Registration ==> Confiscation?

A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
Is there anyone here does DOESN'T believe that registration will lead to confiscation? Read on (from my e-mail this morning):

http://www.rep-am.com/news/connecticut/856007.txt

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2015/01/16/final-sandy-hook-report-expected-next-month/

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...Make-Dozens-of-Recommendations-288848771.html

http://www.newsmax.com/US/gun-laws-Sandy-Hook-Connecticut/2015/01/16/id/619133/

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-sandy-hook-commission-0117-20150116-story.html

For those who aren't aware, in 2013 after the Sandy Hook school shooting Connecticut passed a large package of extremely onerous (and mostly useless, but that's an editorial comment) new anti-gun laws. Among them was a requirement that ALL "assault weapons" be registered with the state police (and they redefined "assault weapon" to include formerly post-ban AR-type rifles) and all magazines with a capacity greeater than 10 rounds be registered with the state police.

It seems they have had a "blue ribbon" panel studying the "problem" for almost two years (thereby more or less proving that the 2013 laws were just a kneejerk reaction), and the panel is now poised to recommend a COMPLETE ban on firearms capable fof firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. And, since they now have a fairly complete registry of both "assault weapon" type rifles AND large capacity magazines, it's difficult to believe that they WOULDN'T engage in confiscation if the new proposal makes it into law. Why wouldn't they? They already know where to find them.

Worse, if enacted the proposal would ban just about every popular type of firearm today. AR-type rifles? Gone. Double stack pistols? Gone -- even if you have one that's only a 10-rounder (like perhaps a Para Warthog), if it can take a magazine from a big brother (Para P14) it's capable of firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. Not even single stack 1911s would be safe; I believe somebody makes 40-round stick magazines for the 1911, and somebody makes a 100-round drum magazine for the 1911.

In fact, even something like a .22 lever action carbine with a tubular magazine wouldn't be safe. My Henry H001, which is about as innoucuous as they come, holds 15 rounds of .22LR, 17 rounds of .22 Long, and 21 rounds of .22 Short. My little Marlin semi-auto plinker has detachable magazines. I have 10--round and 5-round mags for it. If anyone makes an 11-round magazine for it -- it would be banned.

In essence, Connecticut residents would be limited to single-shot bolt-action rifles and six-shot revolvers.

I found it interesting that someone from the panel was quoted as saying that they believe these restrictions are constitutional because they don't prevent people from recreational use of their firearms. The panel thus appears to be completely (and possibly intentionally) ignorant of both Heller and McDonald, both of which affirmed that the fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment is a right to be armed for self defense.

Keep an eye on this. If it makes it into law, I believe we can expect other states to follow suit.
 
Last edited:
I read the linked news items, and found them interesting, for what they said, and didn't say.

What was the makeup of the "blue ribbon panel"? I do have to wonder if there was even a single "gun owner" on the panel. I fell confident that there wasn't a single firearms enthusiast, or even a knowledgeable person when it comes to firearms design.

At least one school violence/trauma professional, one police chief, and a Fire Chief were mentioned as panel members in the different articles.

The reports did mention how they took NO consideration if their recommendations would be legal under the US Constitution. It "wasn't their place" to decide that. (SO, essentially they are admitting that they wasted time, and the govt.'s money considering and recommending things that they didn't even bother to find out if they are legal, or not.

One of the linked reports said Lanza was a former student at the school he shot up. Lanza was 20, and it was an Elementary school. Somehow, I find that "link" to be rather tenuous, at best.

And, apparently, not only does the commission want no guns holding 10 or more rounds owned in the state, they don't want any MADE in the state, either. I note the reports of how the final "findings" removed language about the importance (and legality?) of gunmakers in the state.

I believe the panel was made up of people with a biased point of view, who spent a couple years making money off the govt (did they also have expense accounts?) who went into the thing with a predetermined conclusion, and who have now issued a report expressing and supporting that conclusion.

The trouble is that many people will accept the commission's "findings" (their opinions) as valid fact, which they most certainly, are not.
 
