National German gun registry on target for launch
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
- Status
I agree that this probably played a role, as well. There was a decree as early as in late 1918 to hand in weapons formerly owned by the military to government authorities.
The 1920 law was passed by an SPD (social Democrat) government in whose interest it was to disarm extremist and paramilitary organisations after the establishment of the regular Reichswehr.
hso said:
Exactly – so far, information on gun owners and their weapons has been stored by local administrative offices. Now it will be stored in a central electronic database. This enables authorities to run checks more quickly.
Most German gun-owners do not like this. The implementation of the new system will cost tax-payers at least 50-100 million Euros. Furthermore, central registers have turned out to be susceptible to security attacks in the past. Legal gun-owners also feel like they are more and more likened to criminals when laws are passed that focus on them instead of those who own guns illegally.
However, it's not the big deal some people here make out of it.
In general, it is difficult to compare gun laws in America and Germany. There's just a different mindset when it comes to authorities, personal freedom etc.
Remember that here in Germany, government control and registration is not just limited to guns. For example, if I moved to a different place, I would need to register with the local authorities. Also, German citizens are obligated to always carry their ID cards or comparable documents with them and to be ready to present them to any police officer.
By the way, contrary to popular belief, Germany has more liberal gun laws than many other European countries, and gun ownership is not restricted to the rich elite.
Almost any determined individual with a clean sheet can legally obtain most handguns and long guns that an average American citizen can buy.
It just takes more time, paperwork and money, and there are certain restrictions on how many guns you can buy and in which timeframe you may do so.
It takes you about a year of regular shooting and a few hundred Euros (club fees, ammo costs, fees for gun classes including a theoretical and practical exam, legal fees, costs of buying an adequate gun safe) to obtain the right to acquire a firearm for sporting applications. If you then buy a used Glock, you've altogether spent around 1000 bucks.
This might sound a lot, but just for comparison:
According to a study of the German automobile club ADAC, average costs for obtaining a driver's license lie between 1371 and 2219 Euros, depending on where you live.
As you can see, it is not too difficult to get the right to legally own and shoot guns in Germany, as long as you are willing to deal with some paperwork and a few bureaucratic hurdles. However, the social acceptance of civilian gun-ownership is not as high as in the USA. Many people are not even aware of the possibility of owning firearms and will cast you bewildered glances when you tell them of your hobby. I have hardly met anyone who wasn't surprised when I told them that it's perfectly legal for them to join me at the range and shoot my guns if they want to.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Jorg asked:
Oops, I was wrong. it was 1938 not 1939.
The German Government passed 'Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons' on November 11, 1938, one Day After Kristallnacht.
See for yourself:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
Oops, I was wrong. it was 1938 not 1939.
The German Government passed 'Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons' on November 11, 1938, one Day After Kristallnacht.
See for yourself:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html
ahem.... to put some facts into the discussion.
German legal guns are already registered. In like 500 different district offices.
The are going to centralize that.
So .. not THAT big a deal to start screaming RKBA slogans.
BUT what unnerves me is that they say it will bring down crime.
In fact it´s only used to identify owners AFTER a crime.
So its a big pile of male cattle feces.
German legal guns are already registered. In like 500 different district offices.
The are going to centralize that.
So .. not THAT big a deal to start screaming RKBA slogans.
BUT what unnerves me is that they say it will bring down crime.
In fact it´s only used to identify owners AFTER a crime.
So its a big pile of male cattle feces.
MICHAEL T said:
Owen Sparks said:
This is a very badly written article. It names certains aspects of the 1938 gun law that seem horrible to modern Americans (the ones Michael T lists), without putting them into their historical context.
For example, this article points out that "juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition". The truth is that according to §16 of the 1928 gun law, you had to be 20 years of age to get a permission to buy or own guns and ammunition. This means that the Nazis actually lowered the age at which you could obtain firearms in their 1938 law.
Most of the other aspects mentioned above (background checks, registration) had already been part of the 1928 law and thus were not introduced by the Nazis. And, as I mentioned before, the 1928 law had already been an improvement compared to earlier legislation, which had almost completely banned firearms from private possession, with few exceptions.
Again: Yes, the Nazis disarmed those groups they didn't like, but for the average German citizen, gun ownership became easier, if anything, after 1938.
As for the disarmament of German Jews (and other minorities): I doubt that it made a big difference. Only a relatively small percentage of them possessed firearms. Remember that these were German citizens with "German mindsets", taught to obey authorities, and not to be distrustful of them. I honestly don't think there would have been more than a handful of cases of armed resistance, and these would probably have been in vain against armed police, Gestapo or SS, who knew if you were a gun-owner or not thanks to the gun registration that was introduced by the Weimar government (the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is a completely different story).
