[SigSour]

Does anyone believe this would happen? I know it *could* happen but I'm not liking where this gun law thing is going.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-mulls-broader-gun-control-washington-post-154313906--finance.html

"A working group led by Vice President Joseph Biden is seriously considering measures that would require universal background checks for gun buyers and track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, the newspaper said."

That "national database" line makes me think of the government knowing EXACTLY who has what in their homes. If our government ever decided to take *any* action against its people (us) they would know who to go to first.
They really trying to make gun owners the 'victims' - remember that maps that listed every permit holder in New York? What happens if (and when) the rabid anti-gun people decides to list everyone in the country (provided we are all forced to enter our into into a national database). Criminals would have access to their illegal guns and a handy map to where to get MORE.

I really have a sinking feeling in my gut - you know when people "mean well" but end up making things worse than ever before and you can see it coming a ten miles away? That feeling.

[OptimusPrime]

They have to ask what that would fix. Connecticut shooter had her guns stolen from her, then used. What would any database have prevented?

[yokel]

We've seen how registration worked with full-autos, i.e., set up a registry, close it at some later date, choke off the supply and reduce the number of guns at large.

[MrTwigg]

Does anyone believe this would happen?

We no longer have a bi-partisan government.

We have one party rule.

Nothing is off the table.

Trust your gut.

[MikeJackmin]

Forgive me if there are some inaccuracies which follow. The story is complicated, and I'm reciting this off the top of my head.

As I understand it, the city of Chicago passed a handgun registration law way back when. After the law was passed, the executive branch to it upon itself to simply make the required form unavailable to citizens, thus imposing a defacto, total ban on handguns.

It gets worse.

Legal actions in the courts failed because - get this - none of the citizens who were denied access to the forms had any standing to sue. Again, this stuff is complex and I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, _once we gave the city the authority to regulate handgun ownership, then it was no longer a protected right_. The city that has to the power register handguns also has the power to decline to register them, too.

This is a big deal.

This is not only relevant WRT registration issues. Consider any legislation that imposes requirements on private transfers, and consider the long-term effect on how the Second Amendment would be interpreted by later courts.

Hopefully a more knowledgeable member can correct anything I got wrong here...

[beatledog7]

Registration serves no crime-prevention purpose. Its only purpose is to find the guns so they can be collected.

[Zardaia]

Isnt NY already talking possible confiscation? And we already know many antis linke Finestein have stated they'd like to if they could. It's a gradual thing but the more rights we give up the more it becomes the new normal, eventualy even if it takes a generation or two confiscation will be what the majority wants. Stop the process before it has a chance to set in or it WILL eventually lead to outright bans and confiscation.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

Beatledog7 is right, IMHO. If something else happens down the road, don't think the government wouldn't say" well this isn't working, so to ensure your safety we are going to take them and destroy them". The sad part is an overwhelming number of the people would blindly follow the government doing so.

[txgunsuscg]

They have to ask what that would fix. Connecticut shooter had her guns stolen from her, then used. What would any database have prevented?
They don't have to ask or show anything. All they have to do is lay out some imaginary fantasy for the people of the United States that don't know anything about guns other than what they read in the newspapers (including some gun owners, unfortunately), and they will work up the numbers to get it passed. I don't mean to be defeatist, but something is coming, and it will get passed. I had an argument with a cousin the other day (a gun-owner, BTW), and he is perfectly OK with all "assault weapons" being banned. And he wasn't interested in the actual facts about the power of the round, or the rate of fire, he had already gotten all the info he wanted from the media, and none of my actual experience with 8+ years in the military, including close quarters battle training and long-range precision training, was going to change his mind. The worst part is, I know he's not alone out there...

[1911 guy]

Does registration equal confiscation? Yes. One need look no father than the late, great twentieth century. Britain, Australia, Germany, Poland, USSR, the list goes on. Rather than question it based on the assurances of those who claim otherwise, question it from a factual standpoint. Research every known registration scheme and follow it to its conclusion. Unarmed populations either squeezed under the thumb of a nanny state or ripe for genocide either by invaders or a criminal class armed in violation of said registration laws.

