Would your state and local cops cooperate with a confiscation order?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I think gunowners in NJ would be screwed. All legally purchased handguns are registered so the law shouldn't have any problem finding them.

Largely true. But there are plenty of folks who live there now and brought guns from out of state. Probably not a huge number though.

[dlockhart]

Crazy, but imagine the war on guns becoming like the war on drugs. Who would ever believe that a government program would expand in pursuit of dollars and power? The new target fuels the government prison industrial complex. No knock raids of suspected illegal gun owners homes.
The proceeds from the seizure and sale of your stuff financing the war against you.
If getting caught meant losing all your stuff and your freedom, would you roll over?
What about the ex wife who drops a dime on you out of spite. The no- good alcoholic in-law who who gets pulled over for a DUI and makes a deal.

It is harder than it looks to be a outlaw.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

That's how it would start. But there would be next to no compliance. So then what?

Think in terms of the DMV. California decided to charge me $500+ per year so I can have the privilege of driving my 3 year old pick-em-up.
if I refuse they levy fines. they take away privileges. they restrict registration and if pulled over, possible confiscation of the vehicle.

If a state wanted to punish gun owners they could do it. first trick would be to identify. Get em to register. Then track gun shows, firing ranges, ammo purchases etc. it wouldn't be that hard. Get neighbors to turn in neighbors.
Make it a felony to posess a non-registered gun.

Then once the list is built, send em all a notice that they owe money and if they don't pay it they'll lose their driving privileges and face a bench warrant.

So an honest gun owner gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, and either loses his car or freedom when he's booked.
The rest get the hint and start sending the state money and getting rid of guns. they win.

[manbridge 74]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I think gunowners in NJ would be screwed. All legally purchased handguns are registered so the law shouldn't have any problem finding them.

So NJ people can't sell a handgun to anyone in another state? What will happen when the officer shows up and the gun is no longer there, now in the hands of the 4th owner?

[JavaBrewer]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Think in terms of the DMV. California decided to charge me $500+ per year so I can have the privilege of driving my 3 year old pick-em-up.
if I refuse they levy fines. they take away privileges. they restrict registration and if pulled over, possible confiscation of the vehicle.

If a state wanted to punish gun owners they could do it. first trick would be to identify. Get em to register. Then track gun shows, firing ranges, ammo purchases etc. it wouldn't be that hard. Get neighbors to turn in neighbors.
Make it a felony to posess a non-registered gun.

Then once the list is built, send em all a notice that they owe money and if they don't pay it they'll lose their driving privileges and face a bench warrant.

So an honest gun owner gets pulled over for a traffic ticket, and either loses his car or freedom when he's booked.
The rest get the hint and start sending the state money and getting rid of guns. they win.

Agreed. I can see some sort of state/fed tracking of ammo purchases and other gun related spending. That would automatically generate a letter demanding registration. Failure to comply (or respond) would result in financial and legal pain. Folks shooting unregistered guns on public land or local range would lose gun and possibly face criminal charges. Using that sort of scheme it would not take long for most law abiding gun owners to register/relinquish their firearms. No need for house to house confiscation.

[Crowbob]

From 6 days ago, the following post on the confiscation thread was considered some kind of ridiculous nonsense:

"No one will have to go to anyone's home to confiscate weapons. Lots of people will go on their own to turn in their weapons because they are freezing to death, starving to death or otherwise coerced in our new cyberworld."

[manbridge 74]

Originally Posted by JavaBrewer

Agreed. I can see some sort of state/fed tracking of ammo purchases and other gun related spending. That would automatically generate a letter demanding registration. Failure to comply (or respond) would result in financial and legal pain. Folks shooting unregistered guns on public land or local range would lose gun and possibly face criminal charges. Using that sort of scheme it would not take long for most law abiding gun owners to register/relinquish their firearms. No need for house to house confiscation.

Again..... what if the gun was no longer in ones possession? I'm talking guns pre mandatory registration. If new regs pass I'd wager that new gun sales will drop to nil. Grandfathered guns off the radar will be worth 10 times what they are now.

[Crowbob]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

Again..... what if the gun was no longer in ones possession? I'm talking guns pre mandatory registration. If new regs pass I'd wager that new gun sales will drop to nil. Grandfathered guns off the radar will be worth 10 times what they are now.

Which is why they're now selling like condoms in a brothel.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by manbridge 74

So NJ people can't sell a handgun to anyone in another state? What will happen when the officer shows up and the gun is no longer there, now in the hands of the 4th owner?

NJ requires FFL transfers for private party sales. I've done it, bought a rare gun in VA for a friend in NJ who asked me to keep an eye out for it. I forget exactly how it worked, but we had to do some paperwork when I brought it to NJ for him. I'd never do that these days.

Lots of folks live in NJ who bought their guns when they lived in other states and plenty even before there was a 4473 to fill out.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

If a state wanted to punish gun owners they could do it. first trick would be to identify. Get em to register.

And that would be the trick. It would work for all purchases after the law took effect. But everyone who already had them would go underground and sit on what they had, waiting out a court decision or change in political winds. I'm not even going to range anymore until the ammo situation stabilizes. If it doesn't, well, I still have enough to get me through anything except recreational shooting. CA's state constitution is silent on right to keep and bear arms, so you guys are probably screwed. AZ will never even seriously discuss registration.

