Help me educate someone please

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wa shooter

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
31
Location
Bothell, Wa
I'm trying to educate a gun owner who is for gun registration. I expressed the concern that registration could lead to confiscation. He claims that would never happen. Have there been any situations IN THE U.S. where registration has led to confiscation? Another way to put it, have there been gun model bans that were retroactive and led to the police knocking on doors to retrieve the now illegal guns?

Thanks
 
I'm pretty sure there has never been a confiscation scheme in the US that was preceded by registration. In fact, I don't think ANYTHING has ever been confiscated in the US due to it's legal staus AFTER a law changed (Katrina gun confiscations notwithstanding). The US legislature has always taken a "now you're a felon if we catch you" approach.

However, in *nearly* every other country or municipality OUTSIDE of the US virtually EVERY confiscation was preceded by registration. Many believe (myself included) that all countries who currently have registration are just ticking bombs awaiting the right circumstances to enact confiscation using the lists currently held by the governments.

My two cents is this: While registration doesn't necessarily lead to confiscation, every confiscation I can think of was preceded by registration.
 
I mentioned G.B. and Australia. He said it wouldn't happen here. California gave people a year to register guns owned before the laws changed.
 
I'm pretty sure there has never been a confiscation scheme in the US that was preceded by registration. In fact, I don't think ANYTHING has ever been confiscated in the US due to it's legal status AFTER a law changed (Katrina gun confiscations notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

Why "Katrina...notwithstanding"?

Isn't that precisely what we are talking about?

My understanding (please correct me if I'm mistaken) is that guns were required to be registered in Louisiana - leading directly to confiscations at the first "opportunity" of civil unrest.
 
if by confiscated you mean door to door roundups, no.
I would include the California situation, and the machine gun laws under the National Firearms Act. I personally witnessed an ATF agent seize an M14 at a gun shop.
 
Katrina would be the perfect example. We had a SHTF discussion the same night. I am having trouble finding something that shows they used registrations to know what houses to raid instead of just finding them by going door to door. I'll go look some more.
 
Didn't the police go door-to-door confiscating every registered firearm they could find during Katrina?
Click to expand...

Yes and no
Yes it happened but I don't think registration had anything to do with it they just took every gun the found.

I have heard that the NOPD still has a policy of confiscating every gun they come across I think I've even read of it happening to a few people here.

I have also heard of a couple of instances in NOLA in which a group of armed citizens essentially told the cops Molon Labe and got to keep their guns
 
Ask a better question of him - of what value is the registration, if NOT to go find gun owners?
 
It's a moot point. 1) Every gun you buy from a dealer; either at the mom and pop shop or a dealer at a gun show; makes you fill out the federal FFL forms. MOST guns are bought via a dealer. Therefor, the information is available to the government if the want/need it. 2) If you ever have to use a weapon for defensive purposes and the police are involved; whether you pulled the trigger or simply brandished the weapon; the serial number, model, etc... will be recorded, verified against theft, and documented at being owned by you.

SO, whether there's an official registration or not, if the government has the desire to find out who has guns, they already have the means of determining who has guns. They may not know every gun you have, but they will know you have guns.

So, unless you bought ALL your guns via a private individual, the government already has the ability to determine if you have guns. Of course, if they come to your house, and they don't have a search warrant; you can simply say: "Oh those old guns... I sold them a little at a time over a few years at local gun shows."

Registering guns might keep track of legal guns by monitoring it's transfers, but simply make a law that doesn't allow private sales and requires them to go through an FFL dealer will accomplish the same thing. The illegal guns will still be sold under the table. But again, the whole legal purpose of a defensive gun is for defensive purposes. The first time you use it, it will be either confiscated if not registered, or documented to you. The best thing is to have a 2nd gun. If they take one, you have another. If you shoot a 1911A1 or similar with a drop out barrel, then have a 2nd barrel available so you can say you DIDN'T shoot anyone. That it was someone else on the street. And obviously your gun with the "New" barrel in it won't match ballistics. (Just joking, that would be immoral to lie like that.)
 
He thinks registration, along with a ban on FTF sales, will keep more guns out of the hands of criminals. I was trying to use the registration - confiscation link to rebut.
 
Wa Shooter said:
He thinks registration, along with a ban on FTF sales, will keep more guns out of the hands of criminals.
Click to expand...

Criminals typically get their guns where no registration is involved (steal, private sale, etc.). To prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, the government would have to control strictly the supply of all firearms. As a practical matter, controlling the supply of all firearms in the entire country is impossible. Even if the government could control the supply (they can't), they still couldn't control every single little possession of a firearm (e.g., I hand you a firearm at my home). Thus, registration serves the purpose of controlling law abiding citizens, and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
I explained that criminals get the majority of their guns illegally. He said if registration / no FTF stopped only a few it would be worth it. It was a frustrating discussion. He owns several firearms and carries (with a cpl), yet it was like talking to an anti. I'm 20+ years his senior and was trying to keep him from so easily giving the government more control over his life. I think it is happening these days in areas other than firearms as well.
 