The article on "Nazi gun control" also focuses on the disarmament of the populations of countries conquered by Germany, but I fail to see how this is something specific to Nazis.
The Allies did the same to Germany after WW II, and even after WW I, the Entente had pressed for a disarmament of the German population. From a strictly military point of view, isn't this just the reasonable thing to do after you've defeated another country?
I know that Nazi Germany did horrible things in the countries it occupied. My point here is that the Nazis were not against civilian gun ownership per se, and might have been more pro-gun than the Weimar Republic when it comes to what they considered "decent German citizens".
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
history repeating itself.....
Always more than meets the eye
I appreciate the background information from our German correspondents.
Thank you for taking the time to supply the history and facts which are so often overlooked.
I have found that gun owners in Germany and many other European countries are often more dedicated than US citizens, because the Europeans must work hard to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles that discourage our sport.
I appreciate the background information from our German correspondents.
Thank you for taking the time to supply the history and facts which are so often overlooked.
I have found that gun owners in Germany and many other European countries are often more dedicated than US citizens, because the Europeans must work hard to overcome the bureaucratic obstacles that discourage our sport.
Deaf Smith
Member
They were ONLY pro-gun if you were a member of the Nazi party, just as in USSR they were pro-gun to those ONLY in the Communist party. Alll others need not apply.
Deaf
What do you base this claim on?
The complete text of the 1938 gun law is not available online, but here is a thread on a German gun forum where a renowned member, who had access to the legal text, posted excerpts and concluded that this law was, on the whole, less restrictive than current German gun laws:
http://forum.waffen-online.de/lofiversion/index.php?t324609.html
He notes that according to the 1938 law, you did not need any permission whatsoever to buy or own a long gun.
This is confirmed in this article by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (again, in German):
http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_2875-544-1-30.pdf
I could post more links to German websites and even translate some passages, but why take the trouble if you can just look at the English Wikipedia article under "The 1938 German Weapons Act":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
Here's a snippet from it:
Yes, the Nazis disarmed certain minorities, and yes, members of the Nazi party had easier access to handguns than most non-party members.
However, the average German citizen who lived in accordance with the laws of that time could just walk into a gun store and buy a rifle or shotgun plus ammo without any restrictions whatsoever.
The official aim of the 1938 law was to create less restrictive gun laws in order to strengthen the German arms business and to increase Germany's ability to defend itself ("Wehrhaftmachung"), certain minorities and so-called "untrustworthy individuals" excluded.
It is a myth that the Nazis completely disarmed the German population. I know that it makes for a fine argument against gun-control, but it's just not true.
Last edited:
Captcurt
Member
Yes. Kind of ironic for a country that started two World Wars.
wannabeagunsmith
Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 669
They obviously didn't learn anything after WWII.
Could well be. The culture is a bit different, in Europe many shooters tend to take themselves a bit too seriously. For example, plinking for the fun is often frowned upon (at least officially) and in most european countries it takes a lot of work to qualify for a gun license.
Back in mid 80's when I got my first own license it was much easier. No criminal record, no juvenile arrests and a plausible reason (incidentally mine was "plinking"
) = purchase license. Handgun age limit in Finland was 15 back then and at the age of 18 you could apply for a collector status, which ment that you could buy literally any full auto firearm, even a grenade launcher, bazooka or a cannon that was listed on your officially stamped collection plan. Germany has a "red card" collector status, which is fairly close to what we used to have.While I'm not strictly against registering guns, I'd much prefer registering gun owners and instead of having to go through a bunch of red tape every time you want to purchase another gun.
But I digress. As far as updating registration is concerned, it doesn't change much for now. What really worries me is Brussels. EU parliament is full of representatives from legislatively hysterical countries like the UK and when every country has a fairly complete database of privately owned guns, we can expect bans on different kinds and types of firearms, one by one.
I have my fairly extensive full auto collection stored several miles away from home, just in case something unexpected happens and some do-gooder decides that people can't have M16:s, MG42:s or AK:s anymore. I had that arranged back when the finnish firearms database was renewed between 1998 and 2002.
Frankly, from an european point of view, there may be reasons why governments want to know who has firearms, but they sure as heck don't need to know what kind and how many. US system is much better in that respect, a law-abiding citizen is (at least in theory) protected by the 2nd amendment.
