How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dZ

New member
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=327

How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?

by John A. Sutter
in California

For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would
never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would
lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners
would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But
I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality.
But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that
day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian
possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total
ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun
owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline,
without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as
examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not
turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25%
and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British
have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the
Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch.
We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the
amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat
and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who
refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.

The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm
since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere.
Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial
numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and
cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt
to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that
the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and
registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business.
At some point the government decides they have something approaching
a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.

The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice
that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably
include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial
number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject
to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to
surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to
return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any
proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of.
For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in
that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be
enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the
letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”.
After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still
out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More
importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns
someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.

If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team,
guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two
more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means
they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a
search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My
guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a
lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the
Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a
notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or
wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they
will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your
deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and
search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and
distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will
snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating
radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc.
You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes,
they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.

If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns
and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and
search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might
use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too,
even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are
thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to
see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their
homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held your guns while
agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government
authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by
the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into
lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.

But you only have one gun you say? Fine. They won’t come looking for it.
But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious
crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide
that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be
made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even
old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable
cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use
that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government.
Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and
threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for
having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to
save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people
caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause
people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but
useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able
to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.

You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun? Remember showing
your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of
birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers?
Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too
hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe
because you had unregistered guns? Think again. I would expect that the
government’s database will contain a lot of old data. Some of it might
indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address. If they can tie
you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2
years you might get a surprise visit. Or that seller might have
remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice
to get “off the hook” for that gun.

The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to
confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government
can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own
methods to avoid a conflict. Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner
votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand
excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun
owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of
those.

Liberty!
 
Let me add that the most likely thing the government will do, once they've decided that you probably are holding out on them, is to apply pressure through a third party. Employers and banks will be required to check with a government database before hiring you, or extending credit, and if you show up on a list of suspected gun owners, you won't be able to buy a car without cash, you won't be able to get a job. Only way to get off that list will be to "voluntarilly" submit to a search of your home. It's a LOT easier for the government to apply pressure to a limited number of businesses, than to the population itself.

So what are you going to do? Shoot the bank's loan officer? Put a gun to the head of the receptionist where you're applying for a job?

We will NOT have the luxury of being confronted with a clear physical threat in most cases. The government won't be so stupid as to make the decision to start shooting, or who to shoot, that easy. Unless we prevail in the political and legal realms, we will be faced with a choice of either giving up, or shooting people who are NOT obviously employing physical violence, who are "merely" orchastrating the violation of our rights. But then, in war hasn't it always been more effective to shoot the commanders than the troops?

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Add this this threat the difficulty of educating kids...have to start before they get too brainwashed but not so early that they'd give you away.

At that point, anyone in political office or uniform would become fair game...and likely with no good results because of the official control of the "news". Re: back to the USSR :(
 
Think of the absolute arrogance it would take to ban something that is so clearly protected in the Bill of Rights.

That would sound the bell to lay down the rule book that we've so faithfully been abiding by, and prepare to kick some ass big time. I highly doubt that 80 million gunowners would dutifully turn over their privately owned firearms...some 280 million firearms mind you. There are not enough jails or detention camps to hold the amount of people that would become instantaneous criminals under such a ban. And neighbors and relatives are not going to sit idly by and watch their fellow Americans and loved ones be hauled away by black nomex clad government thugs. Naive...or confident?

I'd bet on patriotic Americans to come out of the woodwork with such a vengence, that the coup would last but a few hours.

Go ahead...ring that bell!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Revere:
Think of the absolute arrogance it would take to ban something that is so clearly protected in the Bill of Rights.[/quote]

Absolute disregard for the rule of law has been one of the defining characteristics of the Clinton administration. It will be exactly the same with The Evil Al Gore.

And I also doubt that most of the American gun owners would turn their guns in. But most would try to hide them, saying, "Well, I'll use them if things get really bad," or
"Maybe we can get them re-legalized next election." Meanwhile, the wheels of fascism will grind away steadily just as Sutter has described.
 
I've actually thought about this, and I might hide my guns, but I wouldn't shoot anyone. No reason to get hung up on one particular tool, after all, when there are so many available, most of which wouldn't lend themselves to hysteria aimed our way.

Even the antis would have a difficult time explaining that 22 derringers had to be banned because somebody got poisoned...

Man, do I EVER hope it doesn't come to this; There have after all been some good signs lately on the legal front, and I've noticed that the conservative magazines such as National Review and the Weekly Standard have come around to seeing this as an important issue.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
I've talked to a lot of gun owners who say they'll hide their guns, then work more actively with the system to try and get pro-2nd Amendment folks elected.

Anyone who wants to do that, or thinks it would work, is delusional at best.
 
Franklin: Agreed, that IS delusional; Getting laws repealed is MUCH tougher than getting them passed.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
This is kind of a tangent, but relevant.

