CT: The "Destroy or Hand Over Rifles & Mags" Letter

[Crowcifier666]

^ I agree with Carl. I bet if it was written in law that the registered rifles could be kept "FOR LIFE", a lot more people would have complied. It's so blatantly obvious where they are going with these ridiculous laws. The anti gun crowd/legislators are slowly chipping away at us. We need to fight it every step of the way.

 

[yzguy87]

Posts 90 and 99 are pretty darn accurate

 

[armoredman]

If the weapon is illegal to have why would anyone that plans to keep one register it? That would make sure you are targeted by LEO for confiscation and arrest.

If you registered the weapon before the cut-off date would you be able to keep it? If not a registration makes absolutely no sense.

Ask the Canadians - they had MASSIVE non compliance with the long gun registry, which was ultimately defeated and dismantled. Now look as the RCMP arbitrarily decided the Sig Practical Green rifle is now "prohibited" after being legally sold in Canada for 10 years. What's so ironic is all those Canadians who registered their Sigs like good serfs while the registry was still going on are going to have these $3,000 rifles taken with no compensation. Those who didn't register them will not.
Any law abiding gun owner who thinks registration is a good thing has his/her head in the sand and refuses to understand history.

 

[9w1911]

we need to refer hi cap magazines as 30 round standard capacity, and a 10 round mag as diminished capacity

 

[JSH1]

Ask the Canadians - they had MASSIVE non compliance with the long gun registry, which was ultimately defeated and dismantled. Now look as the RCMP arbitrarily decided the Sig Practical Green rifle is now "prohibited" after being legally sold in Canada for 10 years. What's so ironic is all those Canadians who registered their Sigs like good serfs while the registry was still going on are going to have these $3,000 rifles taken with no compensation. Those who didn't register them will not.
Any law abiding gun owner who thinks registration is a good thing has his/her head in the sand and refuses to understand history.

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person. Politicians don't need a registry to ban a weapon.

To use the example above. What are the Canadians that did not register their Sig and decide to keep it actually going to do with that gun. They can't use it public.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Jsh1:
You can go ahead and register your guns; for me, I don't trust ANY government agency; if you didn't learn from Nazi history regarding gun registration you will be destined to see history repeated. I guess you also probably believe "If you like your weapons, you can keep your weapons".

 

[Midwest]

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing.

Would you feel the same if you lived in Australia and the government decided that your firearms which were handed down to to you from your dad or grandparents, or were priceless collectables must now be confiscated by the government and sent to be destroyed? That would ok with you?

.

 

[Mainsail]

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

Yet.

Read THIS for a real history lesson. If you don't think the registry was put in place for later confiscation, you're either shortsighted or a complete fool. A registry serves no other purpose. Learn history or repeat it.

 

[armoredman]

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way yet.

Fixed it for ya.
The Jews of the Wiemar Republic also didn't think registering guns was such a bad idea either.
If you think registration is OK, because "that's the way it's always been", fine for you - I am a citizen of Free Arizona, where we KNOW it's no business of the government what lawfully purchased Constitutionally protected items I may or may not own at this time. Or should I register my printer, because it's protected under the 1A? Think before you answer that one, as flyers, leaflets and bills have been the people's way of protesting for centuries, and printing presses have been restricted in the past. Is it OK, then?
So you register your guns. Tomorrow half of them are declared illegal, and you turn them in. The next day the other half are declared illegal - you will hand all of them in as well, right?

If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun.

Exactly what good is a right if you won't do anything to defend it?

I'm calling troll or Fudd.

 

[JRH6856]

Why would a law abiding gun owner care about a registry? If a gun was banned, a law abiding gun owner would get rid of that gun. If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person.

:banghead:

There is "law-abiding" and there is "law-abiding". A lot of law-abiding Germans went to concentration camps because the law said to and they obeyed. A lot of other Germans went on trial at Nuremberg for sending them there because they too obeyed the law and followed orders. History has pretty much determined that neither group should have been so law-abiding.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

How about if you show us how the handgun registry has benefited anyone other than the government? How about all the tax dollars being wasted on the resources that you (nor anyone else except the government) receives any benefit from, doesn't that harm you and your fellow taxpayers? :banghead:

 

[Midwest]

I'm a law abiding gun owner and think registration is a good thing. I grew up in a state that has had a handgun registry since 1927. That registry has not harmed me in any way.

