Has the govt. ever taken a firearm away?

K

krept

New member
I am wondering if the government has ever confiscated a weapon that someone tried to register? I have been hearing crazy things about gun laws. For example, if someone in California has a newly classified "assault weapon," they must register it sometime this year. Now, I'm wondering if anyone, say, has complied with the laws and registered an AK (semi auto, but still a no no in Ca), or something with a flash suppressor did the government come and get it?

I'm not talking about instances where a federal law was broken, but a state law. Does anyone know of any examples where the government has gone to someone's house specifically to gun grab? I'm not talking about militia groups or terrorist squads - only individuals.

I'm asking only because I have honestly ever heard of this happening, or even something remotely close.

One more question: Where does the ACLU stand on the second amendment? If they are pro-Bill of Rights it should follow that they are PRO firearms, right?

Thanks,
Erik
 
Check New York City for an example of confiscation. After passing a law that forced everyone to register their "assault weapons", NYC passed a law requiring owners to sell, move out of state, or render the weapons non-functional and did invade and arrest at least one guy who publicly refused to do any of these things to his weapons.

NRA has a link about it on their site. That doesn't even get into the California SKS and registration grace period thing...

As for the ACLU, they maintain that the 2nd is a collective right that only allows the individual states to maintain state-run militias. Thus in their opinion, you do not have any individual right to bear arms.

ACLU neglects to explain how the right of free speech and freedom of religion is an individual right but the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right (even though both rights belong to the people according to the Founders).
 
The ACLU (and everyone with this view) really burns me. How can the Second Amendment be only a collective right for the states to maintain armies when the constitution specificly forbids states to have thier own armies???????? The National Gaured gets away with it because they are Federally funded.
 
Some guy registered his "assault weapon" with New York City when required to. When NYC banned them, they sent the guy a letter saying in effect "we have not received notice that you have either turned in or disposed of your registered weapon; do so at once." The guy sent back a letter saying "come and get them!" They sent the SWAT team to the address.

Funny thing is, nobody noticed that the guy's letter was postmarked Montana...well, maybe the new residents didn't think that was funny...
 
I've heard that story before, and it's still hillarious :)

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me
 
Yes.

There used to be a very handy site ... www.sksbuyback.org , but I believe the CA Attorney General has pulled it. Now you can feast your eyes on www.regagun.org ... the CA Department of 'Justice's site regarding their current program for registering so-called assault weapons.

And, check out this site for more information regarding CA confiscation programs: http://nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html

Make no mistake about it ... registration has a long history of leading, ultimately, to confiscation. Do a little research on NY's Sullivan Law as well.

Remember ... in spite of some of their fascist tendencies, these people aren't stupid. The process works by incrementalism, picking off one person at a time, and tightening the noose little by little. IMHO, they'll never go door to door in some massive effort. They'll go after one class of firearm at a time (via demonization), one class of citizen at a time, and go after individuals slowly but surely. As a matter of fact, check around ... there was a very credible post on TFL about this subject not long ago.

Oh ... and regarding the ACLU - http://aclu.org/library/aaguns.html . They are useless on this issue. They think they'll always be able to argue their issues in court, confront the government when it is wrong, and yet still place every firearm in governement hands. A bit myopic, methinks.

Regards from AZ



[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited August 31, 2000).]
 
Why does EVERYONE talk about NYC... The same thing happened in all of NJ! No so called "Assault Weapons" allowed since 1989?! Not sure on the date but it sounds right. If you owned one, you have 3 things you could do give it to the cops, destroy it, or take it outta the state.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
New York
As others here have said, owners of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were forced to register their guns. Then in 1991, these firearms were banned. The government said that they needed to be destroyed, rendered inoperable, taken out of state, or turned in to the police. They also said that they knew who owned them, so "spot checks" were planned.

New York is an especially good example because it clearly demonstrates how registration led to banning which led to physical confiscation. See the Daily News' September 5th, 1992 article "Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized" by John Marzulli.

New Jersey
"Dead" is exactly right. New Jersey is another example of how the government has banned firearms and people were forced to turn them in, move them out of state, or destroy them.

California
California passed a law that said that you could continue to own "assault weapon" (as they defined it), but you need to register them. Also, you can't buy new "assault weapons". However, the was debate as to whether the SKS Sporter was an "assault weapon" or not under the new California law. The State's Attorney General reviewed the law and the specifications of the SKS Sporter and publicly stated that it is NOT an "assault weapon" and new SKS Sporter rifles could be purchased legally as long as people register them.

Years later, the Attorney General changed his position on the matter and said that the SKS Sporter was actually an "assault weapon" and should never have been sold to the public. As a result, the government started the "SKS Buy-Back Program" which was located at http://www.sksbuyback.org . This program alterted people that the SKS Sporter they owned was illegal and needed to be turned in immediately. The government was willing to pay (if I remember correctly) $230 for each rifle. They also reminded people that since these rifles were registered, they knew who owned them, so you better turn yours in.

