the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263-4887.


Make arrangements with your local police or sheriff's office to relinquish your .50 BMG Rifle. CALL FIRST. DO NOT GO TO THE POLICE OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE WITHOUT FIRST MAKING ARRANGEMENTS.
or

Remove the .50 BMG rifle from the state.
Please be aware that failure to comply with these requirements could result in criminal prosecution (Penal Code Section 12280).

vantec08
10-13-2011, 2:09 PM
I see Gun Registration making it easier for a Bad Government to consider and attempt confiscation, but this is America; Law Enforcement, the Military, many Bureaucrats would rebel and refuse to follow such un-constitutional actions. If it was pushed there would be blood in the streets and civil war.

Australians and British citizens voluntarily turned in their weapons. No one went confiscating door to door with lists of guns in hand.

As in so many ways the US is exceptional in its Citizens feelings about firearms. When CA passed Assault Weapon Registration less than half of all those guns were reported and properly registered. Maybe only 20-30%, no one knows. No one considers forceable gun confiscation in this country without weighing the possible body counts. There is a strong spirit of rebellion, defiance and self-confidence in the citizens of this country that is like no where else on Earth.

Perhaps the authors of the 2nd Amendment saw an armed populace as the last resort against tyranny.

So, Gun Registration is a bad idea, but it's not the end of an Armed Citizenry.


Also, Americans are not like Germans living in the first half of the 20th Century.


Do the names NEW ORLEANS or KATRINA mean anything to you? Got a huge flash for ya - - -when their pensions and authority is on the line, the bureaucrats (which includes LEOs) will steamroll us flat.

glock7
10-13-2011, 5:53 PM
And now for your viewing pleasure...

3OaF-j8x5Vc

exactly....that is definitely on point.

tenpercentfirearms
10-13-2011, 7:35 PM
Do the names NEW ORLEANS or KATRINA mean anything to you? Got a huge flash for ya - - -when their pensions and authority is on the line, the bureaucrats (which includes LEOs) will steamroll us flat.

Did the police use a registration database to go door to door and remove firearms?

QQQ
10-14-2011, 2:09 PM
Yes. When the government stops serving the needs of the people and its own interests, you have an obligation to overthrow it. That was Locke who thought that one up, Jefferson who wrote it down again in your Declaration of Independence, and the patriots who put it into action.

Every police officer and soldier in America needs to fear confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens. They need to understand that they very well might have to give up their life to take away your Second Amendment rights.

I praise God we are no where near that point and that we have a system where you can vote and make change peacefully. Even though the votes don't always go the way I want, I still maintain most of my rights as outlined in the 1st through 8th amendments. They haven't crossed the line yet and I hope they don't.

I'm impressed!

Confiscation directly from the CADOJ website regarding .50 BMG

.50 BMG Restrictions and Registration Requirements


Effective January 1, 2005.

New California law restricts possession of .50 BMG rifles and requires that anyone who lawfully possessed one prior to January 1, 2005 register it by April 30, 2006.

Effective January 1, 2005, any person who lawfully possesses a .50 BMG rifle prior to January 1, 2005, is required to do one of the following by April 30, 2006:

Complete and submit a .50 BMG Rifle Registration Application form along with $25.00 to the Department of Justice. Any number of .50 BMG rifles can be registered for the $25.00 fee provided they are submitted at the same time on the same day. Note: In addition to complete rifles, only fully functional serialized receivers may be legally registered. .50 BMG Rifle Registration Application forms can be obtained from licensed California firearms dealers, and the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms at (916) 263-4887.


Make arrangements with your local police or sheriff's office to relinquish your .50 BMG Rifle. CALL FIRST. DO NOT GO TO THE POLICE OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE WITHOUT FIRST MAKING ARRANGEMENTS.
or

Remove the .50 BMG rifle from the state.
Please be aware that failure to comply with these requirements could result in criminal prosecution (Penal Code Section 12280).

Wow! I didn't even know about this.

gazzavc
10-14-2011, 8:54 PM
Bit by bit, the 2A rights in this state are being chipped away.

First it was the semi auto's under Roos-Roberti,

Then came all the rest of the semi-auto's , now known by the media as "assault weapons"

Then it was .50BMG

Now its all long guns.

Creeping instrumental ism gentlemen.

Back in the UK, the government decided after I believe was the Hungerford massacre, to issue a blanket ban on firearms. People turned them in, rather than face stiff criminal penalties for continued possession. Now look at the state of the place.

Don't kid yourselves that it can't happen here. I know we all talk the talk, but seriously, if they just decided to ban private ownership like the UK and Australia and set serious criminal and financial penalties for non-compliance, how many people would obey the law versus become instant felons ??

AaronHorrocks
10-20-2011, 2:25 PM
Felons have lots of protections here in California. Especially if you're not even a citizen. It seems like a pretty easy care-free life to me, working the system and getting "benefits" off of the law-abiding working stiff. Doesn't make sense to keep working and give up all of your rights while the criminals are a protected class.

Gray Peterson
10-20-2011, 2:40 PM
Did the police use a registration database to go door to door and remove firearms?

No they didn't. Don't let facts get in the way of foaming of the mouth.

vantec08
10-20-2011, 2:55 PM
Did the police use a registration database to go door to door and remove firearms?

I dont know, it doesnt matter -- the point being the 2nd amendment goes right out the window.

basalt
10-20-2011, 3:33 PM
Trust me, you have more freedoms in California than in any other country you can name in the world.

I have less freedom than just about any other citizen of this country. I don't give a damn about other countries. I want the same freedom and rights as every other United States Citizen, and I want to have the freedom to exercise those rights where ever I choose to live.

I was born and raised in California. Why should I have to leave my home to have the same rights as any other US citizen?

5thgen4runner
10-20-2011, 3:38 PM
I have less freedom than just about any other citizen of this country. I don't give a damn about other countries. I want the same freedom and rights as every other United States Citizen, and I want to have the freedom to exercise those rights where ever I choose to live.

I was born and raised in California. Why should I have to leave my home to have the same rights as any other US citizen?

This

socal-shooter
10-20-2011, 3:42 PM
can someone tell me if rifle owners have to register guns we already own?

cant find any info, my google fu is weak

Funtimes
10-20-2011, 3:43 PM
Dr. Volokh had a lot to say about this recently at FedSoc meeting at Harvard Law: http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2011/10/04_volokh-feldman-slippery-slope-arguments.html Generally according to the most informed people here, Dr. Volokh's ideas are pretty important, and in this presentation he very precisely elaborates on how registration can lead to bad things in the future by means of several mechanisms. Everyone here would benefit greatly from seeing this, and in particularly to incorporate it into your thoughts in this thread.

Volokh also basically said while it could, its generally impractical and impossible. Unless you keel over and surrender -- it won't happen. There are not enough government agents to have a Waco on every corner.

Databyter
10-20-2011, 3:52 PM
I read in another thread that long gun registration, if it doesn't get thrown out by 2014, will assuredly not be a precursor to confiscation.

I didn't really understand the reasoning behind this. Especially in light of the fact that SKS's were confiscated, and that this law was never (as far as I know) thrown out.

Could someone please explain, in layman's terms, why registration will definitely not be followed up by confiscation? I'm a little worried and am hoping that an explanation could allay my concerns.

If it does not lead to confiscation then the anti-gunners just lost the only reason this law made any sense at all (to them).

hoffmang
10-20-2011, 3:58 PM
If it does not lead to confiscation then the anti-gunners just lost the only reason this law made any sense at all (to them).

That logic isn't sound - or at least not in the way you primarily mean it. More honest antis are only looking to confiscate firearms from those who become prohibited. Remember this when you're having this debate because it is far better to engage with this more honest portion.

-Gene

Databyter
10-20-2011, 4:03 PM
That logic isn't sound - or at least not in the way you primarily mean it. More honest antis are only looking to confiscate firearms from those who become prohibited. Remember this when you're having this debate because it is far better to engage with this more honest portion.

-Gene

That was my point.

The reason IS confiscation.

There is no other reason that makes sense.

hoffmang
10-20-2011, 4:34 PM
That was my point.

The reason IS confiscation.

There is no other reason that makes sense.

And in this case, all confiscation is not created equally. Had Jared Loughner been a California college student, he would have had his firearms confiscated before he could have spree killed. I'm kind of ok with that process.

