Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation – Updated 2019 Edition

This essay was first written 19 years ago, in 2000. I have expanded, edited, and updated it.

Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation - Updated 2019 Edition
Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation – Updated 2019 Edition

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- The holy grail of those who wish us disarmed is gun registration. Once your guns are required to be registered, they are, in effect, already confiscated. A little thought will reveal to you why this is so.

The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly.

The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britain, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for prosecution. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice, filing a false report, or perhaps a newly created crime for “gun criminals.”

Once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them, a truism, but necessary to state the case clearly.

If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun will put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, in Maryland and Connecticut, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration.

If you choose this course of action, you would be at the mercy of any informant who discovers you possess a gun illegally. Children are being trained in public schools to inform authorities if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal.

Social media is being used to find gun owners. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self-defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. Any use of the now illegal gun will risk exposure, confiscation, arrest, and other penalties. With digital recording devices in nearly every pocket, in most businesses and homes, this becomes a serious threat. This essay explains how it could work.

New Zealand passed a ban on whole classes of guns recently. There has been massive non-compliance. The proponents of the ban admit gun registration is necessary to effectively confiscate the banned guns. Those pushing disarmament are now pushing for mandatory gun registration.

The theory to produce gradual disarmament is to slowly destroy the gun culture by administratively reducing the number of people who legally own guns. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.

The practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to incrementally tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action, the remaining legal guns can be confiscated with little political cost. The purpose is not to reduce the number of guns, precisely. It is to reduce the number of legal gun owners, to make sure all those who have guns are politically reliable. All societies have some gun owners. The political elite can always obtain guns. The political elite in San Francisco considers the National Rifle Association to be a terrorist organization32% of Democrats agree with them.

Gun registration has proven ineffective in reducing crime. Those who wish us disarmed often cite European countries' crime rates. But crime rates in European countries were low before gun registration was implemented.  The did not change much, up or down with gun registration. Under registration systems, crime may increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime-fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self-defense will be reduced. There is no relationship between legal gun ownership, illegal gun ownership, and violent crime.

Self-defense is never acknowledged by those who wish us disarmed because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. In those groups, it is a crime speak to admit the utility of guns for self-defense. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.

There have been three significant attempts to require gun registration in the United States. The first attempt was during the regime of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). In the original bill, all handguns were to have been registered, with a $200 ($3,800 in today's dollars) federal tax. The provision was defeated by the NRA.  FDR got the booby prize of requiring registration of a few seldom used or owned firearms and accessories. The people were saddled with the ineffective National Firearms Act of 1934, which registered machine guns, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and silencers.

The second attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968. Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) tried to pass a bill requiring all handguns to be registered. It was opposed by the NRA, and the registration requirement taken from the bill. As a compromise, Congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license. Purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data.

The third, ongoing, scheme was initiated in 1994. Congress passed the Brady Bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five-day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an “instant check” before taking possession.

Two safeguards were built into the bill to ensure it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI is forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow the purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since gun owners could sell their firearm without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed. Effective gun confiscation was prevented.

Both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law.  Their refusal was struck down in court. There is an ongoing campaign to eliminate the other safeguard, private sales.  The campaign has been pushed as a requirement for “universal” background checks. Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, universal registration comes from making those records permanent. The final step is to make possession of a gun that is *not* registered illegally.

Particularly troubling is the emphasis on guns seldom used in a crime, but which are very useful in militias. Groups who promised they only wished to limit handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines.

Many models of guns which are rarely used in a crime, are now required to be registered, or illegal for people to own, in some states.  Those laws are being challenged in court.

This desire to remove power from the people is reflected in the push to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 BMG caliber rifles. The authors of the legislation don't claim these guns are significant in crime.

Only one homicide in the United States appears to have been committed with a .50 caliber rifle, in the case of Adam Wickizer, in Moosic, Pennsylvania. The case likely involved a muzzle-loading rifle, not a .50 BMG caliber. The murderer was a convicted felon. Articles about the case do not identify the rifle.

The people who want to ban .50BMG caliber rifles wish to ban them because they have military purposes.  One argument frequently heard by those pushing for gun registration, is to ban “weapons of war.”

The most explicit reason for the Second Amendment is to ensure the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. It is stated in the present participle of the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,”   The people are to have the right to keep and bear arms, in part so that they can form militias. The Republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state they fear military power in the hands of the people. Gun registration is advocated by people who want the power of government to be unlimited.

The only practical effect of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when politicians feel the necessity to disarm citizens to further the politicians' control, consolidate their, power, or prevent insurrection.

Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people and have earned the people's distrust.


About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 35
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    9 Comment threads
    26 Thread replies
    1 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    18 Comment authors
    Will FlattWild BillCapn DadRoyDWill Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Capn Dad
    Member
    Capn Dad

    Bet that 16 the cop is holding wound up in the cops safe at home.

    Oldman
    Member
    Oldman

    FBI is forbidden? I’m dumb, but not plum dumb. The FBI and the ATF need a complete overhaul, and then be monitored by a citizens watchdog committee. Constitutionalists, of course

    Will
    Member
    Will

    The ATF needs to be abolished.

    RoyD
    Member
    RoyD

    I have thought that for 47 years.

    G-man
    Member
    G-man

    If it comes to that a giant push back will be in order and no honoring the unconstitutional law to . Either a massive e mail or mass demonstration will be needed and if that doesn’t work it will be time to pick up arms ,which is perfectly legal according to the constitution

    jack mac
    Member
    jack mac

    So, we have a law that forbids national registration, but all of the FFL dealers out of business must send all records to the National Tracing Center. I just read on the ATF web site that an average of 1.2 million records are received per month. Having us believe that there is no registration in progress shows the disdain the government has for the people, not distrust. Our government is past having to trust us. The odds of winning in courts is less the the odds stacked against gamblers in a crooked casino. The odds of losing all one’s assets… Read more »

    tomcat
    Member
    tomcat

    Its following the progress of Orwell’s 1984, big brother is trying to control your every move. Anytime a politician opens his pie hole and says anything about gun restrictions it is time to get him or her the hell out of office. The only way we can do that is to be sure to vote. If we don’t band together and show up at the polls we are the ones at fault for these want to be rulers. We have the number of gun owners to do the job but incentive has to be there.

    Circle8
    Member
    Circle8

    Registration and confiscation go hand in hand. Ask any democrat, liberal or politician.

    JPM
    Member
    JPM

    Decades ago in California, they passed the first of many “Assault Weapons” ban. The residents had 30 or 90 days, I’m not sure of exact details, to turn them in or they would be classified as felons. After the time elapsed, the estimate was that there were over 50,000 new felons in the state, all armed with the dreaded “Assault Weapons”. The powers that be, in California, yes, California, could not find enough LEOs foolish enough to be willing to go door to door to make felony arrests of 50,000 assault weapon armed “criminals”, basically the equivalent of joining a… Read more »

    Heed the Call-up
    Member
    Heed the Call-up

    We have more current examples in New York and Connecticut – similar results, very low compliance, just a few percent – and no way to enforce it. You can’t arrest those in non-compliance without knowing who they are. Also, prohibited people are not required to register, since it is against their 5th amendment right of self-incrimination. So once a person fails to register, they are felons and no longer are legally required to register. Self-defeating law.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @JPM, I remember that! I was on Venice Blvd, heading west, stopped at the light at PCH, when I heard Communistfornia’s plain jane radio ad about turning in so called assault rifles, of sending them out of state. I sent my to a gunsmith in Texas for a new Lothar-Walther barrel and a bedded stoke so that my rifle would not offend the CA statute. He said it would be a while. I told him to take all the time that he needed.

    Bowserb46
    Member
    Bowserb46

    On the matter of objections to “weapons of war,” it worth noting the remarks from the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller (1939). The court determined that the 2nd Amendment applies to firearms suitable for use by a militia–and that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. In other words the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms suitable for military use. As to guns not in existence at the time of adoption of the… Read more »

    Heed the Call-up
    Member
    Heed the Call-up

    Yes, the 1939 decision did uphold the RKBA for military weapons. However, what they got wrong was in determining that a SBS (short-barreled shotgun, aka sawed-off shotgun) had no military benefit or usage. I know of at least several former military members that disagree with that assessment. I know this because it was a topic of discussion (the 1939 court decision).

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @Bowser and Heed, Quite correct, grouchy, old, womanizing McReynolds did not know zip about firearms, ambush tactics, or door breaching techniques. But he did know about the role of the militia and who all the militia consists of.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    If they demand registration, that will be the line of death where American patriots will have to shoot back!!

    Witold Pilecki
    Member

    That’s where those of us in Kommiecticut that participate in Armed Civil Disobedience are right now….ready to shoot the oath-breaking confiscation goons if they kick down our doors.

    Bowserb46
    Member
    Bowserb46

    Sadly, the goons are also willing to shoot us, and that story will never be reported in the state controlled news. Since the Supreme Court determined that the police have no obligation to protect citizens, and now they’re empowered to kill citizens, it is becoming harder and harder to have blind respect for law enforcement. Could the BLM people be right (by accident only, as they’re not smart enough to be right thanks to analysis of the facts.)

    24and7
    Member
    24and7

    Only a percentage of the goons want to shoot us though.. law enforcement can only police a majority that wants law enforcement.. law enforcement cannot handle asymmetrical Warfare and they know this.. there would be no clearly defined enemy or rules of Engagement.. not to mention law enforcement cannot handle a breakdown in morale that they would face..the same with our military.. a breakdown in military morale would cause a breakdown within the ranks.. that would lead to desertion and sabotage.. the only type of force they can confiscate guns would be Millions a foreign military members.. and they would… Read more »

    Will Flatt
    Member

    Right… the best the tyrants could hope for is to bring in UN peacekeepers, and the minute they do that, ALL of America will turn on them & support the insurgency!!

    Tionico
    Member
    Tionico

    those bright bluebowls they put on their heads are certainly easy to see, even from a long ways away.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @WF, Most UN forces are not very good, unless they are Brits, Frogs, Canucs, or Krauts.
    If I am looking through the spotting scope at Pakis, I’ll bring the local Boy Scout Troop. If I am getting reports about Brits wearing blue helmets, I’m going drone bombs, ambushes, IEDs, and water, elec, and food denial ops.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    If the commiecrats call the UN, China will likely answer that call. They are holding entirely way too much Federal Reserve debt & they won’t stand by and watch America circle the drain in a civil war, without getting something in exchange for all the promissory notes our politicians have been shoving into their hands. Those slant-eyed bass turds will likely be brutal, if nothing else. That means we’re gonna have to get medieval on them!!

    RoyD
    Member
    RoyD

    That would mean putting my blueberry barrel back on its receiver. Good thing it is a Savage.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @31 Yes, only a percentage of the goons want to shoot us, and that percentage will get a lot smaller when we shoot back. I like your reference to asymmetrical warfare. I would not wait for them to come to me. The Jim Bowie defense is a thing of the past.
    Give your self and your families half a chance … get out of the cities.

    jack mac
    Member
    jack mac

    46, the state does not control our news. The few people who own the news control the state. We still have some control of our state, but no control of the news.

    Will Flatt
    Member

    Jack, you never heard of the phrase “The revolution will not be televised”?? Those who own the media are simply in league with the tyrants in government. One doesn’t control the other, per se. Read H.G. Wells’ “The Open Conspiracy”.

    jack mac
    Member
    jack mac

    Will, thanks for your comment. I upvote most of yours as this one. Many people view H.G. Wells’ writings as a guide instead of a warning. The media and government are in league. The owners of the media are able to be so because they control most of our nation’s wealth. Those who desire tyrannical control are amongst these owners. Our elected rely on these owners for financial and favorable media support. Rely to the point of becoming puppets. During political unrest, as now without it, the media and its in league broadcast what is in their favor. If nothing… Read more »

    Will Flatt
    Member

    Thanks for your support and I’ll definitely keep it coming. I wonder though how many people know that H.G. Wells was the opposite of George Orwell? H.G. Wells was a strong globalist and more than just his fiction reflected that. His nonfiction, while not as famous, no doubt influenced a generation of globalists.

    PBCSolutions
    Member
    PBCSolutions

    There will be no line in the sand, no kicking down of doors. LEOs are not stupid nor do they have a death wish. It will probably play out quietly, once we’re on the list, sometime when you’re leaving work or church or the supermarket, one or two unmarked will quietly approach you, disarm you, detain you, and take you back to your house where you will comply with the “voluntary” surrender of your firearms. If you resist in any way, they will simply cuff and stuff you and remove your guns while you’re sitting in a jail cell.

    24and7
    Member
    24and7

    It will never happen..period.. but just in case it does when they release me I have a stash they don’t know about..and its on then..

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @PBC, Some might not like your message, but it is true.

    Stuck in Commie Ct
    Member
    Stuck in Commie Ct

    I am in the same boat, being a Law abiding citizen the thought of an illegal entry via a no knock warrant is insane! I’m scared and waiting for it to happen. I don’t want to fire on police but if my door gets kicked down in the middle of the night and they don’t announce themselves as law enforcement I have the right to shoot to kill as we do have the castle doctrine. Now if something like this did happen I do realize and highly doubt I’ll be alive after the illegal entry into my home but maybe… Read more »

    24and7
    Member
    24and7

    If the word gets out they are taking guns by force.. people will not wait for it to happen.. the police will not be safe 24 hours a day 7 days a week.. they will be targeted in every facet of their life without or with a uniform on their body..with their families.. and so will members of the military.. that is why you will have a tremendous amount of desertion and dissension in the ranks.. you will not be able to maintain morale or good discipline.. the entire law enforcement and Military infrastructure would collapse under its own weight

    Heed the Call-up
    Member
    Heed the Call-up

    The right of self-defense precludes “shooting to kill”, aka murder. You do have the right to shoot to neutralize the threat. Expiration of the assailant isn’t the goal, but it can be the result. Just as you stated you would also run the risk of dying, which is the legal reason for your use of force for self-defense – the threat of great bodily harm or death.

    Wild Bill
    Member
    Wild Bill

    @SiCC, Quietly sell, move to the country, get perimeter dense, get dogs, and adjust your verbiage.