[Fishslayer]

If you can come up with another plausible reason for a national gun registration I'm all ears...

[Deltaboy]

History shows once they know what everyone has then they come and take them. Just look at England and The Aussies.

[Derek Zeanah]

History shows once they know what everyone has then they come and take them. Just look at England and The Aussies.
Just look at California. Didn't the CA DOJ decide that SKSes were legal but needed to be registered, then changed their mind and demanded all registered SKS rifles be turned in?

That's how I remember it, but I wasn't in CA at the time...

[Guy B. Meredith]

Then there is the problem of a registration list being published as has been the case with concealed carry people.

Gotta start educating and beating down stereotypes. When I get a chance I like to drop in videos of women shooting USPSA or some such. Would like to have a really good women's IDPA match with no-shoots eminently mentioned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kci-eXzG5w

[TX_QtPi]

At the moment confiscation is declared all registered guns would have top be accounted for. Your gun doesn't have to be tattooed as it already has a serial number, registration is it's last known address.

If outlawed, confiscation becomes a game of hide n seek, and you never, tell anyone your best hiding place or give away your location in hide n seek...


best quote I have seen on this,
""How does gun registration do a single thing to curb gun violence? If I write down my name and address and my gun's serial number on a 3x5" index card and hand it to you, how can you use that index card to keep me from shooting somebody, other than maybe waving it in my face in an attempt to throw off my aim?" ~ Tamara on the View from the Porch blog

[buckeye8]

If you can come up with another plausible reason for a national gun registration I'm all ears...

What he said.

Look How Well Canada's Gun Registry Has Worked (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291304/death-long-gun-registry-john-r-lott-jr)

There is simply no value to law enforcement with regards to solving crimes. Guns are already serial numbered, and chain-of-custody for firearms is typically not 1) important to solving a murder, or 2) difficult to establish using existing police procedures.

Indeed, there is no practical purpose, aside from future confiscations. If we roll over on registration, we have taken our first step down the plank. There is no turning back from that point.

They have plans for all of your firearms. Black rifles are simply the low-hanging fruit. Eventually...

...they'll take your semi-automatics (they just spray bullets).
...they'll ban calibers (.50 BMG and .338 Lapua have no civilian purpose).
...they'll take your "sniper" rifles (all centerfire rifles).
...they'll take your "military" shotguns (you only need 3 rounds for ducks).
...they'll take your ammo stash (you don't need all that, unless you are planning something evil)
...they'll call you crazy (Mental Health Checks) and say you're not sane enough to own guns (Hoarder? Eccentric? Signs of 'depression?)

After all that, there will still be people who think their revolvers and squirrel guns are safe.

And, predictably: Once registration and confiscation starts, some nut will go on some sort of shocking, bloody rampage to "send a message" to the Government, a la McVeigh, which will only accelerate the process and extinguish any remaining pro-gun sentiment in the general public.

We have but one chance to stand. We must stand tall, stand together, and stand now.

[joeschmoe]

The VP does not write the laws. I don't care what he thinks. Not important.

[Zeke/PA]

An old synopsis was:
1. Registration
2. Condemnation
3. Confiscation.
4. Subjugation

[autospike]

Does anyone believe this would happen?


Yes. I don't know how anyone could think otherwise.

[Shawn Dodson]

I lived in California in the 1990s. First we were forced to register our "assault weapons". Then, when "registration" didn't work, the state banned them. (I'd moved out of state by then.) You either: 1) sold the rifle to an out-of-state buyer, 2) voluntarily turned it in, or 3) it was confiscated.

So yes, registation almost always leads to confiscation (because when registration inevitably doesn't "work" the next step is a ban.

See - http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf

[gbran]

Didn't the CA DOJ decide that SKSes were legal but needed to be registered, then changed their mind and demanded all registered SKS rifles be turned in?


I turned in a non-compliant SKS during their mandatory buyback. They paid me $230. I could have made it compliant, but I only paid $129 for it and didn't shoot it much anyway.