-Gene

otalps
10-20-2011, 4:35 PM
More honest antis are only looking to confiscate firearms from those who become prohibited.
-Gene

Reminds me of an interesting quote I read earlier,
"It is convenient to have a system of laws where everyone is a criminal."

kcbrown
10-20-2011, 5:16 PM
And in this case, all confiscation is not created equally. Had Jared Loughner been a California college student, he would have had his firearms confiscated before he could have spree killed. I'm kind of ok with that process.


It then becomes a question of whether he could have, and would have, gone to the trouble of acquiring a firearm illegally. Quite clearly, if he had been sufficiently determined to, he would have, and the act of confiscating his firearms would have had no effect whatsoever.


No, I am very uncomfortable with the notion of giving the government the power to confiscate the very thing that is our last defense against it. And quite clearly, such a thing must not be allowed except through real due process of law, and I'm not talking about the joke that some call "due process" as regards the way DV accusations are handled here in California. And even then, it should only be allowed when there is good reason (as in, backed by solid evidence) to believe that it will actually be effective.

If the right to keep and bear arms is our most sacred right, then it is the right that must require the government to clear the highest hurdles prior to stripping someone of it.

ed bernay
10-20-2011, 8:27 PM
And in this case, all confiscation is not created equally. Had Jared Loughner been a California college student, he would have had his firearms confiscated before he could have spree killed. I'm kind of ok with that process.

-Gene

Registration is not created equally.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=41

creekside
10-20-2011, 9:45 PM
Long gun registration is a horrible idea that helps no one. JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/), is blunt on this point. Registration of firearms equals confiscation of firearms equals genocide (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart). Full stop. Chart in PDF format (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf).

A voluntary long gun registration system is a great idea for those who choose to participate. A privately run long gun registration system would be even better. If firearms recovery is the goal, the only need to run an SN would be when a firearm enters police custody, as after an arrest or when recovered. If the registry is run by a third party organization, they can require evidence such as a photo of the firearm before running the SN -- as opposed to dispatchers running SNs all day or running names to see if they own guns.

I reluctantly concede that the state has a compelling interest in the registration of handguns. They are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot.

However, a mandatory long gun registration system does not address "crime guns" but rather firearms kept in the home for completely legitimate purposes: hunting, target shooting, self-defense. This creates a list of firearms owners which can later be used for all sorts of dangerous purposes. One of the big criticisms of the Canadian long gun registry is that it amounted to a shopping list for burglars, because it was not very secure. In fact, the Canadians are about to scrap it.

I feel like we need to get Sacramento a huge GPS system that says, "You are Going the Wrong Way. Make a U-Turn."

GWbiker
10-20-2011, 10:57 PM
And in this case, all confiscation is not created equally. Had Jared Loughner been a California college student, he would have had his firearms confiscated before he could have spree killed. I'm kind of ok with that process.

-Gene

Loughner bought his Glock a few weeks before the shooting.

"IF" two Pima county chiefs had done a bit more than just their job - one, PCC police chief Stella Bay, who received mental health training while a TPD Lieutenant, had Bay taken time to evaluate Loughner, then passed on her findings to Pima County Sheriff Dupnik, Loughner could have been committed for a thorough eval.

Remenber, Loughner's classmates were scared of him and he was banned from the college.

tenpercentfirearms
10-21-2011, 5:16 AM
I reluctantly concede that the state has a compelling interest in the registration of handguns. They are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot.

WTF? So because criminals find something useful in crime law abiding citizens should have surrender their liberty? Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.

Second, none of my handguns have been involved in a crime. Not one. I would venture to say 99% or more of all of the handguns I have ever sold have never been used in a crime and I have sold quite a few handguns.

How are they easily stolen when they are in a gun safe?

Your argument has no merit. We could just as easily say knives are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot and so need to be registered. So are screwdrivers. Crowbars? Flashlights? Any mask that covers the face?

Handguns are not evil nor are they necessarily "crime guns" as you label them. If we want to register anything, register criminals. Put a serial number on them and track them, not my guns that are not used for crime.

Get3CoffinsReady
10-21-2011, 6:22 AM
Long gun registration is a horrible idea that helps no one. JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/), is blunt on this point. Registration of firearms equals confiscation of firearms equals genocide (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart). Full stop. Chart in PDF format (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf).

A voluntary long gun registration system is a great idea for those who choose to participate. A privately run long gun registration system would be even better. If firearms recovery is the goal, the only need to run an SN would be when a firearm enters police custody, as after an arrest or when recovered. If the registry is run by a third party organization, they can require evidence such as a photo of the firearm before running the SN -- as opposed to dispatchers running SNs all day or running names to see if they own guns.

I reluctantly concede that the state has a compelling interest in the registration of handguns. They are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot.

However, a mandatory long gun registration system does not address "crime guns" but rather firearms kept in the home for completely legitimate purposes: hunting, target shooting, self-defense. This creates a list of firearms owners which can later be used for all sorts of dangerous purposes. One of the big criticisms of the Canadian long gun registry is that it amounted to a shopping list for burglars, because it was not very secure. In fact, the Canadians are about to scrap it.

I feel like we need to get Sacramento a huge GPS system that says, "You are Going the Wrong Way. Make a U-Turn."

Couldn't you report your firearm stolen after the fact and provide serial numbers? In fact aren't you required by law to report stolen firearms?
I do not see how registering the firearm would aid in the recovery of a stolen firearm if it has already been reported stolen unless the owner didn't keep sn numbers.

I doubt criminals will register their illegally obtained firearms.


Here is another thought. Lets say hypothetically state or federal governments require the registration of all firearms. How exactly do they obtain the records? Do they go through all of the sales records or would they really expect people to voluntarily register? Or would they do both, obtain the records, issue the order to register and whomever doesn't register their arms or provide evidence of a sale has a warrant issued? I would like to see the exact order of events in other countries where this took place.

ed bernay
10-21-2011, 6:39 AM
From an archived NRA ILA Factsheet

Registration & Licensing
Licensing And Registration

Some people may wonder why NRA members and millions of other American gun owners protest so loudly when the gun control lobby offers one more "reasonable solution" to problems that they associate with guns. They may even be aware that Sarah Brady, chair of the nation`s largest anti-gun group--Brady Campaign (previously Handgun Control, Inc.)--years ago discussed her plans for the future with the New York Times. She said in her Aug. 15, 1993, interview that her group favors a "needs-based licensing" system, with all guns and all gun transfers registered. In the Brady world, an honest citizen who wanted to own a gun would have to prove to his or her local police the "need" for that gun.

Constitutional issues aside, those who wonder what motivates American gun owners should understand that perhaps only one other word in the English language so boils their blood as "registration," and that word is "confiscation." Gun owners fiercely believe those words are ominously related.

Gun owners also know that criminals will never register their illegally possessed guns and, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85 (1968)) that since felons are prohibited from owning firearms, compelling them to register them would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Gun owners know further that the registration and licensing of America`s 60-65 million gun owners and their estimated 230 million firearms would require creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous taxpayer cost, without any tangible anti-crime benefit.

Gun registration is, of course, hardly new, and neither are its widely recognized dangers. In 1975, U.S. Sen. James A. McClure (R-ID) said: "Gun registration is the first step toward ultimate and total confiscation, the first step in a complete destruction of a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights." When Sen. McClure sponsored the Firearms Owners` Protection Act (1986), he made sure that it included a prohibition against the federal government keeping a national registry of gun owners. Similar prohibitive language appears in the Brady Act and in annual appropriations bills.

Others recognize gun registration`s inherent purpose. In 1975 testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime, anti-gun advocate Charles Morgan, director of the Washington, D.C., office of the American Civil Liberties Union stated: "I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that that kind of record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."

Registration lists have led to gun confiscation in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, Soviet Georgia and other countries. It has also happened here, and the history of firearms registration in New York City is particularly instructive.

In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. Concerns over the potential use of those registration lists to confiscate guns in the future were dismissed as paranoia. In 1991, gun owners` legitimate fears were realized, when the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, despite the police commissioner`s testimony that no registered firearms of the types banned had been used in violent crimes in the city. New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were told that any licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were warned that they might be subject to "spot checks."

American gun owners know their fears about licensing and registration are hardly unfounded, because they are familiar with the sorry story of gun control in Great Britain. This story is concisely told in the monograph, "Lost Battles, Lost Rights," written by David B. Kopel, adjunct professor of law at New York University Law School.

