If there was confiscation do you think this would happen?

[calsdad]

Found this blog while following some links - this guy obviously doesn't intend to give in if firearm confiscation starts:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/search?q=simpson+gun+confiscation

 

[Twigg]

I believe

There is a very real possibility of this happening.

Even here.

 

[pdm]

I seriously doubt it (confiscation) would happen on a federal level. You're more likely to see it happen in one of the heavily regulated states like Massachusetts. Unfortunately, they'd probably succeed here. At least until we got reinforcements from the Granite State.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

Can you blame him.

2nd Amendment isn't the 2nd thing in the Bill or Rights for nothing.

I say if government tries to confiscate our rifles be polite and give them the ammo first, All of it.

Found this blog while following some links - this guy obviously doesn't intend to give in if firearm confiscation starts:

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/search?q=simpson+gun+confiscation

 

[MassMark]

I seriously doubt it (confiscation) would happen on a federal level. You're more likely to see it happen in one of the heavily regulated states like Massachusetts. Unfortunately, they'd probably succeed here. At least until we got reinforcements from the Granite State.

I'd be curious as to how many would just roll over in The Bay State. In my humble opinion, too much more pushing - especially any confiscation program, may indeed transform many law abiding patriotic citizens from sportsmen into insurgents....

 

[clinotus]

I'd be curious as to how many would just roll over in The Bay State. In my humble opinion, too much more pushing - especially any confiscation program, may indeed transform many law abiding patriotic citizens from sportsmen into insurgents....

Gentle roll over as they fight to get to NH....for the first of many stands.

 

[Joe R.]

( Tin foil hat not on and no caffiene yet... )

Taking from Joe Huffman's blog - you have to ask yourself the One Question: Are you ready to drop everything you own and love and pick up a gun and fight for your rights/freedoms/liberty? Most of the people I know here wouldn't do this because they value their life more than freedom. Most of the gun owners here would roll over and take up golf as a hobby because the guns are basically just that - a hobby. I've got nothing to lose but I'm not gonna be a martyr for the cause or die in a useless display of silliness.

Joe R.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I'd be curious as to how many would just roll over in The Bay State. In my humble opinion, too much more pushing - especially any confiscation program, may indeed transform many law abiding patriotic citizens from sportsmen into insurgents....

Door to door random searches is very unlikely. What is far more plausible:

- Limited amnesty period for turn in
- Severe mandatory sentences for illegal posession
- A non-discretionary arrest policy

Historically, the approach in the US has been grandfathering to avoid the issue of "compensation".

Canada had mandatory, uncompensated, turn in of some guns a few years ago. One Canadian citizen attempted to declare the value of the gun turned in as a "tax payment" as it represented value he was compelled to give to the crown. Although the other side never argued the case (they won on some other basis), the court none the less took the time to compliment the government on the merits of it's position.

 

[tele_mark]

I dought there'll be anything like this coming to pass. More likely it'll be like things are going already -- the passing of "stupid" laws like the microstamping stuff, which will make firearms prohibitivly expensive to own for most people (except for the rich liberals who write the laws).

 

[drgrant]

If it ever happened eventually they would reach someone that
would only go out in a body bag. Might not even take that long
for it to happen, and probably a half dozen of those incidents would
shut down the whole confiscation tack.

This is why the antis will never do it that way in the US- they will
slowly chip away instead... it pays more lasting dividends when
they can slowly get the populations to hate guns by default, like
they did with england, etc. It makes it 100 times easier to win
by attrition when you can reduce the base numbers of gun
ownership. They know that trying to do this all NOW would be
too much and that it would backfire on them, very badly. If they
tried it now, innocent people and police/feds would die, and there
will be hordes of people asking "why is the government doing
this? I don't see the point". The fallout from some action like that
would be incredible, and the anti gun movement would be
set back for decades or more.

-Mike

 

[News Shooter]

Somebody remind me what happened in Australia please

 

[Prepper]

One problem is most people still have things to lose. Make it impossible for people to work, get food, live anywhere and move about freely... and suddenly more would say what the heck.

One huge problem with registered guns is that they could simply declare that you're not allowed to work until you've turned them all in. (It's all for "safety in the workplace" of course... can't have any mass shootings at work now can we.) They wouldn't necessarily come to your door but instead wait until you get really hungry. If that happens, how do you resist? Who do you shoot first? I would have trouble coming up with a specific target.

 

[MassMark]

( Tin foil hat not on and no caffiene yet... )

Taking from Joe Huffman's blog - you have to ask yourself the One Question: Are you ready to drop everything you own and love and pick up a gun and fight for your rights/freedoms/liberty? Most of the people I know here wouldn't do this because they value their life more than freedom. Most of the gun owners here would roll over and take up golf as a hobby because the guns are basically just that - a hobby. I've got nothing to lose but I'm not gonna be a martyr for the cause or die in a useless display of silliness.

