Is fear of confiscation valid?

it cracks me up when people say, "if they come to take my guns there will be a firefight". No, no there won't. Make yourself feel better by saying that if you won't. It is safe to say that if they are going to do a search and seizure they won't knock on your door, then say "Hey, we are here to pick up your guns then we will be on our way". They could try it, but that is too dangerous.

More than likely it will be a SWAT style raid. Expect some concussion grenades, flashbangs, etc. It will be to where you are caught off guard and it will happen quick. The only firefight will be them shooting you because they will have you outmanned and outgunned. It is a sad simple truth.

I would love to sit here and say, "Hell yeah. They mess with me they have another thing coming". Do you want to know the truth. Truth is I am not putting my wife's life in danger just because I like guns. Yes, I do think that owning guns is part of this countries freedom. They come door to door and say turn over all your guns I am going to do it in a heartbeat. There is no reason to put mine or my wife's life on the line, NOR should I endanger the person who has the pitiful job of taking people's guns away. After all, he is just a person doing his job.
 
A final thought: Even if confiscation is unlikely at this juncture, it may not always be. If we give in a little here and a little there, future generations may not recognize what they've lost. It's the "boiling the frog" theory. I'm middle-aged (45), and in my entire gun-buying history: (1) I've never been able to have a gun mailed from out-of-state to my doorstep; (2) I've always had to have a background check if I purchased at an FFL; and (3) Machine guns have never been available to the general public. Had I been born a century earlier, I'd have been able to order a machine gun out of a catalog and have it delivered to my doorstep, no FFL needed. All of that seems very normal to me, but it doesn't mean that my "gun-buying forefathers" didn't lose some 2A rights along the way. Fifteen years ago, I'm not sure I recognized that.
Click to expand...

Excellent post and advice... which is exactly what I was thinking when I saw the title of this thread. The fear of confiscation (at least outright bans) tomorrow or next year not quite as valid as another decade of chipping away at rights. Then, after public sentiment has swayed a little more to the anti side in 15 years a prohibition on a certain style of firearms is passed. There may not be door to door confiscation, at least not right away, but when a prohibition scheme is passed the ultimate goal will be confiscation. Registration today helps this future government by giving them a spreadsheet of every firearm owner and what type of firearm they own. It may be 20 or 30 years, but I believe many of the antis realize this is their reality and they're willing to wait.



FWIW, I don't see door to door confiscation anytime in our lifetime. I'm not advocating armed resistance to government, but if they started going door to door to confiscate firearms and turning good men and women into felons for failure to conform I'm pretty sure there would be a pretty significant resistance movement. Because of that, I don't see any door-to-door confiscation scheme being implemented on the national level. At least not until public sentiment shifts dramatically from where it is today, and that will take a long time (as in "not in our lifetime"). Other confiscation methods discussed (through attrition) are the most viable and likely methods, at least in my opinion. Doesn't change anything... just because the government isn't kicking in my door to take my guns doesn't mean that I would be happy with their war of attrition. As has been said, I wouldn't be able to enjoy said illegal gun so what would be the point of continuing to possess it? Registration would still serve the same role with either scheme, which is why I'm patently against any form of registration on any level.
 
FWIW, I don't see door to door confiscation anytime in our lifetime.

Nationally, no, but let's not kid ourselves. The gov doesn't need to kick in the door of every gun owner to get the desired result.

A nationwide ban on gun-x and a few SWAT raids on non-compliant gun owners will scare the rest in line pretty quickly. When someone's spouse is in their ear every night to get "that thing out of the house! You saw what happened to Bill Jones!", that AR is going away.

Also, look at what happened during Hurricane Katrina: door-to-door gun confiscation by the government. "Special circumstances", "isolated incident", blah blah - the gov came and took people's guns away. Complete 2nd and 4th Amendment violations.

Look at what happened after the Boston bombing: door-to-door warrantless searches in the name of safety. Massive 4th amendment violations.