As Kopel recounts, after passage of the Firearms Act of 1920, Britons suddenly could possess pistols and rifles only if they proved they had "good reason" for receiving a police permit. Then, in 1936, the British police began adding a permit requirement requiring that the guns be stored securely.

As the public grew accustomed to the idea of guns being licensed, it became possible to begin to enforce the licensing requirements with greater and greater stringency. By enforcing the Firearms Act with moderation, at first, and then with gradually increasing severity, the British government acclimated British gun owners to higher and higher levels of control.

An English court decision reveals how far this control has gone. The London Times reports that on March 6, 2000, a judge denied an appeal by Arthur Mark Farrer to renew his license to own a shotgun. Farrer`s license, or "shotgun certificate," allowed him to own a shotgun as long as he stored it in compliance with increasingly severe British storage laws. He kept his gun in a safe at his mother`s house. But when he told his mother where the key to the safe was kept, the police licensing bureau was not pleased--81-year-old mom had no license. The judge agreed, ruling Farrer "was in breach of the condition prescribed by rule . . . that he should store the gun securely so as to prevent . . . access to it by an unauthorised person."

The judge cited a section of English law stating that a person can be granted a certificate if the chief of police is "satisfied that the applicant could be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or the peace." Since Farrer trusted his mother access to the shotgun, he did not qualify.

Today, in Great Britain, handguns are banned. Semi-automatic center-fire rifles, which had been legally owned for nearly a century, are banned. Pump-action rifles are banned, since it was argued that these guns could be substituted for semi-automatics. Shotguns that can hold more than two shells at once now require a "firearms license" and are thus registered, and shotguns that can hold only two rounds require a "shotgun certificate."

American parallels are obvious. Enactment of the Brady Act, for example, establishes the principle of a national gun licensing system. Once a lenient national handgun licensing system is established, the licensing system can gradually be tightened, and police, as they have done in Great Britain, can begin inventing their own conditions to put on licenses. Such practices already occur in American jurisdictions such as New York, where licensing authorities sometimes add their own extralegal restrictions to handgun licenses.

Those, who from time to time wonder about what American gun owners think and why they think it, should realize that those who believe in their Second Amendment-guaranteed right will fight mightily to prevent this nation from becoming, like Great Britain, a place where the rights of gun owners are slowly strangled to death because too many people trusted politicians who did not trust them.



WE ARE ALL RIGHTLY CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING ONE OR MORE OF THE HELLER 5 AND OBAMA REPLACING THEM WITH AN ANTI 2ND AMENDMENT JUDGE. DO YOU THINK THAT IF THAT HAPPENS AND HELLER GETS REVERSED AND WE HAVE REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS, THAT THEY WON'T HESITATE FOR SECOND TO CONFISCATE. IF YOU THINK THAT WON'T HAPPEN, THEN IN MY VIEW YOU ARE VERY NAIVE.

17+1
10-21-2011, 7:59 AM
It would be an insult to forget and dismiss what they endured at the hands of the nazis. Hitler did enact gun registration and celebrated it as a way towards a better society, when in fact it was used to disarm those that might stand up to his tyranny.
Please keep in mind that nazi is short for National Socialism. What we have seen in this state and the US for awhile is national socialism and unfortunately if the populace doesn't wake up soon it might be too late. Just ask the Germans.
If you fail to know history then you are destined to repeat it.

National Socialism is a racial nationalist philosophy based on 'natural law' and 'survival of the fittest'; see, Might is Right. If you liken the American government to National Socialism then that tells me you don't understand the core of that philosophy.

tenpercentfirearms
10-21-2011, 8:08 AM
WE ARE ALL RIGHTLY CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING ONE OR MORE OF THE HELLER 5 AND OBAMA REPLACING THEM WITH AN ANTI 2ND AMENDMENT JUDGE. DO YOU THINK THAT IF THAT HAPPENS AND HELLER GETS REVERSED AND WE HAVE REGISTRATION OF ALL FIREARMS, THAT THEY WON'T HESITATE FOR SECOND TO CONFISCATE. IF YOU THINK THAT WON'T HAPPEN, THEN IN MY VIEW YOU ARE VERY NAIVE.

They will hesitate to confiscate. Is that the hill they want to die on?

The gun grabbers are not stupid. Confiscation will lead to revolution. Well at least it should. The way people talk around here if they come door to door looking for guns, you don't want them registered so you can say, "sorry, no guns here" and watch them move down the block and take your neighbor's guns.

I will be very clear. If the government tries to confiscate lawfully owned firearms, I will resist. I will employ others to resist too (I might have a few guns to loan out should some people need them, but most of the people in this town have no problems supplying their own arms). I know my local law enforcement and they will not confiscate their neighbors guns based on principle and backed up out of likely death.

So I have no problem telling the government I have guns. If they want to know why I have firearms, here is what I will say, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Registration will only lead to confiscation if you allow it. This is not an excuse for allowing registration and the government has no business knowing what private citizens do with their private property as long as they do not violate the rights of others. However, you aren't going to scare me with your registration leads to confiscation rhetoric.

The only people who should be afraid are the tyrants who might underestimate the resolve of liberty minded citizens who understand their obligation to overthrow an oppressive government.

lrdchivalry
10-21-2011, 8:35 AM
Hee are a few interesting articles about registration and confiscation.

Canada: Where Gun Registration Equals Confiscation (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=4&issue=006)

Nazi Repression Of Firearms Owners (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=67&issue=006)

My personal opinion is that the police will iniatially be used for the purpose of confiscation. What will happen is a new law will be enacted making firearms illegal and the police will use registration lists to go door to door to confiscate. The police will try and claim the moral high ground of just enforcing the law and then branding anyone who, justifiable and constitutionally resists as terrorists (which 2A supporters are already being labeled) and criminals. That will give the .gov the excuse to send troops. The question then becomes, how many believers of the Constitution will step up and fight for their freedoms and how many will refuse unlawful orders to confiscate or fight against their fellow citizens?

ja308
10-21-2011, 8:59 AM
I believe the book which deals with registration and consfiction is "Lethal Laws'
recomended reading for all republicans.

1859sharps
10-21-2011, 9:01 AM
It is impossible to argue that registration does not lead to confiscation.

BUT that sentence leaves out a whole lot of details in regards to the political/legal environment of the US or even California as of today. As well as the logistics of attempting to do mass confiscations in this country or even California.

there is no perfect government/legal system, but ours is pretty darn good all things considered. And despite being some direct compulsory registration on the law books, the reality is there is time LOTS of time to do something about that with in the political/legal system.

So, I would urge people to stop over reacting (in the sense of it's time to revolt, or bury guns etc comments) and start thinking how we can repeal these laws peacefully.

When Thomas Pain made his case for rebellion/revolution one point (and I think it's a VERY important point) that people tend to forget is, part of his justification was that the people had run out of peaceful means to effect change or that they were being denied a peaceful means to effect change.

Personally I do not believe we have reach that point yet. If you step back, take two breaths and calm down and even just look at California, change is happening for the better over all in terms of gun laws/rights. the ball is just getting rolling and things will NEVER move as fast and smoothly as we want and we won't get everything we would like either. BUT I do see things turning around for the better by a long shot. California (at least in my lifetime) will never become the next Arizona, but I can see a day when we do have LTC, and our Assault Weapons laws are effectively meaningless and the handgun roster is effectively meaningless. But only if we don't make stupid moves and be "chicken little". things are NOT ideal right now, but the sky hasn't fallen yet....lets work together to keep it from falling.

Something else to think about on confiscation in the US as things stand "today". when the banks tried to get sheriffs to repossess homes for them it didn't take long for them to clue in and stop. that was without the risk of getting shot. Unjustifiable blanket across the board all gun confiscation of from law abiding citizens, their voting base....how do you think that will work out for them?????

bottom line, registration sucks, it sets a dangerous principle and while we have little to fear "today"...there is always the concern for the "future". But there is time, LOTS of time to address those concerns regarding the future if we focus and not get emotionally defeated and panic and give up.

kcbrown
10-21-2011, 9:59 AM
They will hesitate to confiscate. Is that the hill they want to die on?

The gun grabbers are not stupid. Confiscation will lead to revolution. Well at least it should.


It should but it won't. The character of the country has changed. If it hadn't, then the various federal anti-gun laws would never have passed, because the politicians wouldn't be that brave.



