Registration ==> Confiscation? - Page 2

tony pasley · January 19, 2015, 10:48 PM

Oh how people forget their own history. It was in Lexington Ma. and Concord Ma. that British troops marched to seize arms and munitions stored their for the personal defense of the people. Those terrible assault weapons that were equal to or better than the weapons used by the army. No they didn't register their arms but the powers that were in charge Knew they were there and going to make an example out of them to intimidate the rest of the people to comply. Those who don't learn from history are doom to repeat it.

G_P · January 20, 2015, 12:56 PM

There are no concrete numbers, but the estimates of the number of people who did not comply with registration required in the last round of laws is in the hundreds of thousands. The state had pretty good records through their de facto registration of every gun purchased from an FFL so they knew there were way more than 50K "assault weapons" out there.

Several of our state legislators have said that nothing but full confiscation of all semi auto firearms will satisfy them, and our governor agrees. He is currently working to stack the courts with anti gun supreme court judges in anticipation of the prosecutions to come.

There are very dark days ahead for CT. Our legislators and courts admit our current laws violate the Heller decision but claim that they are allowed to ignore SCOTUS decisions in the name of public safety.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 26, 2015, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G P

Several of our state legislators have said that nothing but full confiscation of all semi auto firearms will satisfy them, and our governor agrees. He is currently working to stack the courts with anti gun supreme court judges in anticipation of the prosecutions to come.

All the more reason to challenge any new anti-gun laws in federal court -- which I believe the good people of Connecticut are already doing.

1stmar · January 26, 2015, 05:09 PM

I reluctantly complied, not because I felt it was my civic duty, but because at some point it's my expectation to hand my firearms to my kids and I couldn't make them felons, or force them to turn them in. Either way they get what they want, unless I can retire elsewhere before it happens.

Just because I registered my mags doesn't mean I still have them, I might just sell my hi caps or my aw...

While it is certainly a risk, I don't believe the state will be going door to door anytime soon. That could be the start of something very ugly.

It's inconcivable a state do rich in gun history has strayed so far, especially when it has little else to offer other than insurance.

gojuice101 · January 26, 2015, 11:00 PM

We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have.

Luckily he will have a hard time getting it through our pro-gun GA right now, but the future is what I'm more worried about. Things can change, especially when Bloomberg's money is behind it.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 27, 2015, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojuice101

We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have.

Bad laws like this have a tendency to propagate -- often encouraged by massive infusions of Bloomberg money to fund "grass roots" lobbying efforts to get them passed. That's why it's a good idea to try to nip them in the bud (thank you, Deputy Fife), before the infection can spread to too many other states.

IMHO, two of the dumbest and most restrictive new laws were the New York SAFE Act, and the package of new gun laws (and amendments) enacted by Connecticut in the wake of Sandy Hook. Both are being challenged in federal court. The oral arguments at the appeals level were heard for both cases on the same day, IIRC in December. I don't think the decisions have been released as yet but it's pretty much a given that, whoever wins at the appeals level, the other side will try to get it before the Supreme Court.

That's why anyone who can afford it should contribute to fighting these laws wherever they are, even if it's not in your state (this year). For Connecticut, contributions can be made through the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. For New York, I believe the lead plaintiff is the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.

Nevada would also be a state to support. Having made inroads in Colorado and Washington, Bloomberg is now targeting Nevada. I have no idea whether or not there's a single group in NV coordinating the resistance. If there is, try to send them a few rubles.

**44 AMP** · January 28, 2015, 02:23 PM

Quote:

How can a legislator justify his or her salary if he or she is voting on bills they haven't even read?

Forget their salary, how can they justify being there at all? Their JOB is to carry out the will of the people. NOT "do what they personally think is the right thing", and how could they even do that if they don't read the bills?

They are voting on laws with massive minutiae that will affect millions of people's lives in multitudes of ways, and basing their votes on the TITLE of the bill, or at best a condensed summary prepared by staffers, who may have their own agendas, as well.

I don't CARE what time, or other pressure they feel they are under to "do something" (no matter what issue you are looking at), this is NOT the proper way to do the business of government!

I don't see how this practice can do anything other than more harm than good. They are "gaming" the process, and in the process, screwing us out of good representation. Representing US is the reason we put them there, and why they get paid. IF what they are doing is not actual malfeasance, it is certainly "mis-feasence" of their offices.

