Gun registration-then-confiscation experiences

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MuzzleBlast

New member
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. Serious replies only, please.
 
California passed an assault weapons ban in I believe 1989. Then several years later they had poor compliance and offered an "amnesty" period. Then after tricking a bunch of people to register their guns they said, "sorry that extension wasn't legal, turn in those guns!".

In 2014 All guns including long guns had to be registered at point of sale.
https://reason.com/2014/01/03/california-gun-law-paves-the-way-for-con/

The knee jerk enforcement has caused the state to go after people who try to comply with the law.

https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-man-home-raided-guns-confiscated-trying-register-firearm/


The state is also going after legally purchased guns once someone is disqualified for whatever reason from owning a gun. The list of reasons keeps growing.

https://briefing556.rssing.com/chan-10528824/article17.html

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/california-gun-confiscation-bill_n_3117238
 
rc said:
The state is also going after legally purchased guns once someone is disqualified for whatever reason from owning a gun. The list of reasons keeps growing.
Click to expand...
Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Isn't one of our arguments against new anti-gun laws that we don't need more laws if they aren't enforcing the laws they already have?
 
Look up the history and results of the Roberti-Roos laws in CA, and in particular their effect on SKS rifle owners.

I don't have cites or case names, sorry, but I do remember stories from the time, including one about an SKS owner who was a police officer. He duly registered the rifle when required, then a couple years later got a letter saying he had to turn it in, and when he took it to the police to turn it in was arrested for possession of an illegal assault rifle... never heard how it finally turned out.

This could just be a BS story, I have no way of knowing, but its not the only similar story from CA and that time period.

Something similar happened in NYC around the same time, required registration of "assault rifles" and then later a ban on their possession within the city. The difference in the NYC cases was that NYC was happy to let you keep owning the rifle, as long as it wasn't physically within NYC.
 
Let's skip "Nazi" references.
Click to expand...

Especially because they're very erroneous. I could go into detail on the history, but for the most part, there were very few confiscations of firearms under the Nazi regime. I really wish people would stop using it as an "example" of anything related to gun control.
 
I guess it depends on where your sources come from Tom. Here is one from The American Rifleman (2001) that depicts that the previous perspective isn't "erroneous" as you claim. Interesting read, even if you and others on here don't / won't agree with it. The article is well written / supported and is about registration and the subsequent confiscation of firearms in 1930's Germany.

https://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."[/I(from previous link)]

Not exactly trivial numbers.
 
Last edited:
They may not seem like trivial numbers, but compared to some Americans they are. If my ammo cache were confiscated they'd get considerably more than 20,000 rounds. :D

The point where the comparison with Nazi Germany is erroneous is comparing it to American gun control/confiscation. The Nazi's rarely confiscated the private firearms of "ethnically approved" Germans. They passed their "racial" laws against Jews and took their guns, and other property. US gun confiscation isn't targeted at any specific ethnic or racial group, its targeted against EVERYONE who has a firearm.

it's not an apples to apples fair comparison.

Not even close.
 
I wonder if it has ever really happened in the US. My understanding was that, typically, existing guns were always grandfathered in, to avoid any kind of ex post facto issues. That is what happened in DC, for example, in the 70s, from my understanding.

There might be some examples from the US south during Jim Crow days, after United States v. Cruikshank (1875), when a lot of blacks in the south were disarmed. Would take some digging to find out that history.

Not that the threat does not exist. Registration has always seemed like the thinnest end of the wedge, even if only hypothetically (although if the Nicaraguans invade Colorado . . . !).
 
During Katrina I understand LEO went door to door in some areas searching for and confiscating firearms. Anyone know if they were assisted by preexisting gun ownership data from any sources?
 
44amp, I wasn't attempting to make an apples to apples comparison between 1930's Germany and the USA. The OP asked for examples of firsthand accounts of registration / confiscation, and Servo made a statement in post #11 that, well, go back and read it. :confused:

Ignoring and or minimizing gun registration and confiscation in 1930's Germany because it primarily targeted a specific ethnic / religious group makes ZERO sense to me. Registration / confiscation is just that (Gun control), no matter who is pursuing the Agenda or who is being disarmed. It's still Gun control, even if targeted at a specific group. Today it may be apples, tomorrow it may be oranges. :eek:

As written in The American Rifleman article link I previously posted;

"Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and to make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.)
 
Last edited:
roscoe said:
I wonder if it has ever really happened in the US. My understanding was that, typically, existing guns were always grandfathered in, to avoid any kind of ex post facto issues. That is what happened in DC, for example, in the 70s, from my understanding.
Click to expand...
That's a generalization that you should not count on.

For example: After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Connecticut changed the language of their assault weapons ban law in a way that made formerly legal "post-ban" AR-15s into assault weapons. They created a window of time, within which all newly-designated assault weapons had to be registered with the State Police. Some time after all that, I was on a jon site with a guy from Connecticut who owned an AR-15. That registration law came up in a discussion over lunch one day. He got a deer in headlights look on his face and told us that he didn't know about the law and he hadn't registered his AR-15. He asked if he should register it. The answer was that he couldn't -- the window had closed months before. His choices were to (a) move the rifle out of Connecticut; (b) sell the rifle out of Connecticut; or (c) keep the rifle and risk being arrested for a felony.

I don't know which he chose. It doesn't matter. That was then, and this is now. I don't think it would be correct to say that existing guns have "always" been grandfathered in. Even if they have mostly been grandfathered in the past, that doesn't mean they will be grandfathered in any potential future legislation.
 
I believe the CA assault rifle law (Roberti-Roos) from the late 80s included an ex post facto provision in it. It required registration of rifles purchased BEFORE the effective date of the law.

As I recall, it was one of the more legally objectional parts of the law, but I don't think anything was actually ever done to change it.

Making things a crime after the fact is not a principle generally held to in US law. Unless its a gun control law, where it seems to now be a favored tactic.:rolleyes:
 
ammo.crafter said:
You have a weapon;
Afterwards it is banned;
your defense may be ex post facto.
Click to expand...
That's not what ex post facto means. Ex post facto is more than just making something illegal; it's prosecuting someone for doing something at a point when it was legal.

For example:
1. I own a SuperWidget on Monday.
2. On Tuesday, the legislature passes a law that makes Possession of a SuperWidget highly illegal, with an effective date of Thursday.
3. On Wednesday, I sell my SuperWidget.
4. On Friday, the gov't arrests me and starts a prosecution for my Possession of the SuperWidget (which ended before the law took effect).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top