The way people talk around here if they come door to door looking for guns, you don't want them registered so you can say, "sorry, no guns here" and watch them move down the block and take your neighbor's guns.


No, it's so that they will have to go door to door. It places an additional hurdle that the government has to clear if it is to confiscate. With registration, the government need not go door to door at all -- they will have a list of gun owners and their addresses, so they can target gun owners directly.

Nothing prevents the government from going door to door, of course.



I will be very clear. If the government tries to confiscate lawfully owned firearms, I will resist. I will employ others to resist too (I might have a few guns to loan out should some people need them, but most of the people in this town have no problems supplying their own arms). I know my local law enforcement and they will not confiscate their neighbors guns based on principle and backed up out of likely death.


You mean like how confiscation didn't happen during Katrina? Like how the people in Louisiana resisted?

Yeah, sure.

A few people might resist, but most won't, because they will be so outnumbered by government forces that to resist would mean certain death, and the government would then have gotten the guns anyway and there would then be one less pro-2A person in the world. Which is to say: resisting under those circumstances will have no effect other than to reduce the number of pro-2A people in the country.



The only people who should be afraid are the tyrants who might underestimate the resolve of liberty minded citizens who understand their obligation to overthrow an oppressive government.

Uh huh. Yes, and we see that in what happened during the confiscation efforts after Katrina. Those gun owners taught the government a lesson it will never forget! :rolleyes:

That was in the deep south, where there is a special reverence for the 2nd Amendment. If it didn't happen there, it certainly won't happen on a national level.

Databyter
10-21-2011, 10:59 AM
And in this case, all confiscation is not created equally. Had Jared Loughner been a California college student, he would have had his firearms confiscated before he could have spree killed. I'm kind of ok with that process.

-Gene

And there will be others, who do not fit any negative category, and who are model citizens, and will lose it and do damage to others with firearms.

I'm not willing to prune my rights to make sure that THAT guy cannot have a firearm.

There are some common sense guidelines of course, but they should be made at point of sale, and be limited to a background check on the buyer, not a tracking of the firearm.

This is my opinion and I have a right to it.

You have implied in a previous comment that what I really mean is something else, or I should put it in another way.

With all due respect, we simply disagree.

I have a lot of respect for you and Cal guns etc, but I guess I'm a notch more conservative than you are when it comes to my rights.

There is a price for living in a free society, and I'm here to say, I'm willing to pay it. Crazies and Criminals are part of the price, and to me, their concerns and my rights are two seperate issues.

elSquid
10-21-2011, 12:06 PM
Hee are a few interesting articles about registration and confiscation.

Canada: Where Gun Registration Equals Confiscation (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=4&issue=006)


Handgun confiscation didn't happen. What did happen is that certain handguns were declared "prohibited". Existing owners were given a "prohibited" endorsement on their license for that class of firearm, and were able to buy and sell amongst similar folks.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm

I had the endorsement, and my prohibited guns weren't confiscated.

In the past full auto firearms were declared prohibited, converted autos were declared prohibited ( basically, real MGs converted to semi auto ), certain "assault rifles" were declared prohibited...existing owners were allowed to keep them and buy and sell with others with the same license.

( shrug )

-- Michael

tenpercentfirearms
10-21-2011, 1:13 PM
Uh huh. Yes, and we see that in what happened during the confiscation efforts after Katrina. Those gun owners taught the government a lesson it will never forget! :rolleyes:

That was in the deep south, where there is a special reverence for the 2nd Amendment. If it didn't happen there, it certainly won't happen on a national level.

It isn't my fault that uneducated inner city residents didn't band together and stop the government from infringing upon their rights. I can assure you that would not happen in my town. And did it happen outside of New Orleans in the the more rural or affluent areas?

Either way, registration did not lead to confiscation in New Orleans. Tyranny led to confiscation. Tyranny that was not opposed on the spot. Tyranny that was put in check after the fact with the passage of laws that prohibit that from happening again.

So the question is are you going to voluntarily give up your guns or watch your neighbors give up their guns or are you going to do something about it?

I stick to my premise. I don't care if the government knows I have firearms. They should expect me to and be prepared for me to defend myself and my liberty if necessary.

kcbrown
10-21-2011, 2:27 PM
Either way, registration did not lead to confiscation in New Orleans. Tyranny led to confiscation. Tyranny that was not opposed on the spot. Tyranny that was put in check after the fact with the passage of laws that prohibit that from happening again.


They already had laws prohibiting that from happening. Not only does Louisiana have RKBA encoded into its constitution, there's also 18 USC 242.

Didn't help. Won't help the next time, either.



So the question is are you going to voluntarily give up your guns or watch your neighbors give up their guns or are you going to do something about it?


It depends on what alternatives one is likely to have after. If it really does look like there's going to be no way to improve the situation after the fact, then there's really little point in not putting up a defense. You'll be killed, but you may take some of them with you and that might improve the odds of the people freeing themselves of the tyranny in question. It probably won't work even then, of course, but at that point it's the most likely option for reversing the course of things.



I stick to my premise. I don't care if the government knows I have firearms. They should expect me to and be prepared for me to defend myself and my liberty if necessary.

Good luck. Hope you never need it.

lrdchivalry
10-21-2011, 4:07 PM
Handgun confiscation didn't happen. What did happen is that certain handguns were declared "prohibited". Existing owners were given a "prohibited" endorsement on their license for that class of firearm, and were able to buy and sell amongst similar folks.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm

I had the endorsement, and my prohibited guns weren't confiscated.

In the past full auto firearms were declared prohibited, converted autos were declared prohibited ( basically, real MGs converted to semi auto ), certain "assault rifles" were declared prohibited...existing owners were allowed to keep them and buy and sell with others with the same license.

( shrug )

-- Michael

Ok so your guns have not been confiscated, however, that does not mean you are safe from confiscation in the future. All it takes is the .gov to make a peticular class of firearm or all firearms illegal with no grandfather clause and your an instant felon if you fail to turn in the prohibited weapons,and don't forget since your weapons are registered they know where to go looking for them. What I find peticularly disturbing is I know quite a few leo's who have stated that they will do whatever they are told, so, in essence they will go out and confiscate weapons when ordered to do so and who knows what other orders they would follow?

Remember our founding fathers warned us to be ever vigilant in defense of our liberties. Any encrouchment into our freedoms takes us one step closer to a tyrannical government. The proof is all around.

elSquid
10-21-2011, 4:36 PM
Ok so your guns have not been confiscated, however, that does not mean you are safe from confiscation in the future.

Well, handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s, so the gov't sure is taking their sweet time in confiscating them...

All it takes is the .gov to make a peticular class of firearm or all firearms illegal with no grandfather clause and your an instant felon if you fail to turn in the prohibited weapons,and don't forget since your weapons are registered they know where to go looking for them.

I certainly agree that this is a concern. However, Canada shows that registration hasn't led to confiscation there. What is happening is social engineering: where classes of firearms deemed 'bad' are restricted in the marketplace, marginalized, with the eventual goal of "weaning" the populace from the ownership of such.

The example is machineguns. Folks can own machineguns in Canada, but only persons that were grandfathered in. As they die off the pool of legal owners shrinks, and eventually no MGs will be in civilian hands. Same for other 'bad' guns.

In Canada the real fear is not confiscation, but the gradual governmental push of "good" vs "bad" guns.

Of course, there are some interesting outcomes: a sub 4inch barrel handgun? Bad. A short barreled pump shotgun? Perfectly fine. You can buy one via the internet and have it shipped to your house if you want to. It's actually easier to buy an SBS in Canada than buy a normal longarm in California. :rofl2:

http://www.canadaammo.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=2

-- Michael

jwkincal
10-21-2011, 4:46 PM
I certainly agree that this is a concern. However, Canada shows that registration hasn't led to confiscation there. What is happening is social engineering: where classes of firearms deemed 'bad' are restricted in the marketplace, marginalized, with the eventual goal of "weaning" the populace from the ownership of such.

The example is machineguns. Folks can own machineguns in Canada, but only persons that were grandfathered in. As they die off the pool of legal owners shrinks, and eventually no MGs will be in civilian hands. Same for other 'bad' guns.


...which is only possible because of... (anyone? Bueller?)

...and eventually (if someone hasn't already in Vancouver or Montreal or Quebec) there will be suggestions that "handguns are 'bad' too, because bad guys use them"

Connor P Price
10-21-2011, 5:23 PM
Well, handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s, so the gov't sure is taking their sweet time in confiscating them...



