http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/1...fiscation.html
Historically speaking, firearm registration invariably leads to firearm
confiscation - the only significant variable is time.
This was true in Canada:
Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms
Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing
the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect
banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally
registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a
barrel length of 105 mm (4.14?) or less-more than 553,000 legally registered
handguns-became illegal with the stroke of a pen.
Pistol owners, of course, had been promised that registration would never
lead to confiscation when Canada's national handgun registry was enacted in
1934. When the newer law passed five years ago, they were given three
options: sell their handguns to any dealer or individual legally qualified
to buy them (not a real option because the number of potential buyers was so
small); render them inoperable; or surrender them to the government without
compensation.
This was true in Australia:
He is describing what happened when the Australian government, on pain of
imprisonment, made him hand in his registered .22 rimfire rifle so that it
could be destroyed. After a multiple shooting in Tasmania, in April 1996, in
which 32 people were killed by a madman using a self-loading rifle with a
military appearance, the federal government, under newly elected Prime
Minister John Howard enacted laws banning all self-loading rifles and
shotguns. All pump-action shotguns were also confiscated. (Pump-action guns
were also confiscated in Germany in 2002, and the "Million" Mom March favors
similar confiscation in the United States.)
The firearms being surrendered in Australia were not the property of
criminals. The guns were plainly sporting arms that had always been legal.
This was true in once-Great Britain:
Under regulations implementing Britain's 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act, gun
club members must now register every time they use a range, and must record
which particular gun they use. If the gun-owner does not use some of his
legally-registered guns at the range often enough, his permission to own
those guns will be revoked.
[...]
However, then Labour Party leaders brought Dunblane spokesperson Anne
Pearston to a rally, and, in effect, denounced opponents of a handgun ban as
accomplices in the murder of school children. Prime Minister Major, who was
already doing badly in the polls, crumbled. He promptly announced that the
Conservative government would ban handguns above .22 caliber, and .22
caliber handguns would have to be stored at shooting clubs, not in homes.
A few months later, Labour Party leader Tony Blair was swept into office in
a landslide. One of his first acts was to complete the handgun ban by
removing the exemption for .22s.
This was true in California:
In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared
that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they
acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be
relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal
of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January
1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace
officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.
This was true in New York City:
In 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins railroaded a bill through the
city council banning possession of many semiautomatic rifles, claiming that
they were actually assault weapons. Scores of thousands of residents who had
registered in 1967 and scrupulously obeyed the law were stripped of their
right to own their guns. Police are now using the registration lists to
crack down on gun owners; police have sent out threatening letters, and
policemen have gone door-to-door demanding that people surrender their guns,
according to Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer and author of two books on gun
control.
This was true for numerous other countries and locations. And this was
especially true when one sociopolitical entity was doing its damnest to
subjugate another:
The Jew Alfred Flatow was found to be in possession of one revolver with
twenty-two rounds of ammunition, two pocket pistols, one dagger, and thirty
one knuckledusters. Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety.
Police First Sergeant Colisle
Via an arrest report from Berlin, October 4, 1938.
He was arrested based on the above while attempting to comply with an order
to turn in all firearms to the government. His firearm was legally owned and
registered. It wasn't until November 11, 1938 that the Weapons Control Act
of 1938 went into effect making it illegal for Jews to own firearms. Hence,
he was arrested while complying with the law at the time.
After his arrest he was turned over to the Gestapo and transported to
Terezin in October of 1942. He died of starvation in the Theresienstadt
concentration camp in December 1942.
The worst part is that Mr. Flatow was damend if he did, and damned if he did
not - since his firearm was registered, in accordance with the laws in
Germany up to that time, if he had not turned it in voluntarily, the police
would have known exactly where to look for him and his firearm, and his life
probably woud have ended in much the same way. Thus, given that "devil and
the deep blue sea" Morton's Fork facing law-abiding firearm owners (and
specifically firearm-owning Jews), Germany's firearm registration policy -
and those politicians who voted for it, and those citizens who supported
it - effectively murdered Mr. Flatow by enabling the confiscation of his
otherwise lawful property, and facilitating his illegal arrest.
It is precisely due to that seemingly inevitable outcome that I will never
register my firearms, should the question ever come up - such an act is
nothing more than a ham-handed prelude to a larger, unconstitutional grab
for power, and I refuse to make a totalitarian government's life any easier.
(On the flip side, what do you think an ATF Form 4473 is, other than a
remarkably ineffective registration system.? Food for thought.)
However, the above blockquote is not solely interesting for its support of
"registration leads to confiscation", but also for the last sentence in the
police report: "Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety."
Such a statement is obviously racist, derogatory, discriminatory, and
without any basis in fact or reason. however, how often do you hear
anti-rights nuts making nearly identical proclamations? "Arms in the hands
of men are a danger to women." "Arms in the hands of anyone in a
high-population area are a danger to public safety." "Arms in the hands of
restaurant patrons are a danger to public safety." The appeals to "public
safety" go on and on and on, and are about as basless and nonsensical as
claiming that firearms in the hands of a socioreligious subgroup of humanity
somehow pose a threat to the rest of the world - so why is that claim by the
German police officer so inherently distasteful, while all of the strikingly
similar claims by anti-rights nuts are somehow more acceptable? How does
that work?
Also, note how the subject of the statement is "arms", not "Jews" - the
latter is part of a dependent clause, while the former is not. It would
appear as though anti-rights nuts' fixations on the tools rather than the
people is not exactly a new development, and it would further seem as though
those who continue that irrational behavior are in some very good company.
Regardless of their motivations, though, anti-rights nuts should understand
one thing, and understand it well - neither I, nor a very large number of
other firearm owners, will register our firearms, regardless of whatever
laws are passed, rules are signed, or orders are given. Such a requirement
provides us no benefits - firearm registration has never demonstrably lead
to a decrease in violent crime - but we would hazard tremendous risks for
complying, and based off known, quantifiable, recorded history of the
matter, it is not a path any of us wish to tread down.
The irony, of course, is that the anti-rights nuts are willing to kill me
and other liberty-minded individuals for not registering our firearms
(should the requirement be imposed), which only serves to prove my point.
Copyright © 2005-2013 walls of the city - All Rights Reserved
Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
75 queries. 7.116 seconds.
..
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
I don't "see" it because I don't see it. Do you see it? Where do you
see it?
How about NYC? No? Hmmm...
It may be, somewhere, but all I've seen is the movies that run in the
heads of paranoid gun nutz.
--
Ed Huntress