Trust me, registration will = some sort of confiscation at some point in time.

[wickedsprint]

They have to ask what that would fix. Connecticut shooter had her guns stolen from her, then used. What would any database have prevented?

While she had no way of knowing she would be killed, I wonder if she would have secured them better if owners were held liable for not taking proper precautions to prevent theft of traceable weapons.

This is no different than what we expect from Police and Military issued firearms.

[Guy B. Meredith]

The VP does not make laws, but the President can make executive orders that become law WITHIN FEDERAL BUREAUS if not voted down by a super majority of Congress within a given period. If that Federal bureau can claim ownership of some facet of firearms manufacturing, shipping sales or whatever they can be a problem. The use of the Interstate Commerce clause comes to mind.

[hso]

The assumption that the federal government would use registration as has historically been done to confiscate firearms and others point out that you have to make a series of assumptions to go from registration to confiscation and such assumptions are unreasonable.

I point out the case of Australia where confiscation took place peaceably.

[barnbwt]

Registration does not necessarily equal confiscation. But it is a necessary precursor, and the most critical. "Constructive Confiscation" if you will ;)

TCB

While she had no way of knowing she would be killed, I wonder if she would have secured them better if owners were held liable for not taking proper precautions to prevent theft of traceable weapons.

I'd say she was held pretty damn liable for her actions :rolleyes:. Personal responsibility is only somewhat affected by laws (i.e. car insurance vs. texting while driving)

[Dr_B]

And, predictably: Once registration and confiscation starts, some nut will go on some sort of shocking, bloody rampage to "send a message" to the Government, a la McVeigh, which will only accelerate the process and extinguish any remaining pro-gun sentiment in the general public.

That's what I expect. I don't think registration would mean confiscation would soon follow. But what WOULD happen is that someone would do something irresponsible and horrendous with a registered legal gun, and then there would be a push for confiscation. Something like "See, we really can't let people have these at all. Registration isn't working, we have to totally ban them."

[gunNoob]

I never had any guns :)

[Hardtarget]

Here is my bet. There will not be any "law" passed. The king will just set an exeutive order. National registration...then confiscation. We will see the
House of Representives and the Senate just lay down...like a bunch of DOGS.

Its the new way to govern.

Mark

[blkbrd666]

Here is my bet. There will not be any "law" passed. The king will just set an exeutive order. National registration...then confiscation. We will see the
House of Representives and the Senate just lay down...like a bunch of DOGS.

I would say the odds are better, much better, than any lottery ticket in your hand. And there will be thousands of idiots that will register their guns. They will say they won't, but then they will think, "I've got too much to lose", and then they'll grab their ankles. This will work out well for the government too because the older generations will die in their living room defending their rights and all that will be left are the brainwashed younger generation...oh, and those with their ankles in their hands. Then look, we don't need Social Security after all...all the old people are dead.

[mljdeckard]

Ultimately, yes. Next president, ten years, fifty years from now, someone will ask; "Why else did we bother to register them?

[wickedsprint]

Registration does not necessarily equal confiscation. But it is a necessary precursor, and the most critical. "Constructive Confiscation" if you will ;)

TCB


I'd say she was held pretty damn liable for her actions :rolleyes:. Personal responsibility is only somewhat affected by laws (i.e. car insurance vs. texting while driving)

Point taken. I'm not sure what the answer is. I reckon Responsible people don't need laws telling them to secure weapons and irresponsible people likely won't follow them.

I hear people in the 60s took guns to school for hunting after etc. What has changed?

Maybe get away from all these prescription meds? I think I read a link linking most of the recent shootings to some form of psych medication.

[swathdiver]

"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 let them ban mail order handguns in 1927, then you let them pass the 1934 National Firearms Act, which exploded with the 1968 NFA, etc. Every inch you've given them, they've taken a mile. The Statist will keep chipping away at your rights until you have none. When will you draw the line and tell them "NO" with your actions?

[Newcatwalt]

In my view it's really simple: registration > confiscation > subjugation.

