GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION

[B4Ranch]

The Prospector, Yuma AZ

Published: 27 December, 2000


Author: Dean Weingarten




GUN REGISTRATION IS GUN CONFISCATION



. The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.

It is a truism that once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them. If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun can put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration. If you choose this course of action, you would now be at the mercy of any informant who discovers that you possess a gun illegally. Children in the public schools are already being trained to tell the police if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal. The picture had been sent to the police by an informant in the film developing company. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become extremely difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. In a few years, the number of people with personal knowledge of guns will be much smaller. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.

The common practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to gradually tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action by the members of the gun culture affected, the remaining guns can be confiscated with little effort.

Gun registration has proven to be universally ineffective in reducing crime. In fact, crime is likely to increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the reduced number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self defense. Self defense is never acknowledged by the anti rights special interest groups because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.

The current attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968, when congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license, and purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data, although a registration scheme of purchasers of more than one handgun within a week has been kept on the grounds that it was started before the congressional action forbidding such, and is therefore "grandfathered". In 1994, Congress passed the Brady bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an "instant check" before taking possession. Two safeguards had been built into the bill to insure that it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI was forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since any gun owner could sell their firearm whenever they wished, without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed, and effective gun confiscation was prevented.

During the last year, both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI has refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Recently a three judge panel in Washington, D. C. has voted two to one to uphold their ability to do so. Both judges voting for gun registration are Clinton appointees. The Clinton administration has been vociferously promoting the elimination of the other safeguard, private sales, which they call the "gun show loophole". Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, it is only a matter of time before all guns and gun owners who are not registered are illegal.

I find particularly troubling the emphasis during the last decade on guns that are seldom used in crime, but are quite useful in military service. The same people who stated that they were only interested in limiting handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of military style rifles. Many models of guns which are almost never used in crime, are now illegal for people to own in some locations. The latest outrageous attempt to remove power from the people is to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 caliber rifles. The authors of this bill don't even claim that these guns are used in crime. They want to ban them because they have a military purpose! The clearest reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to insure that the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. The republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state that they fear military power in the hands of the people.

The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control.

Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.

[Don W]

I find it ironically annoying when Canada is used to make an anti-gun point, but infuriating when we are shown as an example of what can and will happen. Oh Canada, how <U>can</U> I stand on guard for thee when you want to disarm me?

[temo]

The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian...

Propagandist garbage.

[B4Ranch]

The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control.

Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.

This is the part never to forget.

[Don W]

temo, I must take issue with you on your above post. Propaganda is the dissemination of FALSE and/or MISLEADING information. The facts are irrefutable: <u>All</u> the mentioned nations, states and jurisdictions were, have been, or are currently involved in the (mainly) uncompensated SEIZURE and CONFISCATION of private property for NO OTHER REASON THAN THE DIARMING OF THE POPULACE.

[temo]

Disarming the populace? What the hell are you talking about? Are you walking around in public with your gun? It's not like the government is asking only the Jews to register, it's everybody. The police aren't going to come into your home Gustapo style on a whim. Rather if you kill someone with your gun, now they have more tools to rightfully prosecute you.

[B4Ranch]

When the number is low enough to limit effective political action by the members of the gun culture affected, the remaining guns can be confiscated with little effort.

[temo]

Guns are a big business in Ontario, and as such they won't be confiscated anytime soon. I enjoy hunting, and skeet shooting as much as the next guy, but all I see is more stupid red tape, inconvienent but not detrimental.

[Mark Fournier]

Guns are a big business in Ontario, and as such they won't be confiscated anytime soon.

Gun control is not about guns it's about control. The Liberals are violating many fundamental rights of Canadians on a massive scale to implement registration/confiscation. They are motivated solely by power. They will hardly be deterred by a single business in Ontario.

[B4Ranch]

The UN has been trying to take guns away from individual citizens around the world since before 1961. The Canadian Parliment has knuckled under to the treaties. Look at how many DEMOCRATIC countries have lost their personal guns in the past decade. Canada is next in line!

This doesn't have a danm thing to do with child safety or prevention of crime, it is about the government reducing the countries citizen to slaves. When they get your guns what are you going to resist with ? your vote ?

Don't be ridiculous !

[temo]

"When they get your guns what are you going to resist with ? your vote ?"

Are you gearing up for an invasion? Gonna shoot your way out? Gun ownership has never been enshrined in our constitution like it has in the states. If there was a massive uproar the populists would have stepped in and struck down the bill, like they did with the hockey subsidy.

[This message has been edited by temo (edited 01-18-2001).]

[Mark Fournier]

Are you gearing up for an invasion? Gonna shoot your way out?

Canadian gun grabbers seem to believe that Canada is somehow magically exempt from the dangers of a disarmed citizenry. That Canada is somehow protected from having a corrupt government willing to rule a defenseless population with brute force. And that this exemption from reality will stay in place for all time.
The arrogance of such people is breathtaking.

[Don W]

Free men have (the choice to possess) arms.

Slaves do not.

Don't kid yourself, temo: our gov't doesn't give a flying fiddler's fart about individual rights or choice. They are following the orders of the "One-World Government" cheerleaders (aka the UN), while trampling the rights of all Canadians. If we allow this to happen, we deserve our slavery, but what of our children?

We are governed by our consent. When despots or other tyrants attempt to remove or alter rights we have had for centuries, indeed from time immemorial (the right to self-defence), it is time to disobey. The government is supposed to be there to serve its citizens, NOT the other way around.

Yes, I am calling Jean Cretin a tin-pot tyrant. Look at how he rules (NOT governs) our nation. One member of his inner circle admits that registration isn't working, and he unleashes his hell-hounds. We are in a struggle for our very freedom, whether you wish to see it or not. Millions have died to save and spread freedom to the world. Is their ultimate sacrifice to be in vain because a few very loud fascists want to control our every move, thought, and deed?

[temo]

You guys seem to be making the issue about self-defense. Well guns can't be used in that manor anyways, so I don't see the point of your debate. Unless you're saying that you want to have guns totally legal. Is that what you are try to get through to me?

[B4Ranch]

temo, yes, guns are necessary for protection from criminals. Hot-burgalaries (when the resident is home) in England and Australia have risen remarkedly since the criminals know the homeowners are not allowed to have guns in their homes. My main concern currently is not a hot burglary, it is the way the politicians have bent over and bowed to the United Nations.

The UN is a totally socialist/communistic organization. They are after a One World Government that operates under restrictions issued by the UN.

The US Constitution has the famous 2nd Amendmant, this is what Canadians should demand the next time there is a constitution change, because it says the people are the power in the country with possesion of their personal firearms. A ruling body in charge of the police forces and the military has total control over the people if the people aren't armed. When the people do have personal firearms the ruling body in the capitol buildings knows they must obey the wishes of the people because if they don't the people could march on them.

Imagine Tiannimen Square if the people were armed. There would never have been a slaughter ! It would have provoked the entire country to march on the leaders wouldn't it. Well, us old guys have seen a lot more than our kids have. We saw Germany and the slaughter of the Jews, we saw Thailand and the slaughter of them, we damn well better have learned something from it. I don't want my kids or their kids slaughtered by a government down the line. There is nothing to guarantee freedom except an armed populace !