Does Gun registration equal confiscation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DigitalWarrior

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2003
Messages
867
Location
Nashua NH
Is there a gun registration program anywhere that has existed for 10 years that has not led to a ban or confiscation?

I saw the news in Canada, and it made me ill.

I seem to recall that we used to send former slaves into Canada to escape slavery. I wonder if it will be long before we send guns into Canada so they can escape slavery.
 
Registration is a necessary prerequisite and inevitably leads to confiscation, that's its purpose.
 
There have been long-running registration programs. Canada has registered handguns since 1934, the same year the US started registration of Title II firearms.

I've still yet to hear a purpose for registration other than as sine qua non for confiscation.
 
Germany has had registration for a number of years, I haven't heard of any confiscation going on there.
 
rick_reno said:
Germany has had registration for a number of years, I haven't heard of any confiscation going on there.
Click to expand...

They've already tried confiscation, and it caused an international incident.
 
Thank You for the information

I was curious to see if there were examples of long term registration. Since it seems there have, I don't feel comfortable with the statement that Gun Registration inexorably leads to confiscation...

The more you know.

DW
 
DigitalWarrior said:
I was curious to see if there were examples of long term registration. Since it seems there have, I don't feel comfortable with the statement that Gun Registration inexorably leads to confiscation...

The more you know.

DW
Click to expand...

Seems to me it's more that gun registration does not IMMEDIATELY lead to confiscation. Inexorably is a whole other story.
 
I don't feel comfortable with the statement that Gun Registration inexorably leads to confiscation...
Click to expand...

You should ask the folks that live in Washington D.C. or Chicago how they feel about that... :( :scrutiny:
 
Alex45ACP said:
The only purpose of registration is eventual confiscation.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it's the only purpose might be debatable. I say "might" because I simply can't really visualize any other practicle reason. Of course, I heard a lot of completely zany reasons to restrict the PPA the other night, and none of it sounded based in reality. So ...

Anyway - debatability of the "eventual" word is one thing.

There is one thing we all know though. Registration is an absolute must if any confiscation is to succeed to any meaningful degree.
-

Edit: to point out I should read more carefully before posting -
R. H. Lee said:
Registration is a necessary prerequisite and inevitably leads to confiscation, that's its purpose.
Click to expand...
-
 
Originally Posted by DigitalWarrior
I was curious to see if there were examples of long term registration. Since it seems there have, I don't feel comfortable with the statement that Gun Registration inexorably leads to confiscation...

The more you know.

DW

Seems to me it's more that gun registration does not IMMEDIATELY lead to confiscation. Inexorably is a whole other story.
Click to expand...

We've had gun registration in place in Finland since some time around the last war and some measures even before that, and no confiscation has occurred yet. I agree with the above in that I believe that's purely coincidental.

The permit and registration systems always rose out of a political situation. In the 20s and 30s it was the remnant class conflict from our 1918 civil war (seeing to that the reds' arms are confiscatable). After the war it was the Soviet overseers' worry that our militia would re-arm (which was proudly attempted too, large scale). And ever since the registration and permit system has prevailed with whatever grounds.

A permit system, licencing firearms owners, could be argued for in our current athmosphere as a common sense measure. A registering system, licencing individual firearms, can only have the purpose of aiding a confiscation scheme.
 
Well, intercourse does not always result in pregnancy, either. But there most assuredly is a cause-and-effect relationship. :p
 
HAHAHAHA

RHLee, That is awesome, and I will quote you in the future!

The reason I asked the question was so that I would know if I made the assertion that registration leads to confiscation, then I would not be suprised if I recieved an example. Since I could recieve an example, if I do, I will pull that quote out.
 
WRONG QUESTION

Here's the right one-if gun registration isn't intended to eventually facilitate confiscation, then why is it necessary?

Buddy
 
Here's the right one-if gun registration isn't intended to eventually facilitate confiscation, then why is it necessary?
Click to expand...

