Gun registration-then-confiscation experiences
- Thread starter MuzzleBlast
- Start date
- Status
Another member was curious about it, and I explained it in a PM. I'll cut and paste it here:
Halbrook is a brilliant legal scholar but he's not a historian. He ignores the fact that there were very few guns in civilian hands, much less in the hands of Jewish citizens, when the Third Reich came into power. Most of the gun-control laws in Germany came from the prior regime, the Weimar Republic, and its attempts to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. In 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of nearly all guns to the government.
By the time Hitler came into power, German arms production had been nearly nonexistent for two decades. He actually loosened the country's gun laws quite a bit. Handguns and handgun ammunition required registration, but long guns and their ammunition were deregulated. Members of the NSDAP were completely exempted.
The 1938 Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons was symbolic at most. Even prior to the Weimar Republic, the country had a long history of virulent anti-Semitism. No gun dealer had been willing to sell to Jews for fear of reprisal for decades before Hitler's rise to power. Sure, the 1938 law was racist. Sure, a few guns might have been confiscated.
But whatever supply they might have had in the first place was meager at best, and the idea that they could have resisted the Nazis with the force of small arms just doesn't wash.
Many smart people have been taken in because someone works the Holocaust and gun confiscation into the same thesis, but it's woefully deficient.
Yeah, I don't think anyone was up to resisting the Wehrmacht and Gestapo with a handful of hunting arms. Not in any meaningful way.
Tom said:
"But whatever supply they might have had in the first place was meager at best, and the idea that they could have resisted the Nazis with the force of small arms just doesn't wash.
"Many smart people have been taken in because someone works the Holocaust and gun confiscation into the same thesis, but it's woefully deficient."
Then roscoe said:
"Yeah, I don't think anyone was up to resisting the Wehrmacht and Gestapo with a handful of hunting arms. Not in any meaningful way."
I think the point might be not that a few people could have resisted the established Wehrmacht and Gestapo, but that very early in the rise of the Nazis, when a small number of brown shirts commited the first violent acts against jews and liberals, that armed self defense at that time might have changed the course of events.
"But whatever supply they might have had in the first place was meager at best, and the idea that they could have resisted the Nazis with the force of small arms just doesn't wash.
"Many smart people have been taken in because someone works the Holocaust and gun confiscation into the same thesis, but it's woefully deficient."
Then roscoe said:
"Yeah, I don't think anyone was up to resisting the Wehrmacht and Gestapo with a handful of hunting arms. Not in any meaningful way."
I think the point might be not that a few people could have resisted the established Wehrmacht and Gestapo, but that very early in the rise of the Nazis, when a small number of brown shirts commited the first violent acts against jews and liberals, that armed self defense at that time might have changed the course of events.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Yes, we are getting well away from the topic of this thread.zxcvbob said:
MuzleBlast said:
Let's get the discussion back on the topic, or it will be closed. Please refer to post #7. This isn't about who conquered the world, or who resisted the conquerors. The opening post was quite specific: Who has had to register their guns, and then had them confiscated? If it hasn't happened to you or you don't have first-hand knowledge of it happening -- there's really no reason to be posting in this thread.
mikejonestkd
New member
In NYS all " assault rifles " had to be registered under the SAFE act. There is a provision in the law that " assault rifles " can not be transferred, even to a family member for any reason.
All handguns are also registered with the state.
I know first hand of numerous instances where individuals passed away, and the firearms were confiscate from the grieving family.
All handguns are also registered with the state.
I know first hand of numerous instances where individuals passed away, and the firearms were confiscate from the grieving family.
I had forgotten about that one, thanks for reminding me, as it is one that I should have remembered. Though I don't think its exactly what the OP is looking for.
New York State has required all handguns, and their owners, to be "registered" in their permit system. And, it has been their law since at least the 1960s though I can't speak for earlier. And, it is an actual registration system, as your handguns are listed on the permit, by make, caliber, barrel length and serial number. The guns listed on your permit, and ONLY the guns listed on your permit are the ones you may legally own.
My family was involved in a multi-car wreck in the late 60s. We survived, with some injuries, but not everyone did, and that experience lead to the discovery that, had my Dad died, his pistols (he had half a dozen, which was more than anyone else in our circles) would have had to have been surrendered to the State. (NO COMPENSATION). IF surrendered to the State Police, they would be kept 30 days, then destroyed.
