TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.

Hey, the Feds can't get confiscation passed, may as well get the states to do their work. Same end result.

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.

Hey, the Feds can't get confiscation passed, may as well get the states to do their work. Same end result.

My bet is that they wouldn't see it that way. Those forms represent power, power is something obama understands at an instinctual level. They will NOT delegate power without a fight. But we can agree to disagree.

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.

Hey, the Feds can't get confiscation passed, may as well get the states to do their work. Same end result.

My bet is that they wouldn't see it that way. Those forms represent power, power is something obama understands at an instinctual level. They will NOT delegate power without a fight. But we can agree to disagree.

I'm thinking we might not have long to wait.

anygunanywhere wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.


Edited for clarity

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

Are they going to demand from all gun dealers in the state a list of all "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” sold in the state since (let’s say) 1963? Are they going to search your house for the AR you told them you sold ten years ago? Are they going to start mass warrantless searches?

I am not even going to address the fallout the state would have to deal with from the bloodshed that would surely happen if they tried this.

No, the state completely misjudged the reaction of the people to their “law” and now the best thing they can do is try to pretend it never happened and move on with another tactic.

All they have to do is first confiscate all the 4473s from the dealers.

Game on.

Confiscate all the 4473s from the dealers going back to 1963?

What are they going to do if you tell them you sold it in 1970? You are not required to keep records.

That still leaves that pesky little constitutional requirement that they get a warrant to search your house if they think you are lying.

That could add up to 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000. http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-10/ ... ration-law" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With all the new gun laws coming out in Connecticut I can’t help wonder how much more the good people of the state will tolerate.

Malloy and his boy toy Lawlor have no regard for anything having to do with rights. When the time comes for them to act against the felons (constitutionally protected ex-lawful gun owners) they will get a "warrant" and send in a 50 man state police SWAt team on a no knock raid on a selected victim to set an example.

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

People keep envisioning the whole police state, house-to-house searches and confiscation, and decide it is hard to see any city, county, state, or federal body politic who would do this. Therefore the threat does not seem as apparent or present.

They do not need to confiscate these to totally destroy our right to keep and bear these arms. The current law simply makes them 100% unusable for any purpose.

So-called unregistered "assault" rifles in Connecticut right now are in the same category as someone with an unregistered NFA item, like a WWII Thompson inherited from grandpa.

They may have it sitting somewhere in their house, but it is entirely useless:

• They can never take it to the range and shoot it for fear of arrest.
• They cannot safely transport it in a vehicle for fear of arrest ("Sir, I stopped you because your license plate light is burned out . . . .").
• They cannot use it in self defense to shoot a home invader for fear of arrest.
• They cannot legally bequeath it or transfer it to their children.
• They cannot legally sell it.
• They cannot show it to a friend who is interested in guns for fear of arrest.

Why would the government bother to rile up the serfs by going door to door? They simply are playing a version of whack-a-mole. Whenever evidence of an unregistered "assault" rifle pops up, the government promptly makes a very public and scary example of that non-compliant serf. Soon the rest of the village gets the message.

None of that is necessarily true for confiscation in only one, or a few states. Move the gun, or yourself, to a more friendly state. Then you can shoot it, sell it, use for self defense, etcetera.

Jumping Frog wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

People keep envisioning the whole police state, house-to-house searches and confiscation, and decide it is hard to see any city, county, state, or federal body politic who would do this. Therefore the threat does not seem as apparent or present.

They do not need to confiscate these to totally destroy our right to keep and bear these arms. The current law simply makes them 100% unusable for any purpose.

So-called unregistered "assault" rifles in Connecticut right now are in the same category as someone with an unregistered NFA item, like a WWII Thompson inherited from grandpa.

They may have it sitting somewhere in their house, but it is entirely useless:

• They can never take it to the range and shoot it for fear of arrest.
• They cannot safely transport it in a vehicle for fear of arrest ("Sir, I stopped you because your license plate light is burned out . . . .").
• They cannot use it in self defense to shoot a home invader for fear of arrest.
• They cannot legally bequeath it or transfer it to their children.
• They cannot legally sell it.
• They cannot show it to a friend who is interested in guns for fear of arrest.

Why would the government bother to rile up the serfs by going door to door? They simply are playing a version of whack-a-mole. Whenever evidence of an unregistered "assault" rifle pops up, the government promptly makes a very public and scary example of that non-compliant serf. Soon the rest of the village gets the message.

Depends on where you live I think --as to how many of these points apply. How would someone at the range know your gun isn't registered? But there's always private property, so I think some people could still shoot it....maybe not use it in self-defense, for now.

NY Times article on gun control tactics
The New York Times: Gun Control Can Win at the State Level.

http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw3-v03xo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some interesting comments about the recent recall election in Colorado.

VMI77 wrote: Depends on where you live I think --as to how many of these points apply. How would someone at the range know your gun isn't registered? But there's always private property, so I think some people could still shoot it....maybe not use it in self-defense, for now.

They'd require that you present your registration when you show up.
Or demand to see paperwork, like some ranges do when they see a firearm with a suppressor..

Why would they do that? Because law enforcement can make it difficult if they don't. In Austin, leases to gun shows were being pulled because APD cited a few bad apples (private sales)... They put liability on the property owners if they didn't go along with the program, indicating that they were facilitating.


That being said, I don't think we're see gun confiscation in my lifetime or in my kids lifetimes... Then again, I'd have zero interest in owning an AR if there wasn't a massive move to ban them at one time.

Another use for an illegal gun is highlighted in the thread about the child abuse in the UK. When the law makes doing the right thing criminal then the law is irrelevant. If you're saving your children from a gang of pedophiles the fact that the gun you use is illegal is also irrelevant.

I agree no confiscation is imminent or likely. In fact, I'm increasingly inclined to believe that the consequences to the people from our corrupt and lawless government is likely to set the gun grabbers back a hundred years.

Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

equin wrote:Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

The cannot confiscate legally owned property, it would be part of the estate.

Beiruty wrote:

equin wrote:Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

The cannot confiscate legally owned property, it would be part of the estate.

They can and do. Illegally.

Beiruty wrote:

equin wrote:Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

The cannot confiscate legally owned property, it would be part of the estate.

That's what I would argue as the administrator of the estate, that it's an asset with value that belongs to the estate and cannot be seized without due process. But I'm not an estate or firearms law expert so I don't know.