I certainly agree that this is a concern. However, Canada shows that registration hasn't led to confiscation there. What is happening is social engineering: where classes of firearms deemed 'bad' are restricted in the marketplace, marginalized, with the eventual goal of "weaning" the populace from the ownership of such.

The example is machineguns. Folks can own machineguns in Canada, but only persons that were grandfathered in. As they die off the pool of legal owners shrinks, and eventually no MGs will be in civilian hands. Same for other 'bad' guns.

In Canada the real fear is not confiscation, but the gradual governmental push of "good" vs "bad" guns.

Of course, there are some interesting outcomes: a sub 4inch barrel handgun? Bad. A short barreled pump shotgun? Perfectly fine. You can buy one via the internet and have it shipped to your house if you want to. It's actually easier to buy an SBS in Canada than buy a normal longarm in California. :rofl2:

http://www.canadaammo.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=2

-- Michael

Don't be duped into believing that's not confiscation. It IS. Just because they aren't coming and actively taking things from people they don't understand it but over time it results in the same outcome. Its a sneaky sly way of confiscating arms without the people understanding its happening and by the time they figure it out, its to late.

It's the same as registered semi autos or 50's in California. Sure they didn't come around confiscating them but if laws remain as they are now what do you think the result is in another 80 years? All those registered guns are gone because the owners died and couldn't pass them on legally. The net effect is exactly the same as confiscation.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

elSquid
10-21-2011, 5:31 PM
...which is only possible because of... (anyone? Bueller?)

...and eventually (if someone hasn't already in Vancouver or Montreal or Quebec) there will be suggestions that "handguns are 'bad' too, because bad guys use them"

Quite possible. But that was my point...that registration wasn't leading to confiscation, but was part of an effort to marginalize and eventually remove certain classes of firearms from public use. I believe I made an explicit one-line statement about that. ;)

I should also point out that not having longarm registration did not prevent the AW laws from coming into play in CA. And longarm registration was not a factor in the Federal AW ban. Or the sporting purposes import ban. So registration isn't a necessary part of the process of gradually removing certain classes of firearms from the market... < shrug >

-- Michael

lrdchivalry
10-21-2011, 5:33 PM
Don't be duped into believing that's not confiscation. It IS. Just because they aren't coming and actively taking things from people they don't understand it but over time it results in the same outcome. Its a sneaky sly way of confiscating arms without the people understanding its happening and by the time they figure it out, its to late.

It's the same as registered semi autos or 50's in California. Sure they didn't come around confiscating them but if laws remain as they are now what do you think the result is in another 80 years? All those registered guns are gone because the owners died and couldn't pass them on legally. The net effect is exactly the same as confiscation.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Excellent point.

Connor P Price
10-21-2011, 5:42 PM
Quite possible. But that was my point...that registration wasn't leading to confiscation, but was part of an effort to marginalize and eventually remove certain classes of firearms from public use. I believe I made an explicit one-line statement about that. ;)

I should also point out that not having longarm registration did not prevent the AW laws from coming into play in CA. And longarm registration was not a factor in the Federal AW ban. Or the sporting purposes import ban. So registration isn't a necessary part of the process of gradually removing certain classes of firearms from the market... < shrug >

-- Michael

Saying that registration isn't part of the process and using California's semi auto ban as an example doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They did require registration before the date of the law going into effect of any guns that would be banned once it became law.

They didn't confiscate them from those individuals, but they forced them to be registered and the law prevents them from being transfered within California, which is confiscating them from Californians as a whole once enough time passes.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

jwkincal
10-21-2011, 5:48 PM
So registration isn't a necessary part of the process of gradually removing certain classes of firearms from the market... < shrug >


I would agree that it isn't necessary. But it sure is a great accessory to that goal. It is a key empowerment to that end, and should never be taken lightly.

lrdchivalry
10-21-2011, 5:54 PM
Quite possible. But that was my point...that registration wasn't leading to confiscation, but was part of an effort to marginalize and eventually remove certain classes of firearms from public use. I believe I made an explicit one-line statement about that. ;)

I should also point out that not having longarm registration did not prevent the AW laws from coming into play in CA. And longarm registration was not a factor in the Federal AW ban. Or the sporting purposes import ban. So registration isn't a necessary part of the process of gradually removing certain classes of firearms from the market... < shrug >

-- Michael

If it's not a necessary part of the process then there is no reason for registration, however, if they decided to outlaw a peticular class of firearm with no grandfather clause, registration makes it easier to collect those weapons.

elSquid
10-21-2011, 6:02 PM
Saying that registration isn't part of the process and using California's semi auto ban as an example doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They did require registration before the date of the law going into effect of any guns that would be banned once it became law.


In Canada, handguns are registered. They can be bought, sold, imported and exported. When the ban came into play, the gov't said that certain handguns were 'prohibited'. Owners would be allowed to keep them, trade them with other owners, but no new ones would be allowed.

Some folks are arguing that they could only prohibit the handguns because they were already registered BEFORE the ban was considered.

In CA, the gov't said: these rifles are banned. If you want to continue owning one legally, you must register it. Using Canadian terms, they prohibited the guns outright...there was no point in time when AWs were registered, yet legal to buy/sell/acquire new ones.

Therefore registration was not an intermediate step on the road to banning AWs in California. That class of firearms went from unregistered to "banned" in a single action.

-- Michael

hoffmang
10-21-2011, 6:24 PM
Loughner bought his Glock a few weeks before the shooting.
In California Loughner would have been 5150'ed and from that point until he could prove he was sane or 10 years passed, he would have had to find an illegal acquisition method for firearms. Remember he's crazy enough that normal people found him disturbing. I expect buying a firearm outside normal channels would have been difficult for him
And there will be others, who do not fit any negative category, and who are model citizens, and will lose it and do damage to others with firearms.

I'm not willing to prune my rights to make sure that THAT guy cannot have a firearm.

As a policy matter, I don't think registration of firearms makes sense. However, I've also actually dealt with insane people. Till you do, you may not understand why there are some people (and some violent felons) that you want to have a real process to disarm. Not all of California's even 5150 processes are correct yet, but that there are some problems doesn't totally negate a serious understanding that the other side is not wildly off base in wishing to disarm the actually known violent and the people who are actually a danger to self or others due to insanity.

-Gene

johndoe2150
10-21-2011, 6:45 PM
In California Loughner would have been 5150'ed and from that point until he could prove he was sane or 10 years passed, he would have had to find an illegal acquisition method for firearms. Remember he's crazy enough that normal people found him disturbing. I expect buying a firearm outside normal channels would have been difficult for him

-Gene
I swear its a 5 year ban unless the hold I looked at today was wrong.

hoffmang
10-21-2011, 7:08 PM
I swear its a 5 year ban unless the hold I looked at today was wrong.

You may be correct. I haven't looked in a couple of months. Either way, same point and in some ways much better.

However, you should have the right to appeal sooner and present evidence you're no longer a danger sooner than that if you have that evidence.

-Gene

Databyter
10-21-2011, 7:14 PM
In California Loughner would have been 5150'ed and from that point until he could prove he was sane or 10 years passed, he would have had to find an illegal acquisition method for firearms. Remember he's crazy enough that normal people found him disturbing. I expect buying a firearm outside normal channels would have been difficult for him


As a policy matter, I don't think registration of firearms makes sense. However, I've also actually dealt with insane people. Till you do, you may not understand why there are some people (and some violent felons) that you want to have a real process to disarm. Not all of California's even 5150 processes are correct yet, but that there are some problems doesn't totally negate a serious understanding that the other side is not wildly off base in wishing to disarm the actually known violent and the people who are actually a danger to self or others due to insanity.

-Gene

We all want to keep guns away from violent felons and crazy people.

Your experience with crazy people is irrelevant as is my substancial experience that is similar, with over 20 years working as private security for ranches by the border, major Corporations, and in Alarm Response Patrols all over San Diego County.

The enforcement of common sense should be at point of sale. I think we agree on this.

After that the real process I would support to those that indicate a danger to themselves or others fall under the tent of protective search warrants etc, as needed and based on common sense and not a database of gun addresses and owners.

The logic seems to be that if there is a list, it's a lot easier to see who has the guns, which is true. But since when did the ease of law enforcement become a valid justification and tool to infringe upon my rights.