**Aguila Blanca** · January 28, 2015, 06:15 PM

There are several flavors of feasances (if that's a word -- or even if it isn't)

MALFEASANCE

: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

law : illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporation

MISFEASANCE

: trespass; specifically : the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner

NONFEASANCE

: failure to act; especially : failure to do what ought to be done

It strikes me that an elected legislator who votes on (either for or against) a proposed law that he/she has not read is committing all three.

**44 AMP** · January 28, 2015, 09:29 PM

I would agree with that!

ATN082268 · January 29, 2015, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Their JOB is to carry out the will of the people. NOT "do what they personally think is the right thing"

Personally, I think politicians should uphold their positions/platform they take during an election. There is nothing wrong with a politician changing their position, so long as it is done during an election and any impact of those change(s) are done during the next, newly elected term. It is completely bogus for a politician to run on one thing and then practice something else once in office, even with the claim that it is the will of the people...

TimSr · January 29, 2015, 09:27 AM

I put a lot of blame on voters who make no effort to learn what a politician stands for and believes in before they cast a vote. Politicans can rarely surpise a voter who makes minimal effort to do a little research before voting.

Obama ran as a supporter of the 2nd A. If he fooled you with that claim, and you were surprised by his actions after being elected, you are the bigger problem than he is.

**44 AMP** · January 29, 2015, 11:26 AM

The old joke (or perhaps a mere observation phrased as a joke) is,
"A good politician is one who, once bought, stays bought!"

I think it was Kissinger who said "the 5% of politicians who actually are honest make things difficult for the rest of us" or something like that....

Look at the base ideals of the Founding Fathers. We have come a long, long way from those, today.

I believe we have gotten here because, for a long time now, we have been electing people to "lead us" instead of represent us. Even though the claim is they represent us, they are doing a very POOR job (and I would use much stronger language if I could).

thallub · January 31, 2015, 08:49 PM

Quote:

I thought the Gun Owners of CT overwhelmingly refused to register their "Assault" weapons, or was that only a temporary protest and they have since abided by this legal requirement?

For many years CT has had de facto firearms registration. A DPS 3-C form is filled out in three copies when a gun is purchased from a dealer. Copies go to the purchaser as a receipt, to the local police authority and the CT state police. The form is also used for all private sales.

Quote:

Seller, obtain authorization number (860) 685-8400, retain the original copy for your records, give one copy to the purchaser as a receipt, submit one copy to the local police authority where the purchaser resides, and submit a final copy to the Commissioner of Emergency Services & Public Protection at: DESPP Special Licensing & Firearms Unit 1111 Country Club Rd., Middletown, CT 06457-2389

http://www.ct.gov/despp/lib/despp/sl...ms/dps-3-c.pdf

**Aguila Blanca** · January 31, 2015, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thallub

For many years CT has had de facto firearms registration. A DPS 3-C form is filled out in three copies when a gun is purchased from a dealer. Copies go to the purchaser as a receipt, to the local police authority and the CT state police. The form is also used for all private sales.

It is now but, prior to the post Sandy Hook legislative package, the form was used only for handguns, and long guns bought from an FFL. The new laws extended it to rifles and shotguns sold in private sales.

thallub · February 1, 2015, 10:16 AM

CT, NY, CA and CO passed draconian gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. It's very unlikely that gun control will ever be rolled back in CT, NY and CA. CO is a maybe.

About two thirds of NY residents support the SAFE Act:

http://www.legislativegazette.com/Ar...-twotoone.html

Keep an eye on happenings in your state. Universal background checks have wide appeal even among gun owners.

Prediction: The anti-gunners will attempt to pass universal background checks in states with referendums. Brought up in a referendum, universal background checks might even pass in OK.

unixfool · February 1, 2015, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gojuice101

We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have.

Luckily he will have a hard time getting it through our pro-gun GA right now, but the future is what I'm more worried about. Things can change, especially when Bloomberg's money is behind it.

Every single one of those proposed bills failed, too. Keep letting the legislative body know your thoughts on such laws...I do.

Armed_Chicagoan · February 1, 2015, 03:58 PM

This is how it went down in Australia:

"Mick Roelandts, firearms reform project manager for the New South Wales Police, looks at a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in over the past month under the Australia government's buy-back scheme, July 28, 1997."

**Tom Servo** · February 1, 2015, 04:24 PM

Chicagoan, that picture actually shows a significant percentage of the firearms actually turned in. Actual compliance with the 1997 buyback is estimated to be 10-20%.