[browneu]

I thought mail order guns were banned after the Kennedy assassination.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[joeschmoe]

The VP does not make laws, but the President can make executive orders that become law WITHIN FEDERAL BUREAUS if not voted down by a super majority of Congress within a given period. If that Federal bureau can claim ownership of some facet of firearms manufacturing, shipping sales or whatever they can be a problem. The use of the Interstate Commerce clause comes to mind.

No. EO's cannot be used to regulate interstate commerce. That power is specifically given to Congress. I think it's scary how many Americans think the President is a king who can do these kinds of things.

Congress writes the laws. The President executes them. The President, or VP do not write the laws. If you work for the President you must follow his orders, or be replaced by someone who will. Just like any other job. If you don't work for him, you don't follow his orders.
The POTUS is not a king.

[JN01]

I really have a sinking feeling in my gut - you know when people "mean well" but end up making things worse than ever before and you can see it coming a ten miles away?

They don't mean well. They loathe your beliefs. They don't trust you. They want to control you. Your rights are irrelevant to them.

[nazshooter]

No. EO's cannot be used to regulate interstate commerce. That power is specifically given to Congress. I think it's scary how many Americans think the President is a king who can do these

Th President doesn't have the authority to declare war either but that hasn't stopped numerous presidents from effectively doing so. I think it's scary how many people think presidents feel bound by the law.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[Mikhail Weiss]

Executive Orders 9066 and 9102 seem yet other indications that Presidents can issue extreme and overreaching edicts against their own citizens and have them put into concentration camps (this was a term in use at the time, and it was used by President Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, before the discoveries of later WWII made them squeamish about use of the term).

[LKB3rd]

Ask yourself what purpose registration serves. I can't think of any reason other than to know where to go get them when/if the time comes to confiscate them.

[larry_minn]

While she had no way of knowing she would be killed, I wonder if she would have secured them better if owners were held liable for not taking proper precautions to prevent theft of traceable weapons.

This is no different than what we expect from Police and Military issued firearms.

Not sure what you are getting at. They could have been locked up in a $2k Fort Knox "safe" (residentual locker) She still MIGHT have let him know combo, he might have known where she wrote it down, keys were,etc.
Or ask her to show him one. (IIRC she let him shoot under her supervision) or force her to unlock it.
Failing all that. I have seen quality gun safes opened by power tools that cost less then $100 by idiots. (who attack door rather then weaker parts of safe) It does NOT take long to get into one.
I knew where the shotgun was when I was small child. I also knew what would happen if I touched it (without permission) Also I looked at rifle almost every day. (it was in rafters of garage) I didn't get to actually see/touch it till I was 14. Only times in my life I have pointed a real gun at a person is when I have been ready/willing to pull trigger. (and it better go boom)
My parents were not into guns. But dad wanted to make sure we were safe.

[SunnySlopes]

I lived in california when two campers were shot in their sleep. This was in no cal around crescent city. The weapon was a Marlin Camp Carbine in 45 cal and the police went to the gun stores and researched all the 4473 forms. They then went to the owners of the Camp Carbines and asked them to "volunteer" them for testing. Needless to say, they didn't catch the killer.

My firearms were "registered" with the state when I was there. It was very uncomfortable to know that they knew every firearm in my house.

Registration may not equal confiscation, but if it ever came down to, such as what Illinois and New York are trying to implement, it's going to be hard to avoid it.

[monotonous_iterancy]

Here's my problem with this registration idea. If they wanted to register guns, wouldn't congress have to repeal the section of the Firarms Owner Protection Act of 1984 that explicitly bans a national registry of non-NFA firearms?

[HILLBILLY-06]

They have to ask what that would fix. Connecticut shooter had her guns stolen from her, then used. What would any database have prevented?
She was also murdered... "Lest We Forget"

[HILLBILLY-06]

In my view it's really simple: registration > confiscation > subjugation.
EXACTLY, and remember it well.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Even though registration might not lead to confiscation, there is no other reason for it.

Woody

[swathdiver]

I thought mail order guns were banned after the Kennedy assassination.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
That was rifles. A little slice here, little chip there, little sliver off the side and before you know it, you're left with nothing.

[texasgun]

I'm never going to register my 1911. period. you cannot "mis-interpret" the 2A that badly that the meaning of the 2A allows for registration and de-facto government approval for a law abiding citizen to keep&bear a more than 100yr old pistol. no way.

I'm sure the founding fathers had a state in mind which knew exactly who had which weapons so if the state goes mad... they know what and where to confiscate. that's just nuts.

and how would gun registration prevent mass shootings? I think if someone is that crazy - he doesn't give a damn about if his gun is registered or not. it's a suicide mission anyway....

[gc70]

What is the benefit of registration? Oh yeah, registration allows the government to know exactly who is supposed to have a particular gun.

When would registration be valuable in stopping crime? Well, a recovered gun might help the police find an otherwise unknown criminal who had escaped the scene of a crime.

How would registration "help stop these tragedies" (mass shootings)? NOT IN THE LEAST.

[rdhood]

I can't really say what I might do, but there is no other purpose for registration than (ultimately) confiscation.

Whether or not we have a 2nd.... didn't matter to the folks in New Orleans when LEO/National Guard were confiscating rifles under the threat of death. LEO/National Guard/Military cannot be expected to side with ordinary citizens in the face of obvious constitutional violations. The good news ( I suppose) is that once confiscation starts, the world will know immediately through social networks.... unlike those folks after Katrina who faced roaming bands of LEO confiscators taking guns from isolated folk fighting for day-to-day survival.

[SunnySlopes]

The king will just set an exeutive order.

He can't do it. The precedent was established during Truman's reign when the POTUS tried to write new law with an executive order. The SCOTUS said EOs can only clarify existing law.

There's no way around it. Congress would have to write gun confiscation into law.

Now, if somehow the POTUS could declare a national emergency, then that's different.

[Dean Weingarten]

Here is an article I wrote in 2000. I think it lays out why gun registration is gun confiscation. It is pretty simple if you think about it a bit:

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

It is a truism that once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them. If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun can put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration. If you choose this course of action, you would now be at the mercy of any informant who discovers that you possess a gun illegally. Children in the public schools are already being trained to tell the police if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal. The picture had been sent to the police by an informant in the film developing company. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become extremely difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. In a few years, the number of people with personal knowledge of guns will be much smaller. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.

(about double this at the link)

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

[fiddleharp]

swathdiver
Member



Join Date: January 18, 2010
Posts: 35 "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 let them ban mail order handguns in 1927, then you let them pass the 1934 National Firearms Act, which exploded with the 1968 NFA, etc. Every inch you've given them, they've taken a mile. The Statist will keep chipping away at your rights until you have none. When will you draw the line and tell them "NO" with your actions
This guy nailed it!
Generation after generation of Americans have been asleep at the wheel.
We've become feminized lemmings.
Hey! How 'bout that Alabama vs Notre Dame game?! WhooHoo!
On any issue, we're getting exactly the "leadership" we deserve.
As mentioned before, if you won't even bother to e-mail your Congressman, state or local elected official, how can we expect you to engage in a firefight with gun-grabbing LEO's who've laid seige to your house, much less pro-actively go out and hunt the domestic enemies of our Constitution?
While I'm encouraged by the sheer number of posters here who understand that registration=confiscation, I think I'm safe in betting that almost all of these internet chest-thumpers will absolutely cave when "the time comes".
We are not the people we were in 1776. :(
Edit: By the way, how do we "quote" previous posters on this board? I started this post with a "quote", but don't know how to properly credit that poster.

[barnbwt]

Everyone take note that registration is perennially called for by guys like Cuomo (proposing legislation in NY to register AWs). Not two days ago he was promoting outright confiscation (oh, I'm sorry, "mandatory buyback." Forgive me, NPR, for getting the two confused :rolleyes:) and now he claims "existing gunowners will get to keep their AWs" (paraphrase) if they will just submit to registering them.