Using the same logic we just lost the right of unarmed open carry in California. The main legal point that the legislation seemed to consider was that it would make law enforcements job a lot easier to remove this citizens rights since somebody almost always calls the police when they see a gun. It's harder for them.

Heck, I could have told them that the closer you come to a police state, the easier their job will be. But those are their priorities and the priorities of some here who look at things from a LE point of view. They are not MY point of view as a private citizen who wants to protect my own family.

I respect the argument, but I think it is a slippery slope that will end up in us losing more ground than we can afford to, so I respectfully disagree with it.

We are close to being disarmed in parts of this Country, and right at a time when it is very likely there will be good excuses to do so and lots of shtf scenarios that will likely play out.

Some solutions sound great under Rule Of Law scenarios, but who is going to be in charge of those lists when it turns into lack of Rule of Law.

We are basically civilized right now, and we are holding on to our guns with white knuckles, what do you think the climate will be like when the guy in charge does not care about your ruling in court the previous year and is justifying special circumstances Under Martial or Military Law, and under emergency provisions that can be invented at any time out of thin air?

The defense of one of the cops who shot innocents in N.O after the storm? I thought he had a gun in his hand. So here is what we are dealing with. One day into WROL and cops are justifying murder because they simply see a gun in the hand of a guy running away from an area where shots were fired. ( I think in this instance it was shown that he likely did not have a gun but still a good example of how ROL can quickly go out the window EVEN among law enforcement in scenarios of devastation or widespread emergency).

Who's to say in that shtf scenario the guy running away didn't just defend his store or his person? One day and it's not about confiscation, it's about rules of engagement.

So yes, I'm concerned about people who use ROL assurances to justify what can only be seen as unconstitutional infringement. I'm really surprised when I see pro-gun advocates think that way. especially when it seems certain that we are moving into uncertain times and at the very least, instability and lack of services being very likely for parts of the Country. Those little infringements can have tremendous negative effects under different times and different people.

The loughners are few and far between and we need to insure common sense policies are employed at point of sale, and at point of becoming a dangerous crazy felon, there is nothing preventing an investigation into whether an individual has firearms in his home that would be a danger to himself or others.

The police do this NOW in virtually every case of domestic violence.

There already IS a process.

They do NOT need a list, especially for long guns like shotguns and rifles which even for liberals is ridiculous.

I have to wait 10 days in this state to get a shotgun, when I already have other weapons, an FFL, a COE, a gun safety card etc..

How stupid is a law that assumes I need a NEW gun to kill somebody in anger. You guys might want to see if we could get a waiver for those that are already armed to the teeth. (but I digress, mostly because Im in 10 day jail).

I respectfully put gun lists in the hands of government in the dangerous and un-necesary catagory.

Life is risk, and there is more danger from the government abusing that information than there is hope that someone will avoid being shot in a hair salon or a political rally.

All this being said, I'm not losing much sleep over registering my handguns. But I recognize the danger, and the fallacy of the arguments for it, when there are other solutions that work as well without infringing on my rights.

johndoe2150
10-21-2011, 7:22 PM
You may be correct. I haven't looked in a couple of months. Either way, same point and in some ways much better.

However, you should have the right to appeal sooner and present evidence you're no longer a danger sooner than that if you have that evidence.

-Gene

You do when a person is placed on a hold the issuer is supposed to give them a notice where the person is allowed due process after the 5150 in front of a judge to determine their ability to be trusted with a firearm. And during those years your allowed to file the same thing if you didn't want to go to court immediatly after the incident.

But I have no clue how well it works in practice.

hoffmang
10-21-2011, 8:23 PM
We all want to keep guns away from violent felons and crazy people.

Except for your 500+ words where you don't seem to support disarming violent people and felons. Your argument is for an end to government, not a rational discourse on how a system might work and not impinge on the rights of the non crazy and non felony violent.
You do when a person is placed on a hold the issuer is supposed to give them a notice where the person is allowed due process after the 5150 in front of a judge to determine their ability to be trusted with a firearm. And during those years your allowed to file the same thing if you didn't want to go to court immediatly after the incident.

But I have no clue how well it works in practice.

The initial review tends to work, but some people legitimately are a danger to self or others on the initial review. However, that's often pretty well handled in a year or two, and I have a problem forcing them to wait for another 3-4 to get the fundamental right to self defense back.

-Gene

luckystrike
10-21-2011, 9:14 PM
easy ways around it.

Databyter
10-21-2011, 9:31 PM
Except for your 500+ words where you don't seem to support disarming violent people and felons. Your argument is for an end to government, not a rational discourse on how a system might work and not impinge on the rights of the non crazy and non felony violent.
-Gene

I will agree it was longwinded and needs editing.

But you need to go back and re-read it if that was the meaning you interpreted from it.

I mentioned tools that work that do not require a list of guns.

I support POS National checks.

I support removal of guns from violent felons.

I support removal of guns from people who have lost emotional stability or rationality.

I support limited registration that makes sense and does not go too far.

And obviously I feel that the laws go too far without justification in this State.

I do not support efforts to put every single thing that citizens do regarding firearms and ammunition on a piece of paper to make politicians and LE happy when those types of laws tend to increase expense and decrease the ability of people to bear arms without infringement of government with no benefit or justification that holds enough water to justify it

And I am NOT anti-government either. But I believe it has a purpose and a size and should stick to both, while fastidiously making sure that it serves the people more than itself as it works within the limitations set out by the constitution.

I am not "for an end to government" as you accuse. That is offensive to me. I simply think they are doing a smashing job of ending our economy and way of life all by themselves and all I can do is vote and be prepared to live without some of the comforts of a government that knows what sustainability is.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm trying to have a calm discussion and you keep telling me what I think, and your wrong, and it's offensive.

Surely you can defend your position without insulting me with every one of your posts.

creekside
10-22-2011, 1:48 AM
WTF? So because criminals find something useful in crime law abiding citizens should have surrender their liberty? Negative Ghost Rider, the pattern is full.

Just because the state has an interest in registering handguns, doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even that I'm in favor of it. The key word for me is 'reluctantly.' It's a hard fight to argue that handguns should not be registered in a state which just banned the open carry of handguns. :(

I respect your disagreement.

Second, none of my handguns have been involved in a crime. Not one. I would venture to say 99% or more of all of the handguns I have ever sold have never been used in a crime and I have sold quite a few handguns.

99% of cars and motorcycles haven't been used in a crime and we register those. In fact we make them DISPLAY their license numbers so that the identity and privacy of the owner can be breached from a distance.

How are they easily stolen when they are in a gun safe?

When they are not kept in a safe, particularly during residential burglaries. Also while in transport.

Your argument has no merit. We could just as easily say knives are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot and so need to be registered. So are screwdrivers. Crowbars? Flashlights? Any mask that covers the face?

At least until recently, a handgun could not be made at home. Even now it takes some skill and special equipment. Handguns save lives in law-abiding hands. They also make armed robbery, murder and suicide much easier.

Handguns are not evil nor are they necessarily "crime guns" as you label them.

A handgun is not evil, any more than a knife or motorcycle or car or bicycle is.

The use of long arms in crime is very rare. Regulation of long arms has nothing to do with crime control or public safety.

We register cars and motorcycles. There is a voluntary process for registering bicycles. Knives are not registered but they are easy to make, and if any place will someday register knives, it'll probably be San Francisco.

If we want to register anything, register criminals. Put a serial number on them and track them, not my guns that are not used for crime.

I'd much rather have a list of handguns out there in case one gets stolen or misused than a list of handgun owners readily accessible to police dispatchers. The latter gets one treated like a criminal. Been there, done that.

tenpercentfirearms
10-22-2011, 4:48 AM
99% of cars and motorcycles haven't been used in a crime and we register those. In fact we make them DISPLAY their license numbers so that the identity and privacy of the owner can be breached from a distance.That won't work. Only vehicles that are used on public roads need to be registered. Second, vehicles are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

When they are not kept in a safe, particularly during residential burglaries. Also while in transport.Your house is a giant safe. No one has a right to break into your house. Just because people might want to steal something, is not a reason to mandate registration.

At least until recently, a handgun could not be made at home. Even now it takes some skill and special equipment. Handguns save lives in law-abiding hands. They also make armed robbery, murder and suicide much easier.Computers are easily stolen, can be used for crime, can't be made at home, and require some skill and special equipment to build. They make the planning of robbery, murder, and suicide easier. Is any of that a reason to register computers? Logic fail.