Brit · February 2, 2015, 06:21 AM

Handing in Guns in Sydney Australia? Gangs have got plenty of guns.

When Home Invasions skyrocketed? They had not even named them Home Invasions! Police had never heard the term.

Don P · February 2, 2015, 08:11 AM

Quote:

You might try asking him how running a new background check for each purchase accomplishes anything when the purchaser already has a carry permit that required a complete background check -- with no specific firearm attached to it?

Here in FLA being the department of agriculture issues the CCW permit and not a law enforcement agency is why we cannot get the NICS check done away with ATF approval because of my stated reason.

Quote:

I think it is the moral equivalent of making certain people wear a yellow star of David, or a pink triangle

Right on point^^^^^^^^^

chesterfield · February 2, 2015, 02:09 PM

Seeing that picture just breaks my heart but knowing how much it makes the anti-gunners salivate makes it an important picture to see. The logic they use doesn't allow them to see the rising crime rates as a bad thing, it only means that they still have work to do before their gun free utopia becomes a reality. Never mind the fact that in confiscating legal guns they removed a major crime deterrent and left people at the mercy of still-armed thugs who now have nothing to fear from their victims. Yes, registration = confiscation = disaster.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 2, 2015, 05:04 PM

Be careful what you post - some are at the edge for TFL. Those were deleted.

GEM

TDL · February 9, 2015, 06:51 PM

Quote:

the Australia government's buy-back scheme

Not buy back as we use the term in the USA. That was forced and mandatory using the registration list in Australia.

Murder rate change in Australia since that scheme: down about 30%
Murder rate change in the USA during the same period: down about 50%

And the Australian gun control groups and politicians to claim a drop in Australian suicide since their two large gun control measures. Sober researchers in Australia, in peer reviewed work, and having no bias, believe that Australia actual suicide rate did not change at all.
https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2010/...program-change
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet...0820-es3p.html

TDL · February 9, 2015, 07:10 PM

As to the general question, to turn it around is anyone aware of a country that has had a national registration that has not confiscated firearems using that list?

Seems to me a great majority of countries that created national registration did exactly that

jersurf101 · February 10, 2015, 09:53 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now that is the question to ask your buddies who own fire arms and still support UBC's.

January 19, 2015, 10:48 PM	#26
tony pasley Senior Member Join Date: April 13, 2006 Location: western north carolina Posts: 1,641	Oh how people forget their own history. It was in Lexington Ma. and Concord Ma. that British troops marched to seize arms and munitions stored their for the personal defense of the people. Those terrible assault weapons that were equal to or better than the weapons used by the army. No they didn't register their arms but the powers that were in charge Knew they were there and going to make an example out of them to intimidate the rest of the people to comply. Those who don't learn from history are doom to repeat it. __________________ Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.

January 28, 2015, 09:29 PM	#34
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,846	I would agree with that! __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

January 29, 2015, 11:26 AM	#37
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,846	The old joke (or perhaps a mere observation phrased as a joke) is, "A good politician is one who, once bought, stays bought!" I think it was Kissinger who said "the 5% of politicians who actually are honest make things difficult for the rest of us" or something like that.... Look at the base ideals of the Founding Fathers. We have come a long, long way from those, today. I believe we have gotten here because, for a long time now, we have been electing people to "lead us" instead of represent us. Even though the claim is they represent us, they are doing a very POOR job (and I would use much stronger language if I could). __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

February 1, 2015, 04:24 PM	#43
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Chicagoan, that picture actually shows a significant percentage of the firearms actually turned in. Actual compliance with the 1997 buyback is estimated to be 10-20%. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

February 2, 2015, 02:09 PM	#46
chesterfield Member Join Date: February 2, 2013 Posts: 44	Australian government buy back scheme Seeing that picture just breaks my heart but knowing how much it makes the anti-gunners salivate makes it an important picture to see. The logic they use doesn't allow them to see the rising crime rates as a bad thing, it only means that they still have work to do before their gun free utopia becomes a reality. Never mind the fact that in confiscating legal guns they removed a major crime deterrent and left people at the mercy of still-armed thugs who now have nothing to fear from their victims. Yes, registration = confiscation = disaster.