If you don't think we're on a "slippery slope", think back to 10 years ago. Would you have ever thought we would have a 10-round mag limitation? That kind of stuff happens in Canada and the UK, but no way the American people would ever put up with that, right?
 
Respectfully, I think the 10 round limit and even the S&W agreement provisions are no big deal to John Q. Public - they really only matter to aficionados like ourselves. However, that is because the antis came up with _somewhat_ plausable reasons for their enactment. Those of us who have put in the effort to learn the facts realize that all the restrictions do not restrict anyone but law abiding gun owners. Antis don't realize that.
HOWEVER - it is another thing altogether to ban the uwnership and use of all firearms entirely. All the antis I know - and this is in Kali - want something or another in the way of restrictions, but VERY FEW want to completely abolish ALL guns. It takes a TRULY inferior intellect to believe that taking away ALL guns would make the US a safer place.


------------------
"Freedom is that instant between when someone tells you to do something and when you decide how to respond."
-Dr. Jeffrey Borenstein

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
 
That's the mentality tapped into though with the incremental bans on this and that. You make a classification of firearm sound scary (Sat night special, sniper rifle) and most people consider THAT sounds "reasonable".


Battler.
 
Max: Very few of them KNOW they want to ban all guns; Most of them just want to keep tightening the vise until gun control finally works... Which is sort of like bleeding someone until you cure their anemia! So it amounts to the same thing in the end, the explicit banners are just ahead of the curve.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett made a very good point about not losing sight of the many other effective means of fighting besides shooting if the worst is realized. We should keep these in mind, and probably employ them first. We've already seen an example or two of possible attacks by pro-gun/liberty crackers on anti-gun websites. How many system crackers do you think will launch attacks on these government databases? I'm willing to bet it'll happen. We're always reading about how pathetically vulnerable government computer systems are to such attacks these days. No reason to think that the poorly-defended state of such systems will change anytime soon. After all, we're talking about the government here. What do some of the more computer-savvy folks here think about that possibility?
 
Seeing as how the Austrialians and Canadians still have plenty of guns, the English have some, and even a couple of Japanese have guns, it's unrealistic to say they are going to ban "all guns." It won't happen as long as there is so much sport shooting.

Our fight is not to protect "all guns" but certain types of guns, and specific uses of these guns.
 
The dynamic of the slippery slope is in action. As previously posted there have been incremental infringements on our freedoms that collectively would not have been acceptable 10 years ago. Sort of like not noticing the changes in a friend you see every day, but really noticing it in someone you only see every 10 years.
Many people live beyond their means and are living so close to the edge financially, that they probably wont risk upsetting the precarious balance of governmental controls that (they imagine) supports their inflated lifestyle. A person that can imagine living with less "stuff" and saying to hell with it for the greater good is rare indeed.
The era of the entitlement mentality and rampant consumerism has weakened us.
I still believe in miracles, that is what it will take to turn the tide.
 
Come on, we need to get with it.

This is not about banning or confiscating inanimate objects. This is about who decides how we live our lives...the government or us.

We already have to ask permission or pay taxes to do just about everything under the sun except take a crap. As time goes on, we're being expected to obey more rules, and pay more taxes. Until we start telling THEM what we're going to buy, how we're going to carry it, etc, etc., ain't a damn thing gonna change.

Face it...the government's constipated, and it's time for an enema.
 
Yep! As W. C. Fields so aptly put it,
"It's time we took the bull by the tail and FACED the situation!" ;)

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Give them what they're looking for- all those guns you bought from the FFLs, that's my plan. I've heard that there are private sales, trades, inherited guns, etc., that would not have a paper trail. I, of course, would not have personal knowledge of such a thing....
 
Their objective is to make owning a firearm a hardship, it is through attrition that they will attempt to confiscate weapons.

You make it sound like the IRS is something that should be feared, they have so many people who don't file right now, that they are looking for ways to change the tax laws so they can keep collecting revenue.

Contrary to what you have heard about satellites and radar, they won't find many guns this way.

How many pieces of pipe and other metallic objects will be recovered before they decide
that the cost is not worth the effort.

And how many government agents work both sides of the fence for the very reason of protecting the rights of Americans.

Competence, is not something that the US bureacracies are noted for.

Waterdog
 
The article's author - and many here - is concerned about confiscation of guns. It's a sexy concept that gets the testosterone running: "cold dead fingers" and all that.

Such an attitude is blind to the fact that the gun-grabbers are implementing a seige and fighting a war of attrition: "suuuuuuure you can keep your guns...as we graaaadually shut off the supply and tighten restrictions and spin public sentiment against you and bury you in thousands of petty laws...until either you just give up in disgust, can't take them where you move to next, or just die."

The Ohio four who got the no-concealed-carry law suspended are doing what we all should be doing: active retaliation, suing for the elimination of the seige.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top