Joe R.

Hmmmm....So, being void of a tin foil hat myself, (I found a balance between paranoia and preparedness), I'm left with a question - hypothetical of course. If say, the governor - backed by the legislature, decided to ban the sale and possession of all multiple-shot firearms and limited citizens of the Commonwealth to only own single shot firearms for hunting purposes only and that all citizens had to turn in all banned weapons to the local authorities, (ie: MSP) - are you saying you'd comply? Is the 2nd Amendment just too "silly" to martyr yourself for? Just curious.

 

[drgrant]

Somebody remind me what happened in Australia please

The three handfuls of gun owners in AU rolled over and shit
themselves and turned everything in for the government
coupons.

The numbers in the US are a lot better in terms of resisting
the same kind of initiative. Guns are taken a lot more seriously
here in a cultural manner as well.

-Mike

 

[Joe R.]

Hmmmm....So, being void of a tin foil hat myself, (I found a balance between paranoia and preparedness), I'm left with a question - hypothetical of course. If say, the governor - backed by the legislature, decided to ban the sale and possession of all multiple-shot firearms and limited citizens of the Commonwealth to only own single shot firearms for hunting purposes only and that all citizens had to turn in all banned weapons to the local authorities, (ie: MSP) - are you saying you'd comply? Is the 2nd Amendment just too "silly" to martyr yourself for? Just curious.

Too early for this in the morning...

1) My use of " here " in the statement I made was MA as a whole - not here as in NES. This is just to clarify.

2) MassMark, we talked after the Shirley shoot to just about this same subject. If the state is talking about doing the confiscation, it's too late. Would I comply? My initial thought is no but would depend on how dedicated the crowd here decides to be after hearing of said legislation. Let me make this clear: I won't die just to satisfy somebodies attempt to make a point about the 2A! We either do this right or don't do it at all. When they show up at the door, then it's too late to be deciding that maybe you should do this or not. If I'm stuck with that decision, they get the ammo first.

Joe R. ( Not a loon... )

 

[News Shooter]

Here's the Wiki entry on Australia. It's pretty interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

 

[matt1956]

"From - My - Cold - Dead - Hand"

I say this not to be trendy or to sound macho. I say it because I am and never have been one to sit idly by and keep my mouth shut. I say this because I believe in God and Heaven and that when your time is up, your time is up. I say this because I believe in what this country was BUILT on, and not what it has become. I say this because when I look at the American Flag, I feel pride. I say this because since September 11th, 2001, I still get choked up by the national anthem. I say this because I truely, in my heart and sole feel that it is my duty as an American to protect and preserve my rights and stand up for them in the face of tyrany, not just for myself, but for my wife and children, for those that have not the courage of ablity to do so and because it is what is right.

IF they ever attempt this, I can assure you, I will NOT back down and they will have to pry my firearms from my cold, dead hands.

 

[n1zfg]

Hmmmm....So, being void of a tin foil hat myself, (I found a balance between paranoia and preparedness), I'm left with a question - hypothetical of course. If say, the governor - backed by the legislature, decided to ban the sale and possession of all multiple-shot firearms and limited citizens of the Commonwealth to only own single shot firearms for hunting purposes only and that all citizens had to turn in all banned weapons to the local authorities, (ie: MSP) - are you saying you'd comply? Is the 2nd Amendment just too "silly" to martyr yourself for? Just curious.

I am not crazy enough to martyr myself. I also have enough invested that I wouldn't let them just take them away, or be forced to sell them to the state for some arbitrary pittance. Considering their success at keeping other currently "banned" items out of circulation, I'm not too worried. Yes I'd do something. Several plans come to mind. What that something specifically is, however, will require a tortuous effort to circumvent the fifth amendment on their part.

The only clue to one of my rough plans happens to be the fact that I have quite a few good friends and relatives living outside of MA, in pro-2A states.

 

[matt1956]

I am not crazy enough to martyr myself.

so are you saying that those that have the balls to stand up and fight agaist something like this are "crazy"? and it sounds to me that you are more concerned about your finacial loss then the loss of your freedom.

 

[drgrant]

One thing I should add here, it depends on the circumstances.

If MA comes for my guns (or makes any noises about doing
it) I'll simply opt out of that problem and not be here. I may have
to suffer financially to do it, but that's cheaper than getting shot
at. Only a handful of moonbat states would ever be able to get
away with such bans anyways. 75% of the US will still be
livable.

If the feds come for our guns, then at that point giving them
up willingly is essentially allowing our nation to be destroyed.