The use of long arms in crime is very rare. Regulation of long arms has nothing to do with crime control or public safety.Would you care to cite some specific crime data? You made the claim, please back it up.

We register cars and motorcycles. There is a voluntary process for registering bicycles. Knives are not registered but they are easy to make, and if any place will someday register knives, it'll probably be San Francisco.Vehicle and motorcycle registration is also voluntary. Again, why would the ease with which one can make something determine whether it should be registered or not? That makes no sense.

I'd much rather have a list of handguns out there in case one gets stolen or misused than a list of handgun owners readily accessible to police dispatchers. The latter gets one treated like a criminal. Been there, done that.And that there proves your logic is not sound. Who do you think a list of handguns is going to be registered to? A list of handguns is going to be able to be sorted into a list of people who own handguns. Otherwise they wouldn't be registered. A list of handguns is a list of owners.

Or am I misunderstanding you and literally you just want a list of handguns with no name tied to them. That way if one comes up stolen, you know it really existed, but you have no idea who it belonged to?

creekside
10-22-2011, 11:19 AM
That won't work. Only vehicles that are used on public roads need to be registered. Second, vehicles are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

This narrow view of the Fourth Amendment is why all of us have to get groped before we fly and have no privacy in our vehicles. Do you also support (e) checks (www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/LASD_oc_memo.pdf) on the same logic?

Your house is a giant safe. No one has a right to break into your house. Just because people might want to steal something, is not a reason to mandate registration.

Houses are easily broken into all the time, particularly when the occupants are not home. Theory and reality are two different things, and I'm sure your shop has some protections you're proud to show off (especially when DOJ and ATF does an audit) and others you won't share with anyone, as is your right and duty.

Computers are easily stolen, can be used for crime, can't be made at home, and require some skill and special equipment to build. They make the planning of robbery, murder, and suicide easier. Is any of that a reason to register computers? Logic fail.

What on Earth makes you think computers are not registered? Next time you buy a laptop (or an Xbox 360 for that matter) see what the sales clerk does with the barcode on the box. More importantly, your connection to the Internet is registered and easily trackable. IP addresses and MAC addresses make it child's play to figure out who is saying what. Is this registration a violation of your 1st Amendment rights?

http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg

Would you care to cite some specific crime data? You made the claim, please back it up.

Sure, since you ask nicely.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png

Table 4 on page 8 of the 2010 NCVS (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf) (PDF) tells the tale. Here's the narrative.

Weapon use in violent victimization declined slightly
between 2001 and 2010
For overall violent victimization, weapons were used in 22% of all violent victimizations and 61% of serious violent victimizations in 2010. Weapon use varied by type of crime. In 2010, 12% of rape and sexual assaults and 20% of all assaults involved a weapon (table 4). Firearms were used in violent victimizations more often than knives. Robbery (44%) was the most likely offense to involve an armed offender. Firearms were the most commonly used weapon in robberies (29%).

During the past decade, the pattern of weapon use in violent victimization changed slightly. The percentage of violent victimizations involving weapons declined slightly from 26% in 2001 to 22% in 2010 (figure 6).

During the 10-year period, about 6% to 9% of all violent victimizations were committed with firearms (figure 7). The percent of violent victimizations involving firearms has remained generally stable from 2004 to 2010.

For the specifics of long guns versus handguns, let's refer to "Guns Used In Crime (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF)" (PDF) from BJS. Unfortunately, this is quite dated (1995) but does a good job of laying out the generalities.

Here's the summary, which is largely still true today:

Although most crime is not committed with guns, most gun crime is committed with handguns.

Although most available guns are not used in crime, information about the 223 million guns available to the general public provides a context for evaluating criminal preferences for guns.

By definition, stolen guns are available to criminals. The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) stolen gun file contains over 2 million reports; 60% are reports of stolen handguns.

In 1994, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) received over 85,132 requests from law enforcement agencies for traces of guns used in crime. Over three quarters of the guns traced by the ATF in 1994 were handguns (mostly pistols), and almost a third were less than 3 years old.

Surveys of inmates show that they prefer concealable, large caliber guns.
Juvenile offenders appear to be more likely to possess guns than adults.

Studies of the guns used in homicides show that large caliber revolvers are the most frequent type of gun used in homicides, but the number of large caliber semiautomatic [hand]guns used in murders is increasing.
Little information exists about the use of assault weapons in crime. [because it's so rare it can't be studied statistically]

Vehicle and motorcycle registration is also voluntary.

Not on public roadway it isn't. Try driving an unregistered vehicle around and discover the joys of confiscation.

And that there proves your logic is not sound. Who do you think a list of handguns is going to be registered to? A list of handguns is going to be able to be sorted into a list of people who own handguns. Otherwise they wouldn't be registered. A list of handguns is a list of owners.

Not necessarily. A database of the type that ATF maintains can only be queried if you already know the SN of the firearm in question.

A database of the type CA DOJ maintains can be queried by any field, but especially by name.

The former is reasonable; the latter is dangerous to our liberty.

Or am I misunderstanding you and literally you just want a list of handguns with no name tied to them. That way if one comes up stolen, you know it really existed, but you have no idea who it belonged to?

Close in spirit. The ownership of the firearm should only be accessible when it is determined that there is a legitimate need -- as in returning a stolen firearm to its owner, or investigating a gun homicide. Not as part of a license plate check, car stop, or investigative file.

kcbrown
10-22-2011, 11:40 AM
Not necessarily. A database of the type that ATF maintains can only be queried if you already know the SN of the firearm in question.

A database of the type CA DOJ maintains can be queried by any field, but especially by name.

The former is reasonable; the latter is dangerous to our liberty.


The former gets you the latter. If the data exists in the database, it can be queried, even if the standard procedure is to expose queries of only some of the fields.

Remember that the concern is the possibility of the government using the data for tyrannical purposes. Such a government would have no reservations about re-indexing the data against other fields (name, address, etc.) in the database and then exposing those fields for the purpose of querying the database.

What matters is whether the data has been recorded at all, not how it can be queried.


There are ways of storing the data to prevent that (e.g., cryptographically encrypting everything using the serial number as the key, and only storing a cryptographically hashed form of the serial number for the purpose of lookups), but I very much doubt the ATF database has been constructed in that way. Governments like to keep their options open, so they will pretend to adhere to the law, and actually adhere to it only to the minimum degree necessary.

tenpercentfirearms
10-22-2011, 3:49 PM
This narrow view of the Fourth Amendment is why all of us have to get groped before we fly and have no privacy in our vehicles. Do you also support (e) checks (www.californiaopencarry.org/memos/LASD_oc_memo.pdf) on the same logic?Not sure where you are getting your theories. You stated that vehicles are registered so firearms being registered is no big deal. I countered that and said vehicles are not entirely registered. Now you think I am supporting registration? You make no sense.

What on Earth makes you think computers are not registered? Next time you buy a laptop (or an Xbox 360 for that matter) see what the sales clerk does with the barcode on the box. More importantly, your connection to the Internet is registered and easily trackable. IP addresses and MAC addresses make it child's play to figure out who is saying what. Is this registration a violation of your 1st Amendment rights?More side issues that prove nothing. Are you saying that retailers are scanning UPC codes when you buy a laptop? Or are you saying they are scanning serial numbers in addition to a UPC code? So what is the big deal if I pay in cash? No registration and you continue to confuse the issue with irrelevant examples. Just because you know my IP address or a store keeps my computer serial number does not mean that registration of firearms is justifiable. There are plenty of legal ways not to let people trace this data, so arguing that just because they can makes registering guns better for the common good is faulty.

Sure, since you ask nicely.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.cfm

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/weapons.png

Table 4 on page 8 of the 2010 NCVS (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf) (PDF) tells the tale. Here's the narrative.



For the specifics of long guns versus handguns, let's refer to "Guns Used In Crime (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF)" (PDF) from BJS. Unfortunately, this is quite dated (1995) but does a good job of laying out the generalities.

Here's the summary, which is largely still true today:I still didn't see where you backed up the statement you made that "The use of long arms in crime is very rare." The only graph you actually showed that had to do with handguns vs. other firearms types only dealt with homicides and not crime in general. And even then about 2-3 thousand other gun crimes were committed against about 8000 in 2005. Hardly a very rare occasion as you erroneously claim.