The strongest anti-argument would be so that if/when then owner commits a crime w/ it, it can be traced back to the perpetrator.

I don't believe that registration schemes always have the intent for eventual confiscation. It can be for the reason above, or simply because antis fear the power of an armed populace and feel much more warm 'n fuzzy if they know there is a list. Since registration is a neccessary pre-cursor to confiscation, it really doesn't matter why...it must be resisted at all costs.

It's like the 2nd amendment itself. It doesn't matter whether or not the government would actually abuse the populace if it was unarmed. Being un-armed is a necessary pre-requisite, so if we have the 2nd (and protect it) we don't have to worry (as much).
 
The strongest anti-argument would be so that if/when the owner commits a crime with it, it could be traced back to the perpetrator.
Click to expand...
One time I sat in on a discussion about gun control among several senior police officers in Michigan (where they had enacted a form of handgun registration in 1934). Their accumulated total years of experience in various departments exceeded 250 years. I ask them, “How many times has Michigan’s handgun registration been instrumental in solving a crime?”

After some discussion among themselves they were able to only come up with two examples. In one, a Colt .38 Super automatic was used to murder a store clerk. It was a relatively rare gun in the area, and only a few had been registered. One was traced to an individual who found that it had been stolen from him, but it turned out the thief was a “person of interest” in the case who later became the prime suspect. He was arrested and convicted of the crime. It was acknowledged that he probably would have been caught anyway but the gun’s registration helped.

In the second case a man shot his wife, who was as they say, was playing around, after he caught her and her boy friend in bed together in his home (!) There wasn’t any question about what happened, or that he was guilty, but the revolver was registered in his name...

Obviously, gun registration isn’t a very effective crime-fighting tool, and never will be until they can make criminals register their weapons. Incidentally the Supreme Court has ruled that criminals cannot be forced to register their firearms so long as the possession of them is illegal in the first place. To do so would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. They can of course be charged with illegal possession.
 
R.H. Lee said:
Well, intercourse does not always result in pregnancy, either. But there most assuredly is a cause-and-effect relationship. :p
Click to expand...
Actually - you're right. In fact, intercourse normally doesn't result in pregnancy (if you're not catholic). If it did, the population would either be MUCH larger than it is, or MUCH more stressed out.

But where gun registration would be a requirement of a succesful gun confiscation, intercourse is NOT a requirement of a successful pregnacy.
-

Old Fuff said:
Obviously, gun registration isn’t a very effective crime-fighting tool, and never will be until they can make criminals register their weapons.
Click to expand...
But ... wouldn't the law require them to register their weapons?
-
 
Well, actually the NFA has been in place since 1934, and hasn't led to confiscation... PA has been "registering" (sales records are kept) handguns for over 30 years and hasn't led to confiscation...

So not necessarily, it is definetly a first step that MUST be in place in order to accomplish any meaningful confiscation, but id does not equal confiscation...
 
Due to my police background, my feeling is that the registration of firearms is an "investigative tool", but I'm STILL against the registration procedures!

Why? Well, just a few years ago, a female employee of the California State Department of Justice was making computer print-outs of gun registrations, which included the names and address of the gun owners as well as the guns they owned. She was giving those print-outs to her "gang-banger" boyfriend for the purpose of burglarizing those homes for the firearms. He and his gang buddies were responsible for NUMEROUS residential burglaries involving those targetted firearms, and only a very diligent detective began to put a pattern of those burglaries together.

Why do TOTAL STRANGERS need to know what I, or you, own? Sure, if I go nuts and use a firearm for some sort of criminal act, then I deserve to pay the penalty....but NOT until then! On the other hand, however, the "registration" of firearms is a GOOD thing if they are stolen. Personally, I'd rather secure my firearms properly, so that they WON'T be stolen....and total strangers that are working in an "official capacity" are taken out of the picture!

Six-in-one, half-dozen in the other, I guess! If the "registration" process DOES eventually lead to "confiscation", all of my firearms will suddenly VANISH! "GEE! I guess that someone stole them!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back