January 20, 2015, 12:56 PM	#27
G_P Member Join Date: January 4, 2014 Posts: 45	There are no concrete numbers, but the estimates of the number of people who did not comply with registration required in the last round of laws is in the hundreds of thousands. The state had pretty good records through their de facto registration of every gun purchased from an FFL so they knew there were way more than 50K "assault weapons" out there. Several of our state legislators have said that nothing but full confiscation of all semi auto firearms will satisfy them, and our governor agrees. He is currently working to stack the courts with anti gun supreme court judges in anticipation of the prosecutions to come. There are very dark days ahead for CT. Our legislators and courts admit our current laws violate the Heller decision but claim that they are allowed to ignore SCOTUS decisions in the name of public safety.

January 26, 2015, 05:09 PM	#29
1stmar Senior Member Join Date: March 21, 2012 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,378	I reluctantly complied, not because I felt it was my civic duty, but because at some point it's my expectation to hand my firearms to my kids and I couldn't make them felons, or force them to turn them in. Either way they get what they want, unless I can retire elsewhere before it happens. Just because I registered my mags doesn't mean I still have them, I might just sell my hi caps or my aw... While it is certainly a risk, I don't believe the state will be going door to door anytime soon. That could be the start of something very ugly. It's inconcivable a state do rich in gun history has strayed so far, especially when it has little else to offer other than insurance.

January 26, 2015, 11:00 PM	#30
gojuice101 Member Join Date: January 2, 2015 Location: Spotsylvania, VA Posts: 31	We might be facing this here in VA soon. Our governor proposed a laundry list of new gun control policies that include magazine capacity limits, a registry, and a limit on how many you can have. Luckily he will have a hard time getting it through our pro-gun GA right now, but the future is what I'm more worried about. Things can change, especially when Bloomberg's money is behind it.

January 28, 2015, 06:15 PM	#33
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,468	There are several flavors of feasances (if that's a word -- or even if it isn't) MALFEASANCE : wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official law : illegal or dishonest activity especially by a public official or a corporation MISFEASANCE : trespass; specifically : the performance of a lawful action in an illegal or improper manner NONFEASANCE : failure to act; especially : failure to do what ought to be done It strikes me that an elected legislator who votes on (either for or against) a proposed law that he/she has not read is committing all three.

January 29, 2015, 09:27 AM	#36
TimSr Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2013 Location: Rittman, Ohio Posts: 2,074	I put a lot of blame on voters who make no effort to learn what a politician stands for and believes in before they cast a vote. Politicans can rarely surpise a voter who makes minimal effort to do a little research before voting. Obama ran as a supporter of the 2nd A. If he fooled you with that claim, and you were surprised by his actions after being elected, you are the bigger problem than he is.

February 1, 2015, 10:16 AM	#40
thallub Senior Member Join Date: November 20, 2007 Location: South Western OK Posts: 3,112	CT, NY, CA and CO passed draconian gun control in the aftermath of mass shootings. It's very unlikely that gun control will ever be rolled back in CT, NY and CA. CO is a maybe. About two thirds of NY residents support the SAFE Act: http://www.legislativegazette.com/Ar...-twotoone.html Keep an eye on happenings in your state. Universal background checks have wide appeal even among gun owners. Prediction: The anti-gunners will attempt to pass universal background checks in states with referendums. Brought up in a referendum, universal background checks might even pass in OK.

February 1, 2015, 03:58 PM	#42
Armed_Chicagoan Senior Member Join Date: July 18, 2013 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 776	This is how it went down in Australia: "Mick Roelandts, firearms reform project manager for the New South Wales Police, looks at a pile of about 4,500 prohibited firearms in Sydney that have been handed in over the past month under the Australia government's buy-back scheme, July 28, 1997."

February 2, 2015, 06:21 AM	#44
Brit Senior Member Join Date: January 29, 2005 Location: Orlando FL Posts: 1,934	Handing in Guns in Sydney Australia? Gangs have got plenty of guns. When Home Invasions skyrocketed? They had not even named them Home Invasions! Police had never heard the term.

February 2, 2015, 05:04 PM	#47
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Be careful what you post - some are at the edge for TFL. Those were deleted. GEM __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

February 9, 2015, 07:10 PM	#49
TDL Senior Member Join Date: January 25, 2013 Posts: 317	As to the general question, to turn it around is anyone aware of a country that has had a national registration that has not confiscated firearems using that list? Seems to me a great majority of countries that created national registration did exactly that

February 10, 2015, 09:53 AM	#50
jersurf101 Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2013 Location: Eastern NC Posts: 553	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now that is the question to ask your buddies who own fire arms and still support UBC's.