Last edited:
Nowadays, before I get into a gun control debate, I first see if the person will agree to certain premises. If they won't, then I don't debate because we disagree at such a fundamental level that debating would be a waste of time. Here are things that the person must agree upon:

1. Government cannot control the supply of all firearms in the entire country.

2. As long as firearms exist on earth, criminals in America will be able to get firearms someway, somehow.

It relieves a lot of stress, if you are able to cut the debate off short and walk away.

Wa shooter said:
He said if registration / no FTF stopped only a few it would be worth it.
Click to expand...

Have him step through how registration would stop only a few. I don't get it. Criminals who want guns will get them, period.

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks the government is all-powerful. Really, the government is a big, clumsy bureaucracy that happens to get large-scale things right half the time. There's no way the government can micromanage the possession of all firearms in the whole country.
 
I am begining to find that you can't debate with a hardcore anti (I am absolutely convinced gun owner and hard core anti are not mutually exclusive) because they argue from belief not facts. You can give them evidence, statistics or you can demonstrate that a Ruger 10/22 is functionally no different than an AR-15. and they'll STILL say "Well, I don't believe civilians should own "assualt style" weapons"
 
(Copied from an article by Bartholomew Roberts,)

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (Same source as previous paragraph)

In May of 1995, Canada's Bill C-68 prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. Current owners of such guns were "grandfathered," which means the guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner. Bill C-68 also authorizes the Canadian government to enact future weapons prohibitions.

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) ) In addition, California has prohibited certain semi-automatic long-rifles and pistols. Those guns currently owned, must be registered, and upon the death of the owner, either surrendered or moved out of state. (FAQ #13 from the California DOJ Firearms Division Page)
 
WAshooter:He thinks registration, along with a ban on FTF sales, will keep more guns out of the hands of criminals...He said if registration / no FTF stopped only a few it would be worth it.

He is mistaken. Criminals will not register their guns. What he is saying is that his fear of criminals having guns justifies treating decent gun owners as guilty until proven innocent. Ask him if he thinks that castration of adult males is a good idea to prevent rape - if it stopped only a few, would it be worth it?

I suspect that if pressed, he would admit that he doesn't trust his fellow gun owners as much as he trusts the government, which I find kinda sad. However, if he's 20 years younger than you, there's a good chance he just hasn't lived long enough to develop a balanced perspective on life, and he might change his mind sometime down the road.

Personally, I have a deep dislike of paying for the sins of others, and a deep distrust of those in our government who oppose lawful gun ownership while refusing to crack down on crime. If civilian gun ownership is criminalized in this country, I expect registration to be a significant part of enforcing it.

I'm with rbernie. If the government wants to confiscate guns from criminals, they already have the information to do it. That they don't is a failure of will, not information. Registration would give them nothing they don't already have, but it exposes lawful gun owners to a significant risk. Why chance it?

But hey, I'm pro-choice. If your buddy wants to send a list of all his guns to the BATF, or Sarah Brady, more power to him. Make it voluntary and I'm in favor, just like taxes.

Parker
 
My understanding (please correct me if I'm mistaken) is that guns were required to be registered in Louisiana - leading directly to confiscations at the first "opportunity" of civil unrest.
Click to expand...

There are no gun registration requitements here. It was a door to door type thing. Also, if they ran into someone with one- it was taken. There is an idiot from N.O. that has been trying every year to get a registration in place but has been struck down every time. I need to find out who that second vote for was and make sure i dont vote for them.

On Tuesday, May 19, House Bill 387 was defeated in the House Committee on Administration of Justice, by a 10 to 2 vote.

This bill, sponsored by Cedric L. Richmond (D-101), would have established far-reaching restrictions on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms (falsely describing them as "assault weapons") and ammunition magazines. HB 387 would have also banned many semi-automatic firearms that Louisianans use for self-defense, hunting, and shooting competitions.

HB 387 would also require current owners of such firearms to register them with the State Police, obtain and renew a license annually to keep them, restrict how and where they may be used or transported, and allow the State Police to inspect private homes for compliance.
Click to expand...

sorry for the hijack.
 
jakemccoy wrote: Nowadays, before I get into a gun control debate, I first see if the person will agree to certain premises. If they won't, then I don't debate because we disagree at such a fundamental level that debating would be a waste of time. Here are things that the person must agree upon:

1. Government cannot control the supply of all firearms in the entire country.

2. As long as firearms exist on earth, criminals in America will be able to get firearms someway, somehow.

It relieves a lot of stress, if you are able to cut the debate off short and walk away.
Click to expand...


That is EXCELLENT advice Jake! I'd never seen it put quite so clearly and succinctly. If a person can't agree with those two very fundamental premises - there really is nothing further to discuss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top