Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: Apparently, Registration DOES Lead to Confiscation

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Apparently, Registration DOES Lead to Confiscation

    Police in Buffalo, N.Y. will begin confiscating guns legally owned by people who have recently passed away.

    "Buffalo Police Commissioner Daniel Derrenda said at a press conference last week that the department will be sending people to collect guns that belong to pistol permit holders who had died so "they don't end up in the wrong hands." The department will cross reference pistol permit holders with death records and the guns will be collected when possible, he said."

    Link.

    "They're quick to say they're going to take the guns," said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. "But they don't tell you the law doesn't apply to long guns, or that these families can sell [their loved one's] pistol or apply to keep it."

    I wonder how many people will be wrongfully ROBBED of their family-owned firearms and heirlooms before word gets around? Will they ever be able to get them back after the fact, once they realize they've been DECEIVED by Buffalo's "law enforcement?"

    Does the Buffalo, NY PD have ANY shred of either decency or integrity on this issue? Apparently not. If they did, the the police chief wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Anyone who has not filed a notice of trespass is asking for cops to come to your door.

    And just because they have some record from a flawed database is not good cause to violate the trespass order IMO.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    It's the perfect confiscation strategy.

    First it's "we wont confiscate your guns, we just want to be able to track down the criminals and get your stolen guns back to you easier"
    That sounds suspicious. But okay, I have nothing to hide.

    Then it's "we're only going to take guns away from the criminals!"

    And that's great! No one here is going to argue with taking the guns away from the criminals, they shouldn't have guns.

    But then suddenly "you didn't register in the two weeks you had while you were grieving over your loved ones and making funeral arrangements, so now you're a criminal and we're here to take your guns and cart you off to jail."

    And even the gun rights proponents sound off "you knew the law, you should have registered your guns! You get no sympathy from me"

  4. #4
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Association...no this is right down hi-larry-ous.

    Boycott NY state.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    < No one here is going to argue with taking the guns away from the criminals, they shouldn't have guns.
    A-hem.....The only people who should not be able to exercise their RBKA are those that are locked up.

    So I guess it depends on the definition of the term "criminal"...those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A-hem.....The only people who should not be able to exercise their RBKA are those that are locked up.

    So I guess it depends on the definition of the term "criminal"...those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.
    Why shouldn't they be allowed their RKBA? Its a god given right. So who are we to take that right away for any reason?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.
    How does one pay a debt to society? I never understood this.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Wowwie!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A-hem.....The only people who should not be able to exercise their RBKA are those that are locked up.

    So I guess it depends on the definition of the term "criminal"...those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Why shouldn't they be allowed their RKBA? Its a god given right. So who are we to take that right away for any reason?
    Primus,,,, demonstrating his outstanding reading comprehension skills!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    Primus,,,, demonstrating his outstanding reading comprehension skills!!!
    Thanks for the kudos. Care to fill us in on why the compliment?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Thanks for the kudos. Care to fill us in on why the compliment?
    Because you Totally misinterpreted what David was saying in his post..
    He was Very clear! to everybody else....
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    A-hem.....The only people who should not be able to exercise their RBKA are those that are locked up.

    So I guess it depends on the definition of the term "criminal"...those who have paid their debt to society should return as full members.
    I have stated this before, but I guess it bears repeating.

    You are, in my opinion, only a criminal if you are currently engaged, or preparing to engage, in criminal activity.

    So I completely agree that the only people whom should be stripped of their second amendment right are those that are currently in state custody. Be it the crazies or the convicts.

    Once you've been released you should have your full rights. If you are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I have stated this before, but I guess it bears repeating.

    You are, in my opinion, only a criminal if you are currently engaged, or preparing to engage, in criminal activity.

    So I completely agree that the only people whom should be stripped of their second amendment right are those that are currently in state custody. Be it the crazies or the convicts.

    Once you've been released you should have your full rights. If you are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody.
    I have a sincere question about this.

    If the thought is "if your too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody" does that mean you or anyone truly believe that a rapist, murderer, violent criminal magically becomes non violent if they spend an arbitrary number of days locked in a cage with other violent males who still continue to violently beat and rape each other on a daily basis and then are released back to society?

    This is a prevalent thought and I do understand the basis of it. Call me jaded but I've met too many guys that literally have dozens of charges/court appearances if not over a hundred. Yes they may be free. But if a dude literally has 100 adult court appearances you think he's magically cured? Ok maybe he is. Maybe it takes 102 times to get the hint. But what about 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, etc. Times he was out? Clearly he was still violent if he keeps coming back.

    I mention this because I recently had an older gang member on a call the other day. He literally had like 108 adult appearances and almost 20 juvenile appearances. Now this guy is in his 50s and hasn't been I trouble since 2010 (low and behold it was an a&b charge) so I cut him a serious break. But this guy was free. I would literally bet my life on it if he had free access to guns and someone made him mad he'd shoot them.

    So again... Does anyone seriously believe that spending arbitrary number of days locked up with other violent males some how makes you nonviolent? Remember, many guys are released on "good behavior" or reduced sentences since jails are crowded. If a sentence is 15 years for murder will they become non violent if they serve all 15? Or will reduced sentence/charge of say 4 years suffice to make you non violent?
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I've had hundreds of court appearances. So has Primus, I think .... oh man, the humanity !

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I've had hundreds of court appearances. So has Primus, I think .... oh man, the humanity !
    Hundreds of CHARGES ?

    Edit: I'm referring to criminal charges. I think you would know that brother...
    Last edited by Primus; 11-17-2014 at 08:51 PM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC Freedom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    ADA County, ID
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I have stated this before, but I guess it bears repeating.

    You are, in my opinion, only a criminal if you are currently engaged, or preparing to engage, in criminal activity.

    So I completely agree that the only people whom should be stripped of their second amendment right are those that are currently in state custody. Be it the crazies or the convicts.

    Once you've been released you should have your