Every type of registration that I have seen implemented is ripe for such abuse, and that's why I vote against them.

Most antis and "undecided" types think traceability is a Good Thing. You find a gun associated with a crime scene, and you can find out who owned it, and therefore start asking questions in a very logical place -- the person who owns the gun. Registration is required for traceability, so they think registration seems like a good idea.

In my experience, what does not get out to those people is how ineffective registration is at actually aiding in such investigations. The antis, like most humans, don't want to hear facts which contradict their beliefs, and the undecideds don't care enough to pay attention.
 
I have yet to see where a mysterious firearm was recovered at a crime scene, leading to a failure of an apprehension of an unknown perpetrator at a later time and distant place because it wasn't registered. I also can't recall hearing about a mysterious registered firearm solving a case.

The purpose of registration is to compile a registry. Period.

Confiscation will follow compilation, maybe not tomorrow, but it will happen.
 
While I can think of some places where registration has not been followed by confiscation (yet), I cannot think of any place where confiscation has NOT been preceded by registration. Not one.

Sold to us as a tool for the police to solve crimes, and always promised that "no one is trying to take your guns away", Registration is a fine thing. Until a few years later, when they DO come to take your guns away.

I think it is the moral equivalent of making certain people wear a yellow star of David, or a pink triangle. Them knowing (and being able to identify) who is who, or who owns what, may not, in and of itself be an evil thing, but history has proven it to be a useful and virtually necessary precursor for evil things.
 
A few years ago I took a series of Citizens' Police Academy classes. I was having a chat with the records clerk in the department and she said she thought it was a good idea for the police to know where all the guns are in town. "Don't you?" she concluded.

She was genuinely shocked when I said, "No."

It's a mind set. They (some of "they," anyway) seem to honestly believe that compiling masses of data about everybody and everything is going to somehow allow the PTB* to make the world a better place.






* Powers That Be
 
It's not just confiscation that scares me about registration.

I've dealt with two cases in which people did their best to comply with registry requirements but found themselves under the swinging lightbulb all the same. In both cases, errors were made entering the guns into their respective registries. These mistakes were beyond the control or responsibility of the owners. In both cases, prosecution was attempted.

Let's remember that the ATF already keeps a registry of machine guns. This is a pretty small pool of guns in comparison to Title I firearms. How accurate is it? Maybe 50%.

No thanks.
 
now if we can just convince the other half of gun owners that the UBC is really a registration scheme we might have a chance....

I recently got into a debate with an acquaintance of mine who is a gun owner who also supports the UBC. He just couldn’t put together the registration part of the UBC on such a "conspiracy" of later confiscation because its an effort to reduce crime. I tried to explain to him that the registration part has nothing to do with a persons background and his rebuttal was that the UBC cant work without the firearm info because there would be no way to otherwise prove the UBC took place related to the purchase.
 
He just couldn’t put together the registration part of the UBC on such a "conspiracy" of later confiscation because its an effort to reduce crime.
Click to expand...
You might ask him to quote any proof whatsoever that gun registration has reduced crime anywhere in the US.
 
I did but it didn’t matter to him. To him the point of the UBC was to close a "loophole" where a felon could access a firearm it wasn’t about a registration scheme.

What I cant get thru to these people is that FTF sales are not even the main source for criminals and more importantly will not reduce gun violence and when the next bad thing happens the next step is prohibition.....

My point is if we can agree that confiscation = registration but we need to convince the rest of the gun owners that UBC's is a registration scheme because this law is the antis main front right now.
 
Did you mention that SOCTUS has previously upheld that criminals cannot be prosecuted for not registering firearms under the 5th Amendment, that registration by law can only be levied on the law abiding?
The first attack in AZ is underway, a House Concurrent Resolution to put UBC/Universal registration on our books. This will fail badly, and then Bloomers will trot out the ballot initiative.
 
UBC can be a different animal.

UBC can be constructed using commonly available cryptography which will prevent the government from knowing who owns guns, and allow not only FFLs to conduct background checks, but also allow private citizens, gun shows, etc to do so as well.

