How registration could backfire on the state

[Just_some_guy]

Just suppose for a moment, that a large number of newly-stigmatized rifles were registered with the state as "assault weapons".

Then the state arbitrarily moves against those registered owners at some point in time.

Wouldn't the existence of a large number of so-called, "assault weapons", which had not been used in crimes, be a basis for overturning such action, since it proves, with the state's own data, that the arms were in common use for lawful purposes?

[56Chevy]

Logic or results don't have a place in California's gun laws, but maybe with a friendly court in the future.

[Virginian]

To my knowledge only one crime has been reported involving a registered machine gun. With this logic the '86 ban should be a breeze to undo. Have at it! ;-)

[penguinman]

I won't be registering. Do whatever you think best.

[Crazed_SS]

Just suppose for a moment, that a large number of newly-stigmatized rifles were registered with the state as "assault weapons".

Then the state arbitrarily moves against those registered owners at some point in time.

Wouldn't the existence of a large number of so-called, "assault weapons", which had not been used in crimes, be a basis for overturning such action, since it proves, with the state's own data, that the arms were in common use for lawful purposes?

If they do try to come for everyone's registered guns, it could be used against gun control proponents until the end of time.


You know how they always smugly say, "Stop being paranoid! No one is coming for your guns!" ??? Well, when CA actually does pull such a stunt, it will seriously bolster the anti gun control argument and expose the gun control movement's true motivations.

[Scratch705]

If they do try to come for everyone's registered guns, it could be used against gun control proponents until the end of time.


You know how they always smugly say, "Stop being paranoid! No one is coming for your guns!" ??? Well, when CA actually does pull such a stunt, it will seriously bolster the anti gun control argument and expose the gun control movement's true motivations.

you assume that they will come for the guns when nothing is happening.

they will wait and bide their time until another terrorist shooting involving an AR-15 happens, then they will come for the guns right when public perception is very low for these types of rifles.

i mean look how quick the entire city of Boston caved and gave up on the 4th amendment when they got bombed. Police went door to door and searched everyone. you couldn't refuse the search. and there was no out-cry about civil right violation in that situation.

[bob.dakeelstripe]

If they do try to come for everyone's registered guns, it could be used against gun control proponents until the end of time.


You know how they always smugly say, "Stop being paranoid! No one is coming for your guns!" ??? Well, when CA actually does pull such a stunt, it will seriously bolster the anti gun control argument and expose the gun control movement's true motivations.

I will hand them my nakid registered lower [emoji12]

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Just_some_guy]

Look at New Orleans after Katrina. The police and the feds *did* go door-to-door confiscating everyone's firearms.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150821/a-decade-later-remember-new-orleans-gun-confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america

The only upside was that federal law was changed to preclude such in the future.

You are correct, they will exploit whatever tragedy is next, and use that as the pretense to do what they've wanted to do all along, confiscate firearms from lawful citizens.

But it does put the state in an untenable position if their own data argues against them in a court someday.

[Discogodfather]

Just suppose for a moment, that a large number of newly-stigmatized rifles were registered with the state as "assault weapons".

Then the state arbitrarily moves against those registered owners at some point in time.

Wouldn't the existence of a large number of so-called, "assault weapons", which had not been used in crimes, be a basis for overturning such action, since it proves, with the state's own data, that the arms were in common use for lawful purposes?

Stop spreading reasonable ideas, the "featureless" crowd is convinced that they are completely safe and defying the evil gubermint. They can't imaging how much much much more open and vulnerable they are to further castration than someone that goes RAW.

[Drew Eckhardt]

To my knowledge only one crime has been reported involving a registered machine gun.

Two (out of 250,000) since 1934, the most recent by a police officer.

On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison.

[Q]

Just suppose for a moment, that a large number of newly-stigmatized rifles were registered with the state as "assault weapons".

Then the state arbitrarily moves against those registered owners at some point in time.

Wouldn't the existence of a large number of so-called, "assault weapons", which had not been used in crimes, be a basis for overturning such action, since it proves, with the state's own data, that the arms were in common use for lawful purposes?

For the 2A and in common use..
I read the AR is the best example of in common use design in the USA, the AK is a old design no doubt is the most common used in the world. I wonder if the estimated number of manufactured in the states or those sold can be said they are in common use?


I think it doesn't matter, basically the USA is the last country to fall and strip it's citizens of the ability to change what has been established.
Look at all the countries before it that has done the same. We are the last ones. We have the 2A but it's just a piece of paper if no one recognizes it.

[Dutch3]

I think the best thing that could happen is if nobody registers. Not one. Zero.

That would send the strongest message we are capable of at this point.

[walmart_ar15]

With a complex registering process and the helpful discription of what constitute a " featureless " rifle and how one can even now change a rifle into featureless, then further with a absolute no registering of featureless stance, it makes one wonder if DOJ would "prefer" none of us register?

May be we should do the opposite.

Just 0.02

[Discogodfather]

I think the best thing that could happen is if nobody registers. Not one. Zero.

That would send the strongest message we are capable of at this point.

I think your right except 180 degrees wrong. They don't want us to register, thats why they waited until the last minute, haven't even published their regs yet, added crazy difficult steps to the process, and don't even have a web interface up yet to register.

If everyone registers they lose.

[Dutch3]

I think your right except 180 degrees wrong. They don't want us to register, thats why they waited until the last minute, haven't even published their regs yet, added crazy difficult steps to the process, and don't even have a web interface up yet to register.

If everyone registers they lose.

I disagree.

They have passed the decree - 'Everyone must register!'

Everyone registers - they win (as they expected).

Or - nobody registers - we win (as they did not expect, while wondering how to enforce the next round of infringements knowing there will be no compliance).



.