[dlockhart]

[shbop]

Liberal America





and now the Democrats are after elimination of the debt ceiling.

[enzo1]

[madcorgi]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

The state of WA has the right to bear arms explicitly stated in the constitution. So no. I don't think they would participate. They long ago told the feds to piss off when it came to marijuana enforcement.

I don't either. But, like Newt getting elected president, it's never going to happen. Why would they bother?

Maybe Pelican should start a "fantasy" section of PARF.

Terry

[Eric 88 Carrera]

Several state legislatures are taking up this issue, and they are coming out in favor of nullification with teeth. They are not just passing a law stating that the state will not comply, they are passing a law that threatens federal employees with jail time if they violate the bill of rights.

Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment
Posted by TAC Daily Updates

Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”

A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.

While a number of states, including Wyoming, South Carolina, Indiana, and others – are looking to go head to head with the feds on specific issues under the 2nd amendment, the Missouri legislation is the strongest introduced anywhere in the country so far.

Tenth Amendment Center national communications director, Mike Maharrey summed up the sentiment:
“When you’ve got people like Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or butts. The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.”

The Second Amendment was not created to give the right to keep and bear arms to the people. The founders acknowledged that the people already had those rights. The 2nd was intended to protect them by keeping the federal government off their backs.

Robert Natelson writes in The Original Constitution “The Second Amendment served purposes besides buttressing the natural right of self-defense and the reserved power of armed resistance. By guaranteeing continuation of the state militias, it strengthened state power in the state-federal balance…By protecting the militia, the Amendment promoted citizen involvement in government military affairs.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment suggests that the word “arms” should be interpreted rather broadly to include a range of military and self defense weapons,” Natelson explained.

The bill was introduced on January 15, 2013 and read for the first time in the House. It has yet to be assigned to a committee. But, with 61 co-sponsors, strong grassroots pressure will help get this bill moving forward.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect a number of other states considering similar legislation in the coming weeks.

Missouri Bill Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The same thing is also existing law in Wyoming regarding the manufacture and sale of firearms, and a bill has been introduced to protect owners of existing firearms as well.

This is a great example of Federalism in action. I hope the states do more of this in areas such as oil, gas and coal regulation, Obamacare, etc. The states need to put some teeth back into the 10th amendment.

[shbop]

anyone read about this?

Oops. Provision in Obamacare Forbid Dems from Restricting Guns

01/15/13

Yes. There really was a provision in Obamacare that forbid Democrats from restricting guns. Why? How?

Well, Harry Reid was so worried that the NRA would put their weight against the Obamacare bill that he snuck this piece of legislation in for them.


(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.—

‘‘(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.— A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under subsection (a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to—

‘‘(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully- possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

‘‘(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.
‘‘

(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the collection of any in- formation relating to—

‘‘(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition;

‘‘(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or

‘‘(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.

‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.—None of the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used to maintain records of individual ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.

Forbes reported:


As for Reid’s reasons for burying a pro-gun measure into the body of the Affordable Care Act, the Majority Leader is said to have been concerned that the NRA planned to take an active position against the passage of Obamacare and decided, no doubt with the permission of Reid’s friend, NRA boss Wayne LaPierre, to head the problem off at the pass by putting language in the bill that would mollify the gun lobby.

Read more at Oops. Provision in Obamacare Forbid Dems from Restricting Guns

[madcorgi]

Hmm. Interesting, but not that surprising. Reid has beena strong pro-gun advocate, and IIRC, is somewhat of a sportsman/hunter himself.

From Reuters:

Reid is hardly the gun-control advocate from central casting. Like many Republicans and several fellow Democrats from conservative states, Reid, 73, has often opposed limits on gun owners.
He was endorsed for re-election by the pro-gun National Rifle Association in 2004, though not in 2010. He has voted to protect gun makers from lawsuits (2005) and supported allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains (2009).
But the Nevada Democrat has also supported various calls for more background checks of prospective gun buyers.

A big question in gun-control debate: What will Harry Reid do? - Yahoo! News

Terry

[Crowbob]

What is also not surprising is that during a manufactured national crisis President Obama promulgates 'Executive Actions' that go against his own ACA for the sole purpose of political posturing. The man will say or do anything, irregardless* of their veracity, that he thinks is prudent and necessary even if those actions are completely incompatable with each other.

In this way, anyone can pick and choose anything he says or does to fortify their own notion of what they actually believe. The man is quite the genius and is even now considered virtuous by some.

*Still not a word.

[madcorgi]

I'm not sure the people of Aurora or Newtown would consider it "manufactured." I suppose the conspiracy minded might think the NRA was behind it, since it has resulted in such a huge ramp up in sales to their clients.

But that kind of magical thinking is reserved for birthers, creationists, and climate change deniers, not serious thinkers.

Terry

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by madcorgi

I'm not sure the people of Aurora or Newtown would consider it "manufactured." I suppose the conspiracy minded might think the NRA was behind it, since it has resulted in such a huge ramp up in sales to their clients.
But that kind of magical thinking is reserved for birthers, creationists, and climate change deniers, not serious thinkers.

Terry

maybe they think the democrats/obaama are behind it to push THEIR agenda.