So, I've been noticing in most reported stories that have citizens defending themselves with a gun, like in "armed citizen", the writer is quick to mention that the gun used was "legally registered", or "registered". And this is from NRA writers. Now, it could mean just what it says, and the story is reporting pertinent facts. But it could also be laying the groundwork for a new firearms consciousness.
For the public to automatically ask after a self defense shooting if the firearm used was "legally registered", as if this fact alone made the act of defense defensible, is a scary path. We should not be happy with this new spin on using lethal force for self defense.
Owning a gun "legally" should not be grounds for "legally" defending oneself...
In CA, where I live, (in Oakland actually), it's my understanding that if I am discovered with a gun in my possession, whether hunting, shooting, plinking, cleaning or packing in my garage, or driving to my parent's house, I will first be treated as if dangerous, the gun will be confiscated until ownership is established. If I am not the registered owner, it will never be returned to me. Then I may face prosecution for possession of an unregistered handgun. In my lovely little town of Oakland, I see billboards stating "Oakland is a Project Exile community. Use a gun go to prison for 5 years." It's not a stretch to imagine law abiding gun owners sitting in cells merely for possessing an heirloom...
JPFO GOA CRPA NRA