World-wide
There are MANY examples of how other governments have registered guns, then banned "assault weapons", then handguns, then all guns. The JPFO's web site ( http://www.jpfo.org ) details how 56 million people in the last 87 years have been executed in genocide campaigns that were precluded by gun control laws that disarmed the victims.
 
Well, here's something related that I've been wondering about lately.

When you purchase a gun from a dealer and have an instant background check, isn't there a record of you now owning a gun? Doesn't the dealer have to fill out paperwork indicating the make and model you purchased? I hope I'm wrong here, but this doesn't seem too far from registration IMO. As numerous people have said, if the government knows you have the guns, then there's always the chance that one day federal agents will come knockin' for them.

------------------
Guyon
NRA & GOA Member
Vote for your rights!!!
 
Yes there is a record that you atleast "attempted" to buy a gun. You could get the NICS approval then deside NOT to buy a gun. So you could even be on a "List" even if you dont have a gun.

------------------
Dead [Black Ops]
 
Yes and by federal law the dealer is required to keep that file on record and if he ever goes out of business hes required to turn them to guess who...
thats right the NAZI's.
Many dealers have been pressured into doing that well before retirement so that theyd stop having to look up older records for so called 'accruacy' even on checks that have been performed years earlier.
If their at all interested in confiscation or a list theyd be idiots to not simply hit the record button when the dealer calls in your check through the nics.
Neal Knox brought this out earlier in one of his reports and mentioned this will even furhter be funded the crackdown on dealers if project exile with its 0 tolerance for gun crime stance passes.
The paper records of gunownership are the same kind that were used in NAZI germany before confiscation.
IN my opinoin ALL new guns are being registered by these forms and/or the NICS system. www.nealknox.com www.gunowners.org

------------------
"those who sacrifice
liberty for security deserve neither"
 
Guyon: Those records are kept by the dealer - not the ATF. Dealers who go out of business are required to turn over their records to the ATF but they are kept in a warehouse, and thanks to the NRA - not on computer.

For the ATF to confiscate any class of gun, they would first have to go through the each individual piece of paperwork in their warehouse - they would then need the bound book from every firearms dealer in the country. All of this would be incredibly manpower intensive and highly impractical.

That is why I love the current system. Crime guns CAN be traced but it is so manpower intensive that confiscating guns isn't a realistic option.

NICS however is a different story as it is computerized. The FBI has been keeping files on legitimate purchases for up to six months in order to conduct audits. Any system that extended NICS to private sales, or authorized long-term storage of NICS information - could be used for confiscation much easier.
 
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the law states that the FEDs cant keep records, not that the FEDs cant have someone else keep records for them.
 
Thanks for all of the responses. The websites also have a wealth of information - exactly what I was looking for.

Erik
 
One other thing, when you buy any firearm, speaking purely from a California prospective, the DOJ askes the FFL a couple of questions before assigning him a reference number for the Form 4473.
1) Is the purchase a handgun? What is the Serial Number of the handgun.
2) Is the purchase a long gun? How many?

The DOJ then issues the reference number. Long gun purchases never have the S/N recorded at the DOJ level. Only in the FFL's bound book.

One other thing....Yes there was a rather large confiscation. Least we forget the hundreds of burned receivers and barrels that the Feds picked up after the killings at WACO!

------------------
To own firearms is to affirm that freedom and liberty are not gifts from the state.

[This message has been edited by Elker_43 (edited August 31, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAZ:
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the law states that the FEDs cant keep records, not that the FEDs cant have someone else keep records for them.[/quote]

The law states that no government agency may keep records of legitimate purchases from the NICS system and that no funds can be appropriated for such storage.

The only way I could see a loophole is if some organization voluntarily kept the information (opening itself to some pretty heinous lawsuits regarding privacy) or if the states kept the records - which is irrelevant since states could just go ahead (and have) register the firearms anyway.

The law also explicity forbids using the NICS system to establish a system of registration for firearms or firarms owners. Something that even the DOJ regs directing the FBI to keep records for six months acknowledge.
 
Talking about registration.

Massachusetts has had it for years. And recently, GOAL has put up a form to aid gun-owners in seeing the official record of their registered weapons with the Massachusetts Police State.

GOAL's Records Request Form

Everyone who has ever lived in Massachusetts should take the time to request their "records of registered firearms" from the Massachusetts Police State.

I did.

What did i find out?

Lets just say it was incorrect.



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
www.regagun.org - I see that CA got wise after the fallout from my idea of registering www.sksbuyback.COM, picking up all those people in the habit of ending site names with .com (instead of .org), and telling them how horrible CA's law was. CA got the .com and .net variants as well this time around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top