Lycidas Janwor
Member
Saying the law will be ignored as a reason they will be useless really doesn't understand the purpose of such laws. Why?
1. It sets a standard of owning them being socially unacceptable behavior that will influence new possible entries into the gun culture. Most new people aren't 't going to purchase forbidden items. So old toots will have them and maybe move them among themselves. New folks probably won't.
2. This affects general attitudes towards gun culture.
3. If you do have them and don't turn them in:
a. You cannot hunt with them.
b. You cannot compete with them
c. If you use them in self-defense, you will be hurt in court and perhaps charged as a separate crime from whatever is happening in yourself defense incident.
d. If the items are discovered as in a burglary, fire, you are in a traffic stop while transporting, your ex turns you in, your kid babbles in school or the like, you are sunk. While the sheriff might not charge you, an antigun city or state cop will.
So it is just virtue signaling to say that you won't turn them in. Announcing that on the Internet may give zealous law enforcement a reason to come to your house.
As an example, why in IDPA matches do we limit mags to 10 rounds - guess. Going to be the first guy in NJ to shoot a match with a 17 round mag and stick your tongue out to the law? No, your mag sits in your secret place. Whoopee! Why do NY folks use Ruger 9mm and Mini-14 long arms. Because you can't have new ARs without them being mutilated?
Gun folks continually don't understand that there is tremendous surface validity to the gun bans. The main driving force is people fear violence. It is not the horsepoop of fighting the 'socialist wave'. Saying you won't obey the law is not a convincing argument. It, in fact, it will be an argument for a stronger law as you have defined gun owners as probable law breakers.
What the gun world needs is messaging that indicates why such privately held weapons are a positive for society. Saying you will not comply is a very weak argument for the integrity of gun owners.
I hear what you are saying. We all know that criminals certainly don't obey laws, so more gun restrictions is meaningless to them. Gun restrictions only apply to people who obey the law, which is the vast, vast majority of gun owners. I guess a black market could result from draconian gun laws (much like outlawing liquor did in the 1930s which forced you average law-abiding citizen to go underground to enjoy an alcoholic beverage, which in turn created a huge criminal element which was the supply chain for the underground demand for alcohol). There is already a black market for guns for the criminal element of every society, I'm guessing it would simply expand to include people who are not criminals, but want to own/possess a firearm that is illegal to own.