The anti's aren't slick. Their motives are plain to see, their intentions clear. So clear, that they've showed us exactly where to focus are strongest efforts against them. If we can stop the push for registration, no permanent damage can be done. "Ban" lists can always be reopened, workarounds devised; but the registration of yourself as a gunowner will persist forever--waiting to be exploited by some future legislation or persecution. The legislation/nebulous Executive orders being proposed by Biden's Brain Trust are "more of the same" except for the registration provision. Nothing we can't handle, nothing we haven't weathered--except for the registration provision.

Hopefully the "battle line" is clear for all gunowners to see; competitors, mall-ninjas, Fudds, and CCW'ers: we must stop them here! All that comes afterward can be undone, if need be, but we cannot compromise on registration in the least.

TCB

[joeschmoe]

Th President doesn't have the authority to declare war either but that hasn't stopped numerous presidents from effectively doing so. I think it's scary how many people think presidents feel bound by the law.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
No. No. No. There is no exception. Please stop repeating these myths. That's certainly not a basis to believe that POTUS/Congress can confiscate arms.
For declaring war, waging war, whatever you want to call it. The President has never waged war without Congress okay. That's still the power of Congress. Always has been. Congress has given the President very limited powers to do things, always with Congress's approval. Congress still holds the purse strings, so basiclly he can do small actions for upto a couple of weeks (with Congress's approval) then he has to ask Congress for more money.
The President has NEVER waged war without Congress's okay.

The President is not a king. Congress's power is not unlimited either.
Congress also does not have the power to "confiscate" arms. Not going to happen.

[hso]

It isn't the same, but people argue that it is the first step on the slippery slope to confiscation because it has happened in history. It has also been done without confiscation so it is debatable if the argument "Because it happened in Germany and Australia it WILL happen here".

The problem with it is that the mechanism is burdensome on the individual and the citizenry as a whole as you have to complete the transfer of a firearm from Father to Son or Aunt to Niece before actually giving that gift.

[joeschmoe]

I think the frog analogy is fitting here. Throw a frog into a pan of boiling water, he will jump out. Put him gently into a pan of cool water and heat it slowly and he will cook to death before he jumps out.

Incremental chiping away at our rights is very real. Bans and confiscations of arms will not happen in our lifetimes.
Personally I like to see the anti's raging about bans/confiscation, "need for deer hunting", etc. Because all those arguments will lose against the fundamental right to arms. But it makes me crazy to see gun owners talking that way, because it illustrates what they are willing to give up now to keep some guns. Incremental prohibition.

Remember, ONLY arms are protected. Hunting and sport are not.

[Skyshot]

Ask yourself what purpose registration serves. I can't think of any reason other than to know where to go get them when/if the time comes to confiscate them.
Gosh! you now I traded all them firearms last week for a 53 Rambler.

[Zoogster]

Registration often leads to confiscation.

The NFA is one of those exceptions, and many say it was in large part because of a general lack of compliance. The number of firearms registered was quite small compared to the number possessed that they can clearly see were manufactured through manufacturing records.



Registration is a key component of emboldening officials in confiscation matters, or mandating increasingly difficult hoops to jump through and then knowing who still has a gun and failed to jump through the latest hoop.
When they know who has what they feel implementation of thier latest vision in gun restrictions will result in better compliance, as they will know who is not complying.


A big part of firearms deterence is not knowing who has them and where. If you known where all the arms are then you can strategize around them.

In places with registration we have already had confiscation in the United States.
New York and California have both confiscated arms previously registered. California also maintains a database that red flags registered owners if they become prohibited for any reason as armed and dangerous people that need to be disarmed.