It sounds like you are from New Jersey. So handgun registration is a good thing in NJ? I guess you haven't heard the latest from that state. And if you are not from New Jersey, but some other state that has a handgun registry since 1927.... This still makes interesting reading anyway...


http://njgunforums.com/forum/index....-writes-the-ag-to-activate-the-smart-gun-law/


Now the 'smart gun law' which was signed into law in 2002 didn't take effect UNTIL a smart gun was actually here. Guess what? It is here and come 2017, only smart guns can be sold in the state.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/23/us/new-jersey-smart-gun-law/

"The New Jersey law is the only one of its kind in the United States. It requires that within three years of the technology being available, only smart guns be sold in the state."

So what will happen to non smart guns in NJ? Well since 'dumb guns' cannot be sold after 2017, they could be confiscated as contraband. (I mean how else can you sell them or get rid of them then? Will New Jersey reimburse gun owners if there were mandatory turn ins? Read below and then read the entire text below.)

"no person ....shall sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun"

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2002/Bills/PL02/130_.HTM


" It is within the public interest, and vital to the safety of our families and children, for New Jersey to take the bold and innovative step of fostering the development of personalized handguns by firearms manufacturers. To accomplish this objective, the Legislature determines that it should enact legislation designed to further enhance firearms safety by requiring that, within a specified period of time after the date on which these new personalized handguns are deemed to be available for retail sales purposes, no other type of handgun shall be sold or offered for sale by any registered or licensed firearms dealer in this State."

Isn't this all nice warm and fuzzy?

"C.2C:58-2.5 Sale of personalized handguns, inapplicability.

4. a. On and after the first day of the sixth month following the preparation and delivery of the list of personalized handguns which may be sold in the State pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2002, c.130 (C.2C:58-2.4), no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.2C:58-1 or N.J.S.2C:58-2 shall transport into this State, sell, expose for sale, possess with the intent of selling, assign or otherwise transfer any handgun unless it is a personalized handgun or an antique handgun."

So with New Jersey's handgun registry, the state will know where to go to get the contraband firearms (non smart guns) when that day comes. And believe me, that state is infested with the absolute worst anti-gunners in the country. There is even a leader of a faith based organization calling law abiding gun owners "terrorists". http://njgunforums.com/forum/index....-they-are-a-domestic-terrorist-or-a-gangster/

You still think gun registration a good idea?

.

 

[JRH6856]

no person registered or licensed by the superintendent as a manufacturer, wholesale dealer of firearms, retail dealer of firearms or agent or employee of a wholesale or retail dealer of firearms

Well, the law only applies to dealers, not law-abiding citizens.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

That registry has not harmed me in any way.

In 1983 New Zealand police successfully lobbied the abandonment of the NZ rifle registry because it diverted resources that could be better used on other law enforcement activities. If gun registries represent resources that could be used to better effect, that indicates that they are useless, wasteful and harmful.

If they don't, they are no longer a law abiding person.

Call me a scofflaw then. Or a scoffer at bad law, at unconstitutional law, or at law that does more harm than good. Momma's folks came from coal mining country where the law was corrupt and unjust. Essentially there law abiding meant submitting or kowtowing to tyrants or profiting from the exploitation of miners.

Browns (Dad's family name) from Pennsylvania settled west of Baileyton in the 1780s and rumor has it there was something to do with whiskey and taxes for generations. Some laws worth respecting, some not so much.

In Jan and Dec 1943, Plecker who enforced the Virginia 1924 Racial Integrity Act sent letters to Virginia county officials declaring that the Collinses of Lee and Smyth Counties were not "white" or "indian" but were "colored" specifically Tennessee Melungeon, negroid mulatto mongrels polluting the white gene pool, and ordered birth and marriage records changed to "colored". Shortly thereafter my Great Grandma Maude Collins and Aunt Jimmie moved to Tennessee to join the rest of the family. Should they have stayed and abided by to a law just because it was a law? It was declared unconstitutional in 1969 by SCOTUS and repealed by VA legislature in 1975 but as far as I am concerned it deserved no respect while it was law.

In UCMJ class in the military we were told we had a duty to question orders that were contrary to the Constitution, regulations or the UCMJ, and there could be penalties for blindly obeying unlawful orders (see Nuremburg Trials). My brother-in-laws unit in VietNam refused an order that was simply unwise (a green Lt wanted ti waltz them into ambush) and in the end the Lt was disciplined.