Not on public roadway it isn't. Try driving an unregistered vehicle around and discover the joys of confiscation.I didn't say on a public roadway. Can I still own unregistered vehicles on private land? Yes? Then how are guns like vehicles? Again, you prove my point and destroy your own.

Not necessarily. A database of the type that ATF maintains can only be queried if you already know the SN of the firearm in question.What database would this be? The stolen firearm registry? Or are you talking about when people buy guns?

Close in spirit. The ownership of the firearm should only be accessible when it is determined that there is a legitimate need -- as in returning a stolen firearm to its owner, or investigating a gun homicide. Not as part of a license plate check, car stop, or investigative file.And because firearms are kept by the populace as a check against tyrannical rule, this data should never be "trusted" to the government. They have no business knowing. If I want to voluntarily give them my stolen gun data, that is fine. Having them mandate it is unnecessary and will not help solve any crimes or retrace firearms that sit in my safe.

vincewarde
10-22-2011, 5:06 PM
In California Loughner would have been 5150'ed and from that point until he could prove he was sane or 10 years passed, he would have had to find an illegal acquisition method for firearms. Remember he's crazy enough that normal people found him disturbing.

Gene you absolutely nailed the reason the AZ shootings happened: Local law enforcement - especially campus PD - did not put him on whatever the AZ version of 5150 is. That is why the Sheriff was talking about gun laws. They dropped the ball. This guy had literally dozens of documented law enforcement contacts and who knows how many undocumented contacts. yet not even Fox News picked up on this.

In 10 years of EMS, I transported thousands of 5150's and most of them were much more with it than Loughner was reported to be.

ja308
10-22-2011, 10:03 PM
With the lack of CCWs in most of ca. Criminals have a govt guarentee they will not meet armed resistance .
registration of long guns may stop some from buying a shotgun or 1st rifle.

Face it folks we only have 2 votes that matter #1 where or if we spend money.
2 the power to vote with our feet.
Many times I have met folks in other states ,asking me "why are you still there"?
These folks are legaly armed and looking very prosperous too.
with the latest sacramento schemes and a good percentage of cal-gunners defending the actions of JB . It is now time to look into other options.

Pred@tor
10-22-2011, 10:28 PM
With the lack of CCWs in most of ca. Criminals have a govt guarentee they will not meet armed resistance .
registration of long guns may stop some from buying a shotgun or 1st rifle.

Face it folks we only have 2 votes that matter #1 where or if we spend money.
2 the power to vote with our feet.
Many times I have met folks in other states ,asking me "why are you still there"?
These folks are legaly armed and looking very prosperous too.
with the latest sacramento schemes and a good percentage of cal-gunners defending the actions of JB . It is now time to look into other options.

Thats what I did and I havent looked back. I CCW all the time out here buy and trade guns hassle free. Only do I fill out 4473's at a dealer and walk out with the gun the same day.

dalriaden
10-23-2011, 12:21 AM
Haven't read all 5 pages yet, but just posting this:

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. and from 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews and others were exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935; from 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents were exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964, and from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970 — from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 people were exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956, and from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were exterminated.

The United Nations imposed gun control after civil war broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. Although the town of Srebrenica was a UN-designated "safe area," in July of 1995 more than 7,000 unarmed Muslim men and boys were murdered by Serb forces as the UN forces in the town proved unable or unwilling to help its Muslim population.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

In a more recent example, the British Broadcasting Company reported on May 10, 2000, that the United Nations convinced the people of Sierra Leone to turn in their private weapons for UN protection during the recent civil war. The result was disastrous. The people ended up defenseless when UN troops, unable to protect even themselves, were taken hostage by rebels moving on the capital of Freetown.


David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen, writing in the Notre Dame Law Review (Volume 81, Number 4), note that that national gun-control statutes7 for the Darfur victims effectively prevent self defense.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

Estimates run as high as 56 million people who have been exterminated in the 20th century because gun control left them defenseless.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0211f.asp


Which made me wonder, who are our "undesirables"?

http://anddomestic.com/images/gun-control.jpg

At one point gun confiscation in this country was unthinkable, yet we saw it occur quite openly in 1991 in New York City, enabled solely due to a registration scheme put into place in 1967 when Mayor John V. Lindsay signed a long gun registration law which was later used as a confiscation list.http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-12.html

And we all remember gun confiscation in New Orleans post katrina.

Sorry if any of its a dupe.

creekside
10-23-2011, 1:09 AM
There are ways of storing the data to prevent that (e.g., cryptographically encrypting everything using the serial number as the key, and only storing a cryptographically hashed form of the serial number for the purpose of lookups), but I very much doubt the ATF database has been constructed in that way. Governments like to keep their options open, so they will pretend to adhere to the law, and actually adhere to it only to the minimum degree necessary.

Nailed it on the head. Thank you.

1) Voluntary. 2) Non-government. EFF and CalGuns have a lot more in common to work on than some might think.

creekside
10-23-2011, 2:07 AM
For the record, and for those who might not go back and read what I actually posted, I strongly disapprove of the registration of long arms. I'm deeply disappointed in Jerry Brown for signing it.

What I said about handgun registration was exactly this:

I reluctantly concede that the state has a compelling interest in the registration of handguns. They are just too damn useful in crime and easily stolen to boot.

This is exactly the same justification as for the registration of motor vehicles. Neither carried handguns nor vehicles are kept in safes.

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "Second, none of my handguns have been involved in a crime. Not one. I would venture to say 99% or more of all of the handguns I have ever sold have never been used in a crime and I have sold quite a few handguns."

99% of cars and motorcycles haven't been used in a crime and we register those. In fact we make them DISPLAY their license numbers so that the identity and privacy of the owner can be breached from a distance.

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "That won't work. Only vehicles that are used on public roads need to be registered. Second, vehicles are not constitutionally guaranteed rights."

[QUOTE]This narrow view of the Fourth Amendment is why all of us have to get groped before we fly and have no privacy in our vehicles. Do you also support (e) checks on the same logic?

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms: "Not sure where you are getting your theories. You stated that vehicles are registered so firearms being registered is no big deal. I countered that and said vehicles are not entirely registered. Now you think I am supporting registration? You make no sense."

The last time I looked at the 2nd Amendment, it read: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You seem to think that "keeping" arms is the only act protected by the 2A, and that therefore the Government has no right to know what you keep in your gun safe. Many of us are concerned with our rights not only in our home, but wherever we may choose to go. This is "bearing" arms.

As for the 4th Amendment, it reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Anyone who operates a motor vehicle does not have 4th Amendment rights in this state in so doing -- especially if that vehicle contains anything that might be a gun case. Any 'papers and effects' carried in a vehicle are open to essentially arbitrary search. This is the (e) check to which I refer. Anyone who boards a commercial aircraft is not only not secure in 'person' but is subjected to freedom gropes and other abuse.

Where people bear arms in public, in the same way that they drive cars in public -- i.e. in the course of their ordinary lives, casually, as in those states where people can either get a shall-issue License to Carry or the handful where they don't need one, a handgun registration system makes some sense. The LTC firearm is not always carried in a safe, or in a car trunk. Things happen.

As for my statement that the use of long guns in crime is rare, please see "Weapon Use and Violent Crime (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wuvc01.pdf)" [PDF] based on National Crime & Victimization Survey data from 1993-2001.

"Of the average 847,000 violent victimizations committed with firearms, about 7 out of 8 were committed with handguns."

That means that about 1 out of 8, or 12.5%, were committed with long arms.

I cited Uniform Crimes Reporting (UCR) data for weapon use in homicides because this data is considered highly reliable. Why? Let me quote the experts who wrote "Homicide Trends in the United States (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/homtrnd.cfm)" also at BJS:

"Homicide is of interest not only because of its severity but also because it is a fairly reliable barometer of all violent crime. At a national level, no other crime is measured as accurately and precisely."

In 2005, 8,478 homicides were committed with handguns and 2,868 with long arms. This is out of 16,692 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/totalstab.cfm) homicides total in 2005.

A little over 1 in 6, or 17.2% of homicides in 2005 were committed with long arms.

1 in 6 murders and 1 in 8 violent crimes means in my opinion that long arms are 'rarely' used in crime.

I agree that long arms are kept in the home for the protection of liberty.

I add however that handguns are carried for the protection of the individual.

I am now curious -- and do not have time to research this today -- how many states require that the license number of the handgun be recorded either to open carry or to concealed carry that handgun?

It's moot in California as we cannot purchase a handgun without the SN being recorded.