The govt will know you asked for permission to buy, but it will be impossible for them to know if you actually ever bought anything, what you bought, how many you bought, from whom you bought, etc.

UBC does not have to be associated with registration. Many antis and undecideds want UBC. I tell them, "I don't speak for all gun owners, but for my money, I'll give you UBC if you give me a repeal of the NFA" and then I tell them about constructing UBC using cryptographic signatures. That's when I find out if they really just wanted UBC or if they wanted backdoor registration as well.
 
To him the point of the UBC was to close a "loophole" where a felon could access a firearm it wasn’t about a registration scheme.
Click to expand...
Can he articulate exactly what "loophole" that is? It's already illegal for felons to be in possession of firearms? Are we trying to make it more illegal?

Simply put, UBC's are toothless without a registry. A registry will be a logistical nightmare which will lead to innocent people suffering. Worse yet, it will do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns.
 
armoredman said:
Did you mention that SOCTUS has previously upheld that criminals cannot be prosecuted for not registering firearms under the 5th Amendment, that registration by law can only be levied on the law abiding?
The first attack in AZ is underway, a House Concurrent Resolution to put UBC/Universal registration on our books. This will fail badly, and then Bloomers will trot out the ballot initiative.
Click to expand...

I know what you said is true. So, not directed at you, THAT'S CRAZY !!!!
 
Koda94 said:
I tried to explain to him that the registration part has nothing to do with a persons background and his rebuttal was that the UBC cant work without the firearm info because there would be no way to otherwise prove the UBC took place related to the purchase.
Click to expand...
You might try asking him how running a new background check for each purchase accomplishes anything when the purchaser already has a carry permit that required a complete background check -- with no specific firearm attached to it?

If I was clean last week to get a permit allowing me to carry any legal handgun ... why do I need to be checked again if I want to buy a Ruger Single Six today?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
You might try asking him how running a new background check for each purchase accomplishes anything when the purchaser already has a carry permit that required a complete background check -- with no specific firearm attached to it?
Click to expand...
you don’t have to have a carry permit to buy a firearm. I’m not certain I understand what your saying here.

Anyways, I didn’t intend to hijack this thread with the story of a past conversation. I just wanted to point out how UBC's relate to the subject of this thread.
 
Koda94 said:
Aguila Blanca said:
You might try asking him how running a new background check for each purchase accomplishes anything when the purchaser already has a carry permit that required a complete background check -- with no specific firearm attached to it?
Click to expand...
you don’t have to have a carry permit to buy a firearm. I’m not certain I understand what your saying here.
Click to expand...
In many (most?) states, having a carry permit requires having undergone a complete background check. Whether or not you need the permit to buy a firearm (in my state we do), the fact is that people who have carry permits are generally completely checked out, so what purpose is served by subjecting them to yet another background check each time they want to buy a firearm?
 
For those who aren't aware, in 2013 after the Sandy Hook school shooting Connecticut passed a large package of extremely onerous (and mostly useless, but that's an editorial comment) new anti-gun laws. Among them was a requirement that ALL "assault weapons" be registered with the state police (and they redefined "assault weapon" to include formerly post-ban AR-type rifles) and all magazines with a capacity greeater than 10 rounds be registered with the state police.

It seems they have had a "blue ribbon" panel studying the "problem" for almost two years (thereby more or less proving that the 2013 laws were just a kneejerk reaction), and the panel is now poised to recommend a COMPLETE ban on firearms capable fof firing more than 10 rounds without reloading. And, since they now have a fairly complete registry of both "assault weapon" type rifles AND large capacity magazines, it's difficult to believe that they WOULDN'T engage in confiscation if the new proposal makes it into law. Why wouldn't they? They already know where to find them.
Click to expand...

I thought the Gun Owners of CT overwhelmingly refused to register their "Assault" weapons, or was that only a temporary protest and they have since abided by this legal requirement?
 
^^^ No firearm experts noted, and only one attorney (by title, anyway), and she didn't even research the legality of their proposed legislation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top