To paraphrase Karl Hess, it would not be America if it did not produce at least a few people who question and refuse to obey laws that are utter nonsense.

 

[JSH1]

I see a lot of posts about how registration leads to confiscation. I've seen nothing on what one does with their banned gun. What use is it to have a gun you can't use. What if your AR-15 was banned completely with no grandfathering. There is no registry so no one can come to your door and confiscate it. What do you do with that gun that is now illegal and easy to identify as such?


To answer the other questions, no I'm not from New Jersey, and yes, I still think registries are a good idea. Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

 

[goalie]

I see a lot of posts about how registration leads to confiscation. I've seen nothing on what one does with their banned gun. What use is it to have a gun you can't use. What if your AR-15 was banned completely with no grandfathering. There is no registry so no one can come to your door and confiscate it. What do you do with that gun that is now illegal and easy to identify as such?


To answer the other questions, no I'm not from New Jersey, and yes, I still think registries are a good idea. Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

I am sure you can figure out a use for that AR if you watch the news........

 

[JRH6856]

Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

One way to keep a ban from happening is to stop the precursors. They know they really need a registry for effective confiscation, so keeping them from getting the registry is good strategy. Especally since effectuating confiscation is a registry's only useful purpose.

 

[JSH1]

I am sure you can figure out a use for that AR if you watch the news........

I watch, read, and listen to the news. However, I haven't seen anything about people using banned AR-15's. Please enlighten me.

 

[NavyLCDR]

yes, I still think registries are a good idea.

My challenge still stands - show us an example where a handgun registry has helped benefit anyone except for the government?

Registries could be used for enforcement after a ban. The key is to prevent the ban from happening in the first place.

So - let me get this straight - we are supposed to just nod in agreement with the government (and you) telling us that a firearms registry is good....oh, but wait, then stand up when the government wants to start using that registry to come for our guns? Umm....exactly what HARM is there in fighting the ban to begin with? You have failed to show us what good a firearms registry does for the citizen.

And let me ask you another question.... what other citizen's possessions do you think should be monitored by the government the same way that you think is as good as a firearms registry? Should the government monitor our internet posts/emails? How about our cell phone conversations/texts? How about GPS tracking in our vehicles? Why single out firearms for monitoring by the government?

 

[george29]

Vote with your feet. There are still places that are worthy of consideration, The Great Southwest and The American Redoubt.

 

[JSH1]

exactly what HARM is there in fighting the ban to begin with? You have failed to show us what good a firearms registry does for the citizen.

There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point. I think CT's assault weapon ban is stupid and will be ineffective. The time to fight was before the ban. The citizens of CT can also fight this in court and at the ballot box. There are plenty of legal means to fight this. However, I don't support encouraging people to defy the law and refuse to register their guns. The law passed.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

And let me ask you another question.... what other citizen's possessions do you think should be monitored by the government the same way that you think is as good as a firearms registry? Should the government monitor our internet posts/emails? How about our cell phone conversations/texts? How about GPS tracking in our vehicles? Why single out firearms for monitoring by the government?

You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.

 

[Superpsy]

Groan.

 

[george29]

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Where does government interference end, when they want to outlaw Wii?

 

[george29]

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Where does government interference end, when they want to outlaw Wii?

 

[NavyLCDR]

There is NO harm in fighting the ban to begin with. That is my point.

Ooops, I misspoke. What I meant to type was what harm does it do to fight the REGISTRY to begin with. My mistake, mind moves faster than fingers.

What good is a registry? A registry can be used to track guns used in crimes. That is a benefit to the police and the citizens they protect and serve.

Sure...that's what the government says. My challenge still stands: show us AN EXAMPLE where the handgun registry has benefited anyone other than the government - not what the theoretical and political claims are.

You act as if all of the above isn't happening today and hasn't happened for years in the past. Our calls have been monitored since the telephone was invented and an operator listened on the line and connected the call. A purchase made on the internet is not more private than one made in a store. Our cell phones track our every position.

Ahhh.... but here's the difference - if the government REQUIRED you BY LAW to provide all the information necessary for them to monitor your telephone and internet communications, than you would not have a problem with that, right? You would gladly sign a consent form for them to monitor your telephone and internet communications - because, after all, the government says it is necessary to do so for national security. It's for your own protection. After all, you have no problem consenting to them monitoring what guns you have - because the government tells you it is for your protection - oh....even better yet.... it's for the children at Sandy Hook Elementary.