Let's not pretend to live in a world we don't.
 
Koda94 said:
well hey, at least with confiscation I wont become a felon behind bars if I let them take it right?

same thing.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Prohibition and confiscation are not mutually exclusive. If there's a legislative packet that includes confiscation, it would necessarily include some degree of prohibition. Consider the following scenario:

The legislators of State X pass a bill requiring the registration of AR-15s. The bill also prohibits anyone from possessing an AR-15 who does not register same by April 15, 2015, making such possession a felony. Finally, the bill provides for confiscation of unregistered AR-15 found within the borders of the State which is not registered. Somehow, in July 2015, the police catch wind that I have unregistered AR-15, and they show up to do a "knock and talk" at my door.

Even if I let them have the AR, they can charge me with felony possession.
 
One of the arguments against universal background checks is the included registration scheme. We tend to call this a "scheme" because we know that make model and serial number has nothing to do with a persons background, but a registered firearm can be confiscated later. Essentially, if its not needed then why include it if there wasnt a hidden reason.

However, if one looks at the laws concerning background checks, federally they are required to destroy the background check record by the next buisness day.
The next place the records are kept is with the states. In my state, the law allows Oregon to keep the records for up to five years, then they must destroy them. Im not certain how other states handle this.
The last place records are kept is with the FFL dealer, who is supposed to keep the records privately for 20 years (IIRC). After that he can destroy them. If the dealer goes out of buisness, the records must be turned over to the feds.

With SCOTUS upholding the 2A right individually, and supposidly the feds and everyone else are destroying the records, is the fear of confiscation via registration valid?
Click to expand...

Considering the number of court cases involving state and local databases built on records that are by law, supposed to be destroyed, I would say the threat is real. Based on the fact that any federal law's effectiveness is based on the will of the feds to enforce it, I would say state and locxal records are not high on their priority list. based on teh number of times, foreign and domestic, that certain arms have been registered, and outlawed at a later time, resulting in actual confiscation, I would say the threat is real.

There are no documented cases of a crime ever having been solved due to gun registration. The only reason to ever record the guns owned by a law abiding citizen is in order to "keep them law abiding" when the laws are changed. There is a lot more incentive to turn in your newly legislated "illegal" gun, when you know your name is on a list of those who recently lawfully owned them. Door to door confiscation is not necessary, when a letter for your state law enforcment agency will get the same results.
 
I think that some people don't get the long term incremental strategy by which all rights are erroded. Yes, they will never "ban guns" and then go door to door and search for them. They do it in small increments over decades, just one small "common sense" law at a time.

Somebody asked me how CCWs were constitutional in that you would need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. I answered "They are not, but we need to regain our rights in the same way they were lost - One "reasonable" increment at a time."
 
Somebody asked me how CCWs were constitutional in that you would need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. I answered "They are not, but we need to regain our rights in the same way they were lost - One "reasonable" increment at a time."
Click to expand...

Yes, and the easiest way there is to achieve that one reasonable increment at a time is by voting and putting folks in office that are in agreement with our sentiment of gun ownership. Same goes for the voting on of referendums. Folks with concerns of gun ownership should always be active and aware of any referendum that may influence their rights of gun ownership. Not being aware, not voting appropriately or just not voting is chipping away at our rights just as much as the feds.

What difference does it make, in the context of the discussion for THIS thread, how the law got passed? How the law came to be voted in is not the problem. The law is the problem. The law is now on the books and can be enforced by the police. THAT's the problem.
Click to expand...

The difference is that I594 was voted on by the constituents of the state, not rammed down their throats by legislators or the feds. The proposed law was not the problem, the problem is that the people of Washington State voted it into existence. The voters in Washington voted yes in agreement with I594. As I said previously, they are the blame for that law, along with those that did not vote. Many times, especially with referendums, it's not just those that vote that decide it's fate, but those that don't vote. Seeing as how folks could easily vote from home without going to the polls in person, there was no excuse for folks not to vote other than apathy. The police will only be enforcing a law the people of Washington State voted in. A "you asked for it, you got it" scenario.
 
