that there’s no reason to fear registration leading to confiscation because there’s no precedent for it in this country. they don’t confiscate registered weapons in california or anywhere else in the usa. the fact that registration may have preceded california’s gun bans is what’s confusing you. since the government is not confiscating any registered guns, then it follows that registration was not used to enact or implement the ban. in fact, those who registered their assault weapons are the only ones allowed to keep them, so if anything it prevents confiscation in the event of a ban. therefore, the argument that registration leads to confiscation is false and has no place in a rational debate.
Registration does not need to lead to confiscation. Registration can prevent ownership in the first place.
I suggest that instead of gun registration, we have speech registration. If you want to say something that could, possibly, harm another, you have to file form 10476-a-1956 and present it, in triplicate to an officer of the speech departmetnt who will decide if you are worthy to say what you want to. If they agree that what you say is not harmful, it will be reviewed by a comittee of 5 who will make a recomendation to the Speech Court, who will, if a quorum exists, vote one granting you a speech license. Such hearings will be held on the fourth friday of February on leap years, but only if Easter falls on a Monday. The aplicant must be present at the court which will take place in Juno, Alaska… or Borneo.
Quote Zwaldd
in fact, those who registered their assault weapons are the only ones allowed to keep them, so if anything it prevents confiscation in the event of a ban. therefore, the argument that registration leads to confiscation is false and has no place in a rational debate.
Hey bunky
Read what you just said.
They are also the only ones allowed to have them.And when they die???
Now for your benefit I will now Quote the definition of ban.
Quote Websters
ban (ban)1. to prohibit: forbid. 2 [Arcahic] to curse; condemn.
n. 1.a condemnation by church authorities. 2 a curse. 3.a formal or authoritive prohibition. 4.a sentence of outlawry.
Now just in case you do not see (oh why do I bother) the significance in that definition here is the definition for prohibit
Quote Websters
prohibit
- to forbid, as by law. 2. to prevent; hinder
Seems to me they both apply.
justwannano
the guns aren’t confiscated, if that’s what you’re implying. while the faq you quoted gives a 90 day window to comply with the law, there’s no indication that failure to comply will result in a government agent knocking at your door and requesting you hand over the gun. remember, the argument is that if guns are registered and then banned, officials will use the registry to go around confiscating banned guns. that has simply not happened in this country. i acknowlege that california has some crappy gun ban laws, apparently geared towards completely removing assault weapons from their state. however, the only part registration seems to play is to allow previous owners of banned guns to keep their guns.
and why do you keep calling me ‘bunky’? is that supposed to be an insult? a term of endearment? what?
Well zwaldd I knew you wern’t reading the posts. You are simply argueing wording.
Quote cal law
- Can I inherit and keep a registered assault weapon?
No. Pursuant to California Penal Code section 12285(b), any person who obtains title to a registered assault weapon by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer who has a permit from the Department of Justice to purchase assault weapons, obtain a permit from the Department of Justice to possess assault weapons, or remove the weapon from this state.
Gee Zwaldd if you cannot register a weapon any more how can you own one. Sounds like a ban to me.
Quote Zwaldd
that there’s no reason to fear registration leading to confiscation because there’s no precedent for it in this country. they don’t confiscate registered weapons in california or anywhere else in the usa.
Are you familiar with the term Bunk?
however, the only part registration seems to play is to allow previous owners of banned guns to keep their guns.
Are you familiar with the term Bunk?
Apparently you only think confiscation can happen when the some agent of the gov. knocks at your door and forces you to give up your guns.
Are you familiar with the term bunk
Look up the word yourself, Bunky
Hey, zwaldd, I notice that once again you’ve ignored discussing the 1993 shotgun ban by Lloyd Bentsen. Care to weasel and squirm your way around that one? I’d love to see how you rationalize that one away.
justwannano
yes, that’s what it is. a ban. registration isn’t what makes the weapon illegal, the ban makes it illegal and they made a cutoff date for registering pre-ban weapons. they’re still not confiscating registered weapons. your beef is with the ban, not registration. if they allowed continued registration of pre-ban weapons, they’d still be legal. so again, in this case registration works in opposition to the ban and in favor of the gun owner. since california’s goal is obviously to eradicate assault weapons from its borders, it curtailed the registration process.
71 hr achmed
show me an unbiased cite that says registered shotguns were confiscated and i’ll concede.
Zwaldd
Now you are starting to get the idea.
Did the state of California tell gun owners what their adjenda was before they decided to require registeration??
Does the state of California allow new weapons to be registered??
Is it against the law to own an unregistered Weapon of the kind mentioned in the law??
Does the fact that they know,because of registration, how many legal weapons are in their state affect their policies??
Is this a "divide and conquer "anti gun adjenda??
yes, but it’s because of the ban, not the registration law. see, if they enacted the ban without a registration provision, all assault weapons would be banned, even if you owned them before the ban. as achmed pointed out, this is not a ban in which pre-ban weapons remained legal across the board. the only thing registration does then, in this case, is allow you to keep your gun if you owned it before the ban.
justwannano, i know you think i’m the idiot in this debate, but just read this a few times to yourself before you summarily dismiss it as bunk.
i don’t know, but i did notice that you didn’t include the word ‘confiscation’ in that last post. so are you ready to concede that guns registered in california were not confiscated and, since no other examples withstood scrutiny (although the jury’s still out on achmed’s lloyd bentson example), that registration does not lead to confiscation?
Waldd
No.
I’d be a damned fool to state that.
So is anyone who believes that it will not.
So will you concede that I am right?
Zwaldd
I see you are commenting in another thread about the banning of handguns.
Want to register them? Are you sure the same thing won’t happen???
OK zwaldd
No I am not in favor of gun registration.
That is your position. Jeeze. I have to remind you of what you have been saying?
Also you have said repeatedly that gun registration is the only way you can keep your gun. Because they would ban them and you would not get to keep them. Who the hell are they?? And who the hell do they think they are??
You have shown that you are certainly not a fighter Zwaldd. Please let the fighters carry on the discussion. I’m tired of giving away my rights because of some lowly lawyer types are willing to negotiate my rights when they should be fighting to keep all of them.
You know, well maybe you don’t, any time you agree to negotiate someones right that someone loses.
I am not willing to give up any of my rights.
you’re hung up on what happens to a registered gun after the registree dies, in accordance with the california ban. according to the info in the link we’ve been referencing, if the new owner is found to be in possession of the gun within 90 days of inheriting it, he is free and clear and can legally hold onto the gun. after 90 days he is in possession of a banned gun and has several options to get rid of it, including simply removing the weapon from the state. the registration is now moot - no one is going to call or come to the door to find out what happened to the gun. he can even keep it if he doesn’t want to comply with the ban, but of course he would then run the risk of being found in possession of a banned gun. in any case, my point is that there’s no provision for a government agent to come to the person’s house looking for a gun that used to be registered to someone else. even if there was, the owner could just say he sold it out of state or destroyed it or something. so again, the registry is not being used to confiscate guns. in this case, it is merely a method of grandfathering ownership of banned weapons. it sounds like you would prefer that the weapons themselves be grandfathered (or not banned at all), thereby allowing continued in-state transfers, and i agree wholeheartedly. unfortunately they didn’t ask us for our input.
i don’t know, but they should’ve been sweeping up the emerald bar.
See thats whats wrong about your posts.
You don’t read everything someone says and take things out of context.
You didn’t mention that you can sell them to someone that has a permit. Only thing is as far as I can see there is no permit for banned guns.
You also didn’t mention that if your heir wants to keep the gun he can’t.At least not legally.
I don’t know about the Emerald Bar.
How about demoted to sanitation truck inspector.
i do read everything, but i only comment on those things that are relevant to the argument.
i didn’t mention it because it’s not relevant.
i did mention it in my last post and i explained that your ownership of the gun is grandfathered, but your heir’s is not. registration was used to implement grandfathered ownership, not confiscate banned guns. does this make any sense at all to you, justwannano?
I wish there was an emoticon for smacking oneself in the forehead. I became so focused on Califonia, I forgot all about New York City.
Zwaldd: registration has led to confiscation, in New York City in 1991.
Local Law 78 of 1991, accessed through New York City Council 1991 Local Laws, located through a search of the New York City Council Official Website
You can look it up for yourself, if you care to bother, but I’ll summarize it for you:
'Nuf said?
i am going to read your links in depth, but from what you’ve posted as a summary, i don’t see this as being much different from the california ban. you have permit holders and non-permit holders, and they are all required to get rid of their banned weapons, either by turning them into an agency, or bringing them out of state on their own. i don’t see any evidence that ny officials used or are planning to use a registry to perform some kind of sweep and confiscation in the event that registered weapons are not turned in. just because ny once required permits to own certain weapons and now they are banned is not the same as using a registry to go around and confiscate guns. if you found some documentation in those links that shows that permit records will be used to confiscate guns not turned in or prosecute those on record who didn’t turn in their guns, please post it. however, just the fact that owners of banned guns are allowed to get rid of them on their own makes me doubt you’ll find such evidence. like i said about california, if a government agent showed up at your door and said ‘so where’s the gun, registered owner number 36478?’ you could just say, ‘i lawfully removed it from the city of new york in compliance with section 10-303.1 of local law 78, thank you goodbye’. i really don’t see how the permit and the ban are integrally related in this case.
Zwaldd
quote:
You didn’t mention that you can sell them to someone that has a permit.
i didn’t mention it because it’s not relevant.
You see you only pick apart the arguement you want to discuss.
What the statement was is you cannot get a permit.
More bunk you seem to relish in.
Zwaldd is using the word confiscate in the strictist definition of the word.
It doesn’t mean anything to Zwaldd if you have to turn in your weapon unless someone breaksdown your door and takes it.
Isn’t that right bunky?
here’s the kind of provision a weapons ban would have to include for me to recognize it as an example of the registration leading to confiscation scenario commonly argued by nra folks as one reason not to adopt a registration plan:
as of [date], registered owners must turn in their weapons to [some government agency] or demonstrate to that agency that the weapon has been disabled or destroyed. failure to comply will result in a warrant for the registree’s arrest.
without such a provision, as in the ny and california bans, registered owners are no more likely to be arrested or have their weapons confiscated than someone who just brings a weapon into the state and doesn’t register it. for registered guns that are subsequently banned outright, registered owners are under no more obligation to turn in their weapons than unregistered owners. therefore, to argue that registration in these circumstances is in any way related to confiscation is false.