If surrendered to the County Sheriff, AND a permit was applied for, they would be held until the permit application was either approved or denied.
Mom immediately applied, and her permit had all Dads pistols on it. Both my brother and I applied when we came of age. Again with all Dad's (and Mom's) pistols on them.
I got my permit in 1975. 5 sets of fingerprints, 4 photographs, and 3 "character references" were required. Now, to illustrate the fact that these people (while not always current) NEVER FORGET, I moved to the west coast in 1979. In 2001 I got a letter from NYS, informing me that, since I was no longer a NY resident, my permit was no longer valid, and THEY WANTED IT BACK!!!
That's right, the paper permit (not even cardstock, but paper, and non-laminated at that) that they had issued in 1975, they wanted it back. ALSO they wanted me to tell them the whereabouts of the pistols on it. My Dad's guns that I hadn't seen since 1990 when we buried my Mother, NYS wanted me to tell them where they were....
Probably hoping to seize them, as my permit was no longer valid...
In 2003 my Dad passed and I flew back to NY to deal with that. I was able to have 3 of his pistols shipped to my FFL in WA because my brother still had them listed on his pistol permit so the NY FFL would do it.
SO yes there is another kind of "registration leading to confiscation" out there. If your state has a permit system, or a person registration system (FOID) do check carefully what happens to their firearms if they become deceased. Some places (like NY) will try to seize them as soon as they become aware of the owner's passing.
Other places treat them as just another part of the estate and see that they reach the inheritors. Delivery might be delayed by the state if the inheritor needs to obtain a permit/FOID or meet other legal requirements.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
rc said:
No, you don't understand ex post facto.This has nothing to do with ex post facto laws (which the Constitution specifies that Congress has no power to enact). Ex post facto essentially means being subject to criminal sanctions today for an act performed in the past which was legal when performed. That is different from from being subject to criminal liability for the continued possession of a thing after the effective date of a law making that thing illegal for you to possess.
If a law effective 1 Jan 2022 makes it illegal to possess X, it is not ex post facto to prosecute you for possessing X on 5 Jan 2022, and it doesn't matter that you continuously possessed X since 1997.
And confiscation of contraband is not a Fifth Amendment taking entitling one to compensation.
Isn't making something you legally own into contraband a "taking"? The government is taking all it's value away without compensating you for it.
It's really not much different than eminent domain abuse. The government condemns your property because they want it. They offer you a pittance for it instead of a fair price -- because the land is condemned it's not worth anything so that *is* a fair price now; sucks to be you.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
zxcvbob said:
No. It's not a Fifth Amendment taking because it's not a taking for public use.
If the drug dealer's inventory is confiscated by the police, he's not entitled to compensation.
The details of "Fifth Amendment taking" law is complex and beyond the scope of this thread.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Especially in the wake of KeloFrank Ettin said:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
zoo said:
At TFL it is never acceptable to suggest violating the law. We’re about being responsible, law abiding gun owners.
Frank, Do people moving property permanently from say New York to Florida need to do anything but pack and waive goodbye at the border? Are we not free to move ourselves and our possessions across state lines without asking for government permission? It seems New York's permit laws should end at the state line.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
rc said:
That is not the situation described by 44Amp.
That situation involves (1) possible possession in New York of gun without the necessary New York permit; and/or (2) transfer of possession of a firearm by a resident of New York to someone who is a resident of another State.
Frank has it right.
I could not legally possess the pistols in NY state, because I didn't have a valid NYS permit for them. My brother did have a permit for them, and they were in his possession until turned over to the dealer who shipped them to my FFL dealer in WA.
And, as to just loading them in the car and driving off, it would have been a violation of NY law and FOPA would not protect me on that, as it would not apply to the situation.
NY's permit laws do end at the state line, but me possessing pistols in NY without a permit, between my Dad's house and the state line would have been breaking NY law.
I could not legally possess the pistols in NY state, because I didn't have a valid NYS permit for them. My brother did have a permit for them, and they were in his possession until turned over to the dealer who shipped them to my FFL dealer in WA.
And, as to just loading them in the car and driving off, it would have been a violation of NY law and FOPA would not protect me on that, as it would not apply to the situation.
NY's permit laws do end at the state line, but me possessing pistols in NY without a permit, between my Dad's house and the state line would have been breaking NY law.
- Status