|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 12, 2021, 11:41 PM | #51 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
That was the question. Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
February 13, 2021, 10:13 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
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.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
February 13, 2021, 11:46 AM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
February 13, 2021, 11:57 AM | #54 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nonetheless, the question that was asked was where registration has led to confiscation. So far, nobody has come up with a concrete example.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
February 13, 2021, 12:14 PM | #55 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
February 13, 2021, 02:52 PM | #56 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,832
|
Quote:
"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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 14, 2021, 01:00 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
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.
__________________
Time Travelers' Wisdom: Never Do Yesterday What Should Be Done Tomorrow. If At Last You Do Succeed, Never Try Again. |
February 14, 2021, 02:27 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,894
|
Well.... we're about to find out.
https://www.aol.com/news/parkland-an...172618643.html |
February 14, 2021, 04:31 PM | #59 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,466
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||
February 14, 2021, 06:31 PM | #60 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
February 16, 2021, 07:15 PM | #61 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||||
|
|