Without the inherent purpose and existence of freedom in the US,
our country is nothing. If guns are banned america is effectively
a lame duck and will lose its purpose of existence. It might as well
just sign itself into the EU at that point and declare itself as a
mediocre socialist state. The fact that we have freedom is
what sets us apart from nearly everyone else; losing that means
that the nation will die- well, at least it will be dead until the
next revolution.

-Mike

 

[Pilgrim]

Here's the Wiki entry on Australia. It's pretty interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

This is what the Left would strive for here, I'm sure.
From the Wiki link:

Current firearm laws in Australia

While the possession and use of firearms in Australia is governed by state laws, these were partly aligned by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (see below). Anyone in Australia wishing to buy, own, or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and be over the age of 18, although there are exceptions. In Queensland, unlicensed individuals may use firearms legally under the law if the proper forms are filled out beforehand. Minors can use, but not legally own firearms under a minors licence and with parental consent. Applicants for a firearms licence wishing to own a firearm must have a secure safe storage unit bolted to the wall or floor or have it weigh more than 150kg if it is used only for the storage of category A, B and C firearms.

For every firearm, a purchaser must obtain a Permit To Acquire. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. The law excludes self-defence as a reason for issuing a licence.

Firearms in Australia must each be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states (eg QLD and NSW) allow an owner to store or borrow another owner's firearm of the same category, while others do not (eg WA).

[edit] Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

* Category A: rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, paintball guns, and airsoft/soft air rifles (depending on State).

* Category B: centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901.
* Category C: semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. (Restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and professional sporting shooters can own working Category C firearms)

* Category D: semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action/semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds (Category D Firearms are restricted to occupational shooters [1].)

* Category H: handguns including air pistols, deactivated handguns and firearms not exceeding 65 cm in total length. Target shooters can acquire handguns of .38" calibre or less.

(Participants in "approved" competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is not "approved" for the larger calibres, for unstated reasons. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols, and magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handgun collectors are exempt from the laws stated above.)

* Category R: restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, .50-calibre BMG weapons, etc. (Collectors in some states only, weapons must be comprehensively deactivated. Deactivated firearms are still subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as 'live' firearms in many States.)

Antique firearms can in some states be legally bought, owned (and, in some states, used) without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

Single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms in all cases. Antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms require licenses in all states except Queensland and Victoria, where an individual may possess such a firearm without a license, so long as the firearm is registered.

Australia is unusual in restricting air pistols and airsoft pistols extremely heavily. Airsoft Firearms are legal in some states on a Category A licence, but only Bolt action Rifle airsoft firearms are legal for sale and ownership, and all airsoft firearms must have a unique Serial number that is registered with the state and federal government.

 

[Jay G]

For me, I don't think it would come down to a door-to-door confiscation. They won't need to do that.

*First it was full-autos - who can afford fully automatic weapons these days?

*Then cheap handguns

*Then "assault weapons" - I still can't believe they allowed it to sunset, and I FIRMLY believe that we *WILL* most certainly see a renewed AWB when Hillary! assumes the throne in 2009.

We'll see the death of a thousand cuts - hell, we're seeing it now - of increased ammo prices, increased regulations on ammo, "micro-stamping" bullshit, this whole "smartgun" crap.

They won't need to outlaw guns. They'll just push the smaller outfits out of business and then limit sales to LE only.

That said, *if* we saw a "Mr. and Mrs. Massachusetts, turn 'em in", I'd move to NH first.

 

[Joe R.]

One thing I should add here, it depends on the circumstances.

If MA comes for my guns (or makes any noises about doing
it) I'll simply opt out of that problem and not be here. I may have
to suffer financially to do it, but that's cheaper than getting shot
at. Only a handful of moonbat states would ever be able to get
away with such bans anyways. 75% of the US will still be
livable.

If the feds come for our guns, then at that point giving them
up willingly is essentially allowing our nation to be destroyed.

Without the inherent purpose and existence of freedom in the US,
our country is nothing. If guns are banned america is effectively
a lame duck and will lose its purpose of existence. It might as well
just sign itself into the EU at that point and declare itself as a
mediocre socialist state. The fact that we have freedom is
what sets us apart from nearly everyone else; losing that means
that the nation will die- well, at least it will be dead until the
next revolution.

-Mike

This is what I'm trying to get across! Big +1 Drgrant!


Joe R.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

You guys in Mass are half way there are you not?

Aren't you required to have a License to own firearms ?

IMHO thats the first step and then Confiscation would be next wouldn't it ?.

 

[MassMark]

This is what I'm trying to get across! Big +1 Drgrant!


Joe R.

Amen brother! And Joe - I don't think you're a "loon" at all.... Well, not really anyway... I was just waxing in the hypothetics...

It's too easy to guess what one would do in a given situation - (i.e: the yard and car invasion threads). I know where my passion is and on a state ban it would be in noncompliance. What level that would rise to would partially depend on the threat. My guess and hope is that the first step would be mass protest on Beacon Hill. I've done that before and it's kind of fun. Trouble is, even that level of resistance is hard to get people in the groove for, (been there done that). One person standing on the steps and protesting to the masses is a "maniac" - one thousand is a voice - ten thousand is a force to be reckoned with....I certainly would hope that those not fleeing the state would be out in the streets. I hope we never find out....

 

[drgrant]

*Then "assault weapons" - I still can't believe they allowed it to sunset, and I FIRMLY believe that we *WILL* most certainly see a renewed AWB when Hillary! assumes the throne in 2009.

A historical note about the AWB.... basically the sunset provision
was "political vaseline" to get the bill passed. Basically the
antis wanted to pass it so badly they felt they had to grease it
to get a majority vote. IMO passing the same or worse legislation
now is going to be a lot harder to justify; because the previous
AWB was marketed as a gun control "beta test" which everyone
knows did nothing. Of course the antis will come out
and argue that it wasn't strict enough; if they float another
AWB it will have to be stiffer than the old one, but the upshot of
that is a stiffer AWB has a smaller chance of passing.

-Mike

 

[KMaurer]

You guys in Mass are half way there are you not?

Aren't you required to have a License to own firearms ?

IMHO thats the first step and then Confiscation would be next wouldn't it ?.

Don't try to act too smug. At least I can legally own a whole bunch of guns here that I'd have to unload if I were to move back to California. (Somehow they turned into evil baby killers since I bought them in Santa Monica and Los Angeles, or so they tell me.) And remind me again exactly I apply for a non-resident carry permit when I visit my family who still live there? It must feel real good that the massa' trusts you enough to let you have a gun without a license, as long as you go through the DROS ritual and act like a good boy. Hope you didn't register any "assault weapons" after the original deadline, like the AG told you was ok to do.

Ken

 

[n1zfg]

so are you saying that those that have the balls to stand up and fight agaist something like this are "crazy"?

Being a martyr and standing up to fight against something like this are two different things. Martyrs tend to die for their causes.

Now to Quote the late George S. Patton:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

I'm not planning on being that "poor dumb bastard".
There are plenty of techniques and strategies that wiseguys around the globe use to forward their causes (if not line their pockets) that don't involve the fame and misfortune of being martyred. As for the "Cold Dead Hands" line, I hope they will only be able to pry some cheap toy placed there by friends while my body is still warm.

When they come knocking on my door and ask the question: "Where are your guns?" My answer will be short and simple "Gone. They are not here, and I now respectfully ask that you defer any further questioning until after I've consulted with an attorney."

and it sounds to me that you are more concerned about your finacial loss then the loss of your freedom.

First:
Everything I post here is effectively for the record, and may be accessible for years, if not decades.
Second:
It also isn't that hard to twist just about any non-financial reason into something that can be used to question my sanity or otherwise discredit me in an as-hominum attack.

Because of this, I'm not too keen on discussing any non-financial reason.

Besides, if they were easy to get or make (read cheap here), I wouldn't worry about replacing them.

 

[calsdad]

Door to door random searches is very unlikely. What is far more plausible:

- Limited amnesty period for turn in
- Severe mandatory sentences for illegal posession
- A non-discretionary arrest policy

Historically, the approach in the US has been grandfathering to avoid the issue of "compensation".

Canada had mandatory, uncompensated, turn in of some guns a few years ago. One Canadian citizen attempted to declare the value of the gun turned in as a "tax payment" as it represented value he was compelled to give to the crown. Although the other side never argued the case (they won on some other basis), the court none the less took the time to compliment the government on the merits of it's position.

I have read in numerous places that there was a high percentage of Canadian gun owners who simply never registered and "went underground" - you know bought lots of PVC tubing and shovels and stuff like that.

 

[drgrant]

I have read in numerous places that there was a high percentage of Canadian gun owners who simply never registered and "went underground" - you know bought lots of PVC tubing and shovels and stuff like that.

+1, wouldn't surprise me at all.

I bet that is a "dirty little secret" that the canadian government
doesn't want to let out on the street- that their gun control
program only netted a small portion of whatever guns were supposed
to be turned in. Without offering at least a bribe and
only a mostly empty threat of confiscation and prosecution, It
probably stands that only absolute milquetoasts ended up turning in
their "unlawful" firearms. Even if a bunch of these guns were
"registered" in some way, the amount of government resources
required to ensure that all "illegal" guns were confiscated or turned
in would be massive.

-Mike