Registration also makes divide and conquer strategies easier to implement, with great potential in modern times with computer databases.
You could quite readily use such a database to for example create a displayed map for various kinds of weapons.
Imagine a database where you add or remove checks for certain types of weapons, and see an icon pop up on the map of where it is owned. Or tint a map based on prevalance of a selected criteria.
Writing such software wouldn't be that hard, especially with existing map programs like google earth that already will show you the location of any address you enter on the map. That would all be archived data in the registration process anyways, you could write a program to automatically use that data to overlay a google earth type map with gun owners.
Such a map would let you figure out what regions could be pitted against eachother, and where you could try to implement various types of gun control with the least resistance.
You find areas without a lot of certain types of weapons then create a base of support for restricting what those people don't have.
You can see where people have ARs, or where people have more long guns. You could pit long gun rich areas against hand gun owners. Places without many ARs against them. Places without many large caliber weapons against large caliber weapons.
You could really create some arms reduction strategies to implement a whole wave of additional restrictions and where they would first be most effective to implement and grow bases of support bye spending time researching with such a program.
The government already creates many such maps on other subjects.
Guns wouldn't be hard to add.

Just check http://www.nationalatlas.gov/ to see the type of thing you could create if all guns were part of a streamlined database that included type, serial number (which also includes type because most large manufacturers assign the serial number based on type so you can tell what a firearm is often just by knowing the serial number and who made it) and address of owner.

[sonick808]

Absolutely. Anything short of all guns banned and turned in is just another precursor. Registration absolutely means confiscation.

[barnbwt]

Registration often leads to confiscation. The NFA is one of those exceptions

How do you figure that (at least where machine guns are concerned)? Civilian MG technology is rapidly becoming as antiquated as black powder was when the law was passed. If the Govt had had the same idea about restricting access to smokeless powder or semi-autos, we'd be relegated to Cowboy Action guns today (revolvers, levers, and gatling guns) and be discussing the ban on the stupid Mossberg Assault Leveraction and Side by Side :mad:

A technology or possession "freeze" is nothing but a slow, gasping confiscation as modernity passes by the "permissible devices" and the legal possessors die off or forego the onerous task of maintaining their ownership. Confiscation has little to do with how "effective" the initial seizure/registration was, if nothing legal can be poured back into the pot to keep the number stable.

Ask yourself what purpose registration serves. I can't think of any reason other than to know where to go get them when/if the time comes to confiscate them.
Indeed. The reason we are registered with our place of work is so the government may get our tax revenue. There is always something to be gotten by registering people (most always money).

TCB

[anchorman]

We've become feminized lemmings.


I'm sure the women on this board really appreciate these sorts of comments :rolleyes: Are you implying that guns make you masculine? do you need your guns to be a man? This is the talk that makes people think that owning guns = compensating for something…

As to your statement about "hunting" your fellow citizens who you think are not being active enough in upholding the constitution to your standards, you, sir, and people like you, are one of the primary reasons why I even own guns in the first place. I hope you didn't actually mean what you wrote. Either way, you might want to think twice before you start ranting in public about "hunting" people with whom you disagree.

[breakingcontact]

Registration is just an incremental step towards confiscation, absolutely. Maybe not in the next few years, maybe not in this generation, but it's there and a wicked tool to use.

I used to not get the guys against the NFA or Gun Control Act, but I understand them now and agree. It's just an incremental march towards eventual total confiscation.

[SilentStalker]

I totally agree. Registration=confiscation at some point. When the Nazi's went around and did it in 1938, there had been a registry law implemented about 10 years earlier making it real easy to round up who had what. History has a tendency to repeat itself. So, you tell me LOL.

[anchorman]

I used to not get the guys against the NFA or Gun Control Act, but I understand them now and agree. It's just an incremental march towards eventual total confiscation.

I'm glad you came around. Ever since I became a gun owner myself and started exploring these issues, I have been totally baffled as to how anyone could support most of the NFA restrictions. Hopefully if we explain this absurdity enough, we can get it reversed.

[Ignition Override]

Buy guns in person transactions, so that there is no official record for the long-term.

But what will protect our present, pre- or post-panic access to imported and domestic ammo, and prevent gradually
increasing taxes (penalties by "The Left") or future import tariffs (penalties by "The Left" or a trade war)?:scrutiny:

The general public has no interest in this issue. If ammo (Russian etc) had Not been available in early '08 at anywhere near .20/rd., I would Not have bought the Mini 14, Mini 30 or SKS.