Oh well. I hope this doesn't end up like it did in Belgium where hundreds of thousands of legally owned firearms magically "disappeared" overnight when the left-wing government changed the law. History has taught us that the more the government wants to take your guns away, the more reason there is to hold on to them.
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
." I know that it makes for a fine argument against gun-control, but it's just not true."
I bet over 6 million people would disagree with your conclusion. Gun control is gun control whether its for a whole population or just a certain segment of that population. Citizens aiding in genocide doesn't really count toward free rights.
The point is the German government doesn't have a great record on citizen rights.
It maybe a national registry database for weapons recovered from a crime for weapons already registered, but its just another quick step to future selective ownership on a fast track should government officials once again feel certain people are less than human.
You German citizens can be proud of the fact that you have to jump thru hoops to own guns by all means.
I bet over 6 million people would disagree with your conclusion. Gun control is gun control whether its for a whole population or just a certain segment of that population. Citizens aiding in genocide doesn't really count toward free rights.
The point is the German government doesn't have a great record on citizen rights.
It maybe a national registry database for weapons recovered from a crime for weapons already registered, but its just another quick step to future selective ownership on a fast track should government officials once again feel certain people are less than human.
You German citizens can be proud of the fact that you have to jump thru hoops to own guns by all means.
I think you got me wrong. I said:
"It is a myth that the Nazis completely disarmed the German population. I know that it makes for a fine argument against gun-control, but it's just not true." (emphasis mine)
I never denied that all German Jews (who numbered around 510,000 when Hitler came to power) were disarmed. I actually stated this myself repeatedly.
I never said I approved of the 1938 gun law as a whole.
I never said I was a fan of gun-control.
All I am saying is: The Nazis did not completely disarm the German population. For most Germans, they made it easier to obtain firearms.
Thus, the common notion that the Nazis were anti-gun per se and outlawed all civilian gun ownership is a myth.
Unfortunately, it is a very wide-spread myth, as you can see from the reactions of many posters here, as well as from some of the links that have been posted.
Imagine you're discussing the pros and cons of gun-control with someone who is anti-gun, and you tell them: "I don't like gun-control... the Nazis used it to take away the guns from German Jews before WW II" - that's a perfectly valid argument.
However, if you say: "I don't like gun-control... the first thing the Nazis did when they came to power was to ban civilian gun ownership" - that statement is simply wrong.
All I want is people to get their facts right when defending their Second Amendment rights.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
Member
What do I base it on?
Kabal, clearly you have not read accounts of those ACTUALLY LIVING THERE during that time.
The laws, as written, were ENFORCED BY BROWNSHIRTS. You know Hitlers thugs. You really think they followed the laws to the letter and were real democratic? They knew who owned what and if you didn't toe the line then they could confiscate them at will under the 'Fururs' orders.
Go read such as "Under the Bombs" as well as anything written by Stephen Halbrook (a noted scholor who has a very interesting law review article that demolishes an earlier piece by Bernard Harcourt at the University of Chicago Law School.)
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
In fact view his whole website.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/
Deaf
Kabal, clearly you have not read accounts of those ACTUALLY LIVING THERE during that time.
The laws, as written, were ENFORCED BY BROWNSHIRTS. You know Hitlers thugs. You really think they followed the laws to the letter and were real democratic? They knew who owned what and if you didn't toe the line then they could confiscate them at will under the 'Fururs' orders.
Go read such as "Under the Bombs" as well as anything written by Stephen Halbrook (a noted scholor who has a very interesting law review article that demolishes an earlier piece by Bernard Harcourt at the University of Chicago Law School.)
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
In fact view his whole website.
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/
Deaf
Enforcement will always push at least a little beyond their regulated authority, especially in societies where the regulators are complicit in these abuses. The regulations don't have to explicitly state complete disarmament for the enforcers to do so. This is how the Gestapo perpetrated it's despicable acts with impunity, and the ATF is nearly there.
I believe that I've sufficiently explained my point of view in my last posts.
Maybe we can agree on what Jorg said, and leave it at that:
I'm glad it's not just a German thing, then
I don't want us all to jump on the backs of pickup trucks, firing shotguns into the air and yelling "Yeehaw!!" (okay, I'd love to do that), but some of our compatriots could loosen up a little and learn to have fun while shooting!
Maybe we can agree on what Jorg said, and leave it at that:
Jorg said:
hq said:
I'm glad it's not just a German thing, then
I don't want us all to jump on the backs of pickup trucks, firing shotguns into the air and yelling "Yeehaw!!" (okay, I'd love to do that), but some of our compatriots could loosen up a little and learn to have fun while shooting!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked