1. Check out the Hot Deals section of the Marketplace forum to view and order an official Mossbergowners.com hat.

Registration = Confiscation

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by Scoop, Aug 6, 2017.

  1. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06

    Please post news or personal stories that demonstrate Registration = Confiscation.

    Most of us are aware of the most egregious cases such as Australia and the 2000 CA AG Bill Lockyer switcheroo on the Sporter rifles. We need to keep up with this. Help us out.

    State: New York

    Aug 4, 2017
    Source: NRA-ILA
    It had all the makings of a dystopian political thriller. Sheriff’s deputies unexpectedly descend onto the property of a law-abiding 70-year-old Vietnam veteran and insist they have a writ to seize his firearms. The document, however, is obviously flawed. Different Social Security numbers appear in different places. The man knows he’s never been in trouble with the law. And he had certainly never appeared before a judge on the issue of his firearm ownership. When he tries to point out the obvious mistake, he is ignored. All the police want to know is where his guns are.

    Thankfully, Don Hall of Talberg, N.Y., was not subject zero in a long-feared government round-up of civilian firearms. But his story – detailed in a lengthy article on the Syracuse.com website – is still a chilling and cautionary tale that underscores the dangers of firearm registration, antigun fanaticism, and laws that dispense with constitutional due process on the pretense of protecting “public safety.”

    Fortunately, Mr. Hall kept his head that night last February and did not overreact to a confusing and provocative situation. Instead, he contacted a lawyer the next day and began the arduous process of clearing his name and securing the return of his lawfully-owned and constitutionally protected property.

    According to the paperwork the deputies had shown Mr. Hall, he had been labeled as a “mental defective” and was therefore prohibited from owning firearms. Hall wracked his brain trying to figure out any possible basis for this finding, but there was simply none. He had never been treated for any mental health condition.

    On his attorney’s advice, Mr. Hall went from one local hospital to the next securing affidavits to prove he had never received mental health treatment. At one hospital where he had been treated for sleep apnea, he told the Syracuse.com, the records clerk “turned white as a ghost” when she realized they had incorrectly entered the Social Security number associated with his account.

    Finally, some two months later, Hall’s attorney was able to convince an Oneida County judge that his client was the victim of a bureaucratic misidentification. The judge ordered the guns returned, but even then, Hall was initially told he’d only get back his pistols, not his long guns. Fortunately, that further bureaucratic error was also corrected.

    The genesis of Don Hall’s trouble appears to be New York’s practice of cross-checking certain mental health records with firearms registrations. Hall had apparently been mistaken for another individual with a disqualifying metal health history. While the Syracuse.com article indicates the exact legal authority for the action taken against Hall remains unclear, at no time before his firearms were forcibly seized was he given a chance to answer the accusations against him.

    “I was guilty until I could prove myself innocent,” Hall told the reporter. "They don't tell you why or what you supposedly did.” His attorney agreed, stating, “To me, presumption of innocence is the foundation of our system, and this provision [allowing for seizures based on cross-matched records] doesn't allow for that.”

    Gun control advocates are increasingly pushing for laws that would allow authorities to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights based on unproven accusations or the inclusion of a person on some secret government list. These types of regulations turn constitutional due process on its head by forcing Americans to prove their innocence after adverse action has already been taken against them based on evidence they were never given a chance to contest.

    While Don Hall eventually got back his firearms, he had to spend considerable time and money to establish his innocence, and none of the entities or officials involved are taking responsibility for the mistakes that led to the seizure, much less offering to compensate him for his efforts and trouble. And for every person like Don Hall with the means and determination to challenge arbitrary and unjustified government action, there are surely many more who will simply cut their losses without putting up a fight.

    Which all just goes to show that when it comes to antigun fanaticism, trampling the rights of the innocent has always been the cost of doing business
  2. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06


    Aug 1, 2017
    Source: NRA-ILA

    Today, the Office of Administrative Law officially approved DOJ’s proposed “bullet-button assault weapon” regulations. These regulations are a result of the enactment of Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 signed into law in 2016, both of which classify certain firearms required to be equipped with “bullet buttons” as “assault weapons” under California law.

    Pursuant to this change in the law, individuals who currently own firearms now classified as “assault weapons” have until July 1, 2018 to either register the firearm with the California Department of Justice or modify the firearm so it does not meet the new definition of “assault weapon.”

    As reported previously, DOJ’s prior attempt at burdensome and unnecessary regulations was denied by the Office of Administrative Law after the NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a comprehensive opposition letter, which point-by-point dismantled DOJ’s arguments in support of its regulations. The approved regulations lacked any substantive changes from the previously denied regulations. At this very moment, NRA and CRPA attorneys are finalizing a lawsuit which will challenge these regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act.

    Please continue to check your inbox and the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.
  3. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06


    Aug 2, 2017
    Source: NRA-ILA <---- For more on this see here.

    Most media savvy gun control advocates try to insist that nobody wants to ban guns in America and that anybody who says otherwise is either paranoid or guilty of fear-mongering.

    According to a lawsuit filed in a Michigan federal court, however, anti-gun bureaucrats at the state’s Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) are subjecting gun-owing adoptive and foster parents to a stark choice: their Second Amendment rights or their kids.

    The complaint quotes the judge as stating, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.” Likewise, the Johnsons claim, MDHHS caseworkers told them “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.”

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include William Johnson, a disabled veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and his wife, Jill. The Johnsons were asked by the state to serve as foster parents for their grandson.

    According to the complaint, when the Johnsons arrived to pick up the child at a MDHHS facility, William (a Michigan concealed carry licensee) was searched and ordered to produce his concealed carry license, even though he wasn’t carrying a gun.It also says he was told by caseworkers he would have to provide them with the serial numbers of all of his guns.

    The complaint alleges that both MDHHS caseworkers and a judge involved with the placement told the Johnsons that as a condition of fostering the child, they’d have to surrender certain constitutional rights, including the right to have an accessible, loaded firearm inside or outside of their home.

    The complaint quotes the judge as stating, “We know we are violating numerous constitutional rights here, but if you do not comply, we will remove the boy from your home.” Likewise, the Johnsons claim, MDHHS caseworkers told them “there would not be a power struggle, that they would just take his grandson and place him in a foster home.”
  4. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    I hope he sues and bankrupts the entire state of Michigan.

    Even the purchase of hunting licenses would be forfeited to the Johnsons and the state to be forced to even sell their copy paper, staples and paperclips to have to pay the bill, just like what would happen if the Johnsons stopped paying their taxes.
  5. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Moderator Supporter

  6. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06

    New York State

    Jan 27, 2000
    Source: NRA-ILA

    Advocates of "gun control" desire gun prohibition, despite claiming that every "gun control" measure they support is merely a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens to shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime. Anyone inclined to trust these claims would be wise to study the history of firearms registration in New York City.

    In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it. The fee was set at $3.

    City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, solemnly promised that the $3 fee would never be raised, but that the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law. Seeking to allay firearms owners` fear of registration, the firearms-prohibitionist New York Times editorially vowed the bill "would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons."

    Interestingly, just after the bill became law, another New York Times editorial entitled "Encouraging Rifle Registration," opposed Mayor Lindsay`s proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10, or to $25 as he had originally proposed. The Times for December 16, 1967, expressed concern that "too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety."

    Notice the expression "right off the bat." What about later on? Well, today, the fee is $55, an increase of over 1,700%!

    Most significantly, just before the rifle-shotgun bill became law in 1967, Vincent L. Broderick, a former New York City police commissioner who was later awarded a federal judgeship, testified at a city council committee hearing on the bill that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong." According to Broderick, that philosophy assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles." Broderick then added: "There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted." This was all reported in the New York Times for October 17, 1967. How prophetic!

    In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns -- namely, certain imitation or look-alike assault firearms (New York City Administrative Code, Sec. 10-303.1). The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm -- and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown`s testimony that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city.

    The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

    The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.

    The NYPD has reported that the majority of these previously-registered imitation assault firearms -- 2,615 out of 3,360 -- have been taken out of the city. In addition, the department`s deputy commissioner of legal matters, Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News: "for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned."

    This deplorable New York City saga shows that those of us who had opposed the concept of registration back in 1967, and were labeled "paranoid," were not only not paranoid but also not impractical. For the New York City story quite vividly shows the nationwide plan abart to destroy the civil right and liberty to keep arms, guaranteed by the Second Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, notably the Ninth Amendment.

    The plan is now obvious to all who would see: First Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law. Second Step, when the waiting period doesn`t reduce crime, and it won`t, then enact a nationwide registration law. Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.

    [Thanx to @Water Monkey for bringing this to my attention.
    If any others find R=C articles or information please post it here
    or send a link and I'll excerpt the appropriate material.]

  7. Djcala

    Djcala .30-06 Supporter

    Since the tragic boating accident and loss of all my prized firearms in the gulf i find 80%s a fun creative endeavor.
  8. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06

    I've always been mystified why so many of us shooters are such careless boaters.
  9. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06


    Sep 29, 2017
    Source: NRA-ILA

    In 1992, the government of New South Wales (the most populous Australian state) enacted the “Firearms Legislation (Amendment) Act 1992.” Under the law, gun owners were required to express a “genuine reason” for possessing a firearm. In pamphlets and newspaper advertisements explaining the new measure, the NSW government proclaimed, “Personal protection is no reason to have a gun.” Four years later, Australia’s states and territories put in place the National Firearms Agreement, which resolved that in every jurisdiction “personal protection [shall] not be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.”

    Australians cannot acquire firearms in anticipation of using them in self-defense. However, a recent incident from NSW suggests that officials will not even tolerate citizens using firearms lawfully possessed for other purposes for self-defense when confronted with severe danger.

    At 3 a.m. on September 14, David Dunstan was alerted to a suspicious noise on his Bungowannah, NSW farm where he lives with his wife and three children. When he went outside his house to investigate the disturbance, Dunston came upon a man armed with a piece of wood and a knife.

    Concerned for his family’s safety, Dunstan, a licensed gun owner, retrieved a .22-caliber rifle from a locked gun cabinet, and without loading it, confronted the trespasser. Describing his mindset to the Herald Sun, Dunstan said, “I went into protection mode ... I yelled out to Andrea (his wife) to get the key to the gun cupboard.” Dunstan then used the unloaded rifle to detain the knife-wielding man until police could arrive. Police later determined that the trespasser had attempted to enter a child’s bedroom at another home before going to the Dunstan property.

    Had this defensive gun use happened in the U.S., Dunstan’s heroic actions would have likely elicited praise from the police and been celebrated in the American Rifleman’s Armed Citizen column. Instead, the NSW resident has become the target of government scrutiny.

    When law enforcement came to Dunstan’s farm to investigate the incident, police confiscated the rifle he used to defend his family, along with two others. Upset, Dunstan told the Herald Sun, “What are you supposed to do if someone was breaking into your house… I don’t know what, as a law-abiding citizen of Australia, we’re supposed to do?” Dunston went on to say, “The police have handled this the wrong way (and) I can’t get an answer out of them.”

    Lamenting the lack of respect for armed self-defense in Australia, Dunstan told Yahoo7 News, “You go and break into someone’s house you can be expected to either get arrested, shot or you could be maybe killed… And until that happens this sort of stuff keeps going on.”

    Gun rights advocate and Liberal Democratic Senator for New South Wales David Leyonhjelm has come to Dunstan’s defense. In an interview with Yahoo7 News, Sen. Leyonhjelm said, “Dave was defending his family against a threat. He did what any normal father would do.”

    Speaking with the Border Mail, Dunstan remarked, “I just don’t know what I should have done, what would have been the right way to do it.” Sadly, in the Land Down Under there doesn’t seem to be a “right way” for the law-abiding to fight back against criminal violence.
    Please post news or personal stories that demonstrate Registration = Confiscation or send a link and I'll excerpt the appropriate material.
  10. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Stupid Australian politicians.

    I hope they get targeted first. See how long that law stays on the books.

    If not allowed to use them for defense, the Aussies should start using them for offense.
  11. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Well fortunately for Australia they're never going to have to worry about being invaded by another country and having to defend themselves from foreigners.

    That's because the Americans will all still have guns and we will go to their aid and help them out.

    I just hope they're not too embarrassed about it all after the fact.
  12. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    CaddmannQ likes this.
  13. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Moderator

    Just to go on record, I would never give anyone a gun under the same circumstances. I don't agree with the basis of not allowing anyone to have certain things, nor denying them the basic right to defend themselves or their homes.

    I don't have anything specifically against them personally, but if they allow themselves to live in those conditions and roll over and accept it, then they'll roll over and accept whatever happens to them because of it.

    Actions have consequences.

    As does inaction.
    meanstreak likes this.
  14. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Defense is about what you do before there is a threat. You don't go about your business hoping and praying and dreaming that there will be no threat, & expecting that you can suddenly arm yourself effectively should one arise.

    Of course, should trouble arise you'll have to rely on the UN Blue Hats. Not having a well established militia and all.

    IMO You don't train an Army to shoot overnight. There are lots of exceptions but in general good Shooters learn to do it as children. It becomes like a natural function. Like riding a bike you just never forget.

    I only shoot well now because I learned to do it as a child. Of course country folks pretty much all still do this.

    I hate to think what would happen if this current crop of limp-wristed urban hipsters had to defend the nation.
    meanstreak likes this.
  15. Scoop

    Scoop .30-06

    Note that this is 11 years old [Feb 2008]. I was cleaning out emails decades old when I ran across it. Scoop.

    2,885 gun owners turning in firearm licenses after uproar over Sasebo rampage



    Gun owners are turning in their licenses for thousands of weapons following public outrage over a shooting incident at a sports club in Nagasaki Prefecture last December that left two people dead, the National Police Agency said Thursday.
    The NPA said a total of 2,885 gun owners have opted to return their licenses for 4,467 weapons and have either sold or disposed of the guns.

    Of the total, 90 gun owners who had come to the attention of the police for instances of stalking or being violent toward their wives and other people close to them were told to turn in their weapons. The number of weapons in these cases totaled 145.

    In 2006, police ordered 58 people to surrender their gun licenses under such circumstances.

    The remainder are surrendering the licenses voluntarily. They have either sold or destroyed the guns and provided proof to police that the sale or destruction has been carried out.

    Gun owners have been flocking to shooting ranges and buying safes to store their firearms in order to comply with police checks that have been conducted nationwide since the Sasebo shooting.

    Last Dec. 14, Masayoshi Magome, a 37-year-old licensed gun owner, went on a rampage at a gym in Sasebo, killing two people and injuring several others.

    Magome later turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

    [This is the part that really gets me! Scoop.]


    The uproar over the shooting led police to require all 157,000 licensed gun owners nationwide to appear at their local police stations. Among licensed gun holders, some 326,000 guns were in circulation.

    Police questioned them about how they store their weapons and what they plan to use the guns for.


    By the end of January, police had checked about 66,000 people, or 40 percent of the total, who own 134,000 guns.

    Police will finish checking the remaining 60 percent of all gun owners by the end of March.

    In 2007, 22 people were shot and killed, a sharp rise from two the previous year, according to a separate NPA report.

    It was the first time in four years that the figure had increased.

    Ten citizens and police officers were killed and 13 injured by guns in 2007. The figures exclude gang members or people connected with gangs. The corresponding figure for those killed or injured was 11 in the previous year.

    "Gang-related gun battles occurred one after the other," an NPA officer said. "In addition, the number of citizens and police officers fatally shot or injured rose because of heinous crimes."

    Last year, 12 gun crimes arose that involved rival yakuza gangs. Several occurred when the Kobe-based Yamaguchi-gumi attempted to move into the Tokyo area, and others involved a rift in the Dojinkai gang based in Kyushu.

    In April, Iccho Itoh, then mayor of Nagasaki, was shot and killed by a gang leader.

    In 2007, 66 gun-related crimes occurred in Japan, up from 53 the previous year. It was the first increase in six years. Forty people were killed or injured in the incidents, more than double the 19 in 2006 and the first increase in four years.

    A total of 347 incidents involved guns, including murders and robberies, up from 325 in 2006 and the first increase in three years.

    In 2007, police seized 548 guns, a 20 percent rise from a year earlier.(IHT/Asahi: February 8,2008)
    meanstreak and John A. like this.
  16. Bobster

    Bobster .30-06 Supporter

    Isn't Japan a "gun-free" zone now?

Share This Page