Gun registration-then-confiscation experiences

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rc

I believe California Handgun registration goes back to 1920. Rifles have only be registered here since 2014 but the ammo background check is being used to help fill in the blanks!

But has the registration resulted in confiscation?

That was the question.

I'm looking for people who have lived in places that instituted a registry for guns, who then duly registered their guns, only to have them confiscated later. I would like details.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

But has the registration resulted in confiscation?

California has outlawed possession of magazines over 10 rounds, even those that had been grandfathered under a ban of purchasing them. Making previously legally owned items illegal to own is confiscation in my book, even if the state has not yet come house - to - house to take custody. Registration would have come in handy once such a program started.

The law has since been declared unconstitutional - twice - and is now under further appeal. An injunction has prevented physical confiscation.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by natman

California has outlawed possession of magazines over 10 rounds, even those that had been grandfathered under a ban of purchasing them. Making previously legally owned items illegal to own is confiscation in my book, even if the state has not yet come house - to - house to take custody. Registration would have come in handy once such a program started.

The law has since been declared unconstitutional - twice - and is now under further appeal. An injunction has prevented physical confiscation.

I tried to make the point a few days ago that the law making something previously-legal into contraband without grandfathering current owners was a 5th amendment "taking", and the actual confiscation later is just a formality.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

The law has since been declared unconstitutional - twice - and is now under further appeal. An injunction has prevented physical confiscation.

So ... there has not been any confiscation.

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

I tried to make the point a few days ago that the law making something previously-legal into contraband without grandfathering current owners was a 5th amendment "taking", and the actual confiscation later is just a formality.

I mostly agree with you, but I think the legal counterargument would be that you can still sell your "contraband" firearm to someone in a state where it's legal, so the state hasn't really "taken" any value from you. Of course, that argument eventually fails when you get to the "last man standing" questions: what happens when ALL the states make possession illegal?

Nonetheless, the question that was asked was where registration has led to confiscation. So far, nobody has come up with a concrete example.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

I tried to make the point a few days ago that the law making something previously-legal into contraband without grandfathering current owners was a 5th amendment "taking", and the actual confiscation later is just a formality.

Yes, you wrote that. But you cited absolutely no legal authority (statutes/case law) to support that. In fact, in real life in the real world, that is not true.

You have generally demonstrated a poor understanding of law. What you believe is true is not necessarily true in real life in the real world. And your beliefs do not change what is true in real life in the real world.

As has been said here many times before, to understand the law, one needs to actually study it (whether formally or informally). Much in the law is non-intuitive or will make sense only when one has sufficient background knowledge. You can't expect to be able to figure out what the law is or how it works just by trying to "reason it out." One needs to do the research, study cases, and do the reading.

[44 AMP]

So far, nobody has come up with a concrete example.

In the US, on a large scale? Without an alternate legal means of disposal of the property? Hasn't happened....yet...

"Assault weapon" owners in CA, NYC, and perhaps some other places I'm not aware of, got ordered to register their arms. Later, those guns became prohibited. Owners who were NOT "grandfathered" had the choice of turning them in (for no compensation) or removing them from the state / city.

We have, and have had for generations, registration leading to confiscation on an individual basis in those parts of the US with registration, ONCE the registered owner is no longer legally able to own them.

Become a prohibited person and your FOID is yanked and your guns are seized.
Die, and your guns may be seized, though there is (and should be) a process where they get returned to the estate for the executor to disposition them, it isn't always followed or even known about in some places.

These are individual, case by case things, not what I think the OP is looking for.

[natman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

So ... there has not been any confiscation.

It depends on your definition of "confiscation". If only having the object in question physically taken from its owner fits your definition, then no. However the state HAS made the object illegal to own and has been prevented from physically confiscating them only by an injunction, pending appeal.

[mehavey]

Well.... we're about to find out.
https://www.aol.com/news/parkland-an...172618643.html

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by natman

It depends on your definition of "confiscation". If only having the object in question physically taken from its owner fits your definition, then no. However the state HAS made the object illegal to own and has been prevented from physically confiscating them only by an injunction, pending appeal.

So, to reiterate ... there has not been any confiscation.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by mehavey

Well.... we're about to find out.

I don't see anything in Biden's proposals that entails actual confiscation.

In fact, I haven't seen anything in this thread that entails actual confiscation. We keep veering off the original subject into speculation, and we're going around in circles.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Yes, you wrote that. But you cited absolutely no legal authority (statutes/case law) to support that. In fact, in real life in the real world, that is not true....

I realize that this thread is closed, but I wanted to back up my comment with some case law:

1. Kam–Almaz v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012), at 1371:

   ...Our precedent is clear: “Property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a ‘public use’ in the context of the Takings Clause.” AmeriSource Corp. v. United States, 525 F.3d 1149, 1153 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Acadia, 458 F.3d at 1331–32.....

   Note:"Police power" means --
   
   
   1. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict.../Police+Power:

      ...the basic right of governments to make laws and regulations for the benefit of their communities. Under the system of government in the United States, only states have the right to make laws based on their police power. The lawmaking power of the federal government is limited to the specific grants of power found in the Constitution....

   2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...olice%20power:

      ...the inherent power of a government to exercise reasonable control over persons and property within its jurisdiction in the interest of the general security, health, safety, morals, and welfare except where legally prohibited....

   
   
2. Amerisource Corp. v. U.S., 525 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2008), at 1153:

   ...Property seized and retained pursuant to the police power is not taken for a 'public use' in the context of the Takings Clause....

3. Modern Sportsman, LLC v. United States ("No. 19-449, Fed. Cl. 2019), slip op, at 8:

   ....Though the Takings Clause itself does not specify the exact grounds of public use "that trigger the just compensation requirement," the courts have consistently found that property is not taken for a "public use" when seized or retained pursuant to the police power. Amerisource Corp., 525 F.3d at 1153; Acadia Tech., Inc. v. United States, 65 Fed. Cl. 425, 429 (2005)...