IIRC the gun "buy and busts" under Bloomberg stopped in NYC after a couple of cops were plugged. What we will have to worry about is the atomization of society and how the snitch and snoop will have free reign. The stepson who doesn't like you because you're always on him about his drug use and unwillingness to work, perhaps the BIL or FIL you never got along with, etc.
The wife who wants you out of the house, etc.
 
I have the answer no one has said. It's long term but very easy on their part. Simply leave out the good parts of gun ownership in school history books. Teach that they are bad. I know and believe in God, go to an elementary school science class and you'll be taught evolution. Civil War, all you hear is the South was for slavery and Lincoln brought us out of the war. What you won't hear in school is the fact perhaps the most famous Confederate General, Robert E. Lee was completely against slavery. Only reason he became a Confederate General is because his state, Virginia, was leaving the Union. The Civil War was about state rights, the only issue wasn't slavery. You'll never hear in your social studies class that Lincoln not only lead the county out of the war, he also lead it into it. My point is, history has a way of being kept from children. Recently on national headlines was one state was wanting to not teach kids about protesting in history. Little steps like that is all it takes. You put a frog in boiling water, it jumps. But if you slowly heat it up, it dies. They won't have to knock down doors and search. If they can persuade kids gun ownership is what causes mass shootings, some will believe it. And with stricter laws making it harder to get them, no one will have them. Sure we'll teach our kids about guns and everything about them. But will our families 10 generations from now think they are evil? It's already begun with the media. Think back a few generations ago and wonder how many of their great grandparents didn't think guns were evil. Kids are the future. We need to do our best they keep their rights by teaching them.
 
Last edited:
When several major politicians call for confiscation after a mass shooting--yes, it is real.

They engaged in confiscation after Katrina. Do you need any more proof?
 
An armed populace is incompatible with a police state - Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (under Ronald Reagan).
 
So to summarize the subject here the short answer is yes, the fear of confiscation is valid.

But we can see there is no “official” plan for confiscation on the federal level, we see that evidence of confiscations are scattered incidents (like Katrina) or limited, for now, to certain states like California or NY.

This means that confiscation via registration as a conspiracy theory is a mixture of true/false. This make is harder to argue that the registration part of the Universal Background Checks is a scheme….
 
Koda94 said:
But we can see there is no “official” plan for confiscation on the federal level, we see that evidence of confiscations are scattered incidents (like Katrina) or limited, for now, to certain states like California or NY.
Click to expand...
I don't think we can see that at all. Remember, the FBI not too long ago promulgated internal training materials portraying Americans who respect the Constitution and value religion as "terrorists." Now, factor in that President Obama and AG Holder are both vehemently anti-gun, and the FBI is part of the DOJ (and thus under Holder). It may not have been publicly announced, but I think it is prudent to assume that the DOJ and Homeland (In)Security have at least drafted some plans behind the scenes that contemplate confiscation.

Remember: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
 
I understand, but how do we convince others that the idea of confiscation and registration isnt a conspiracy theory?
Where is the evidence?
 
Originally posted by tomrkba:

Everything you need is here:

http://www.level-headed.net/2013/05/...on-in-america/
Click to expand...


Seems the concluding paragraph sums that article up well and is representative of what many of us have been saying, and why we need to continue to vote our stance.....

To the credit of our system of government, many bills proposing confiscation did not pass because they were voted down. Perhaps, then, the idea of confiscation is being proposed by some vocal few, and the majority doesn’t agree with them. In most cases, that seems to be the case, but by the same token, I can see why gun owners are constantly on the outlook for politicians that seek to ban and confiscate guns, especially as the dates of these events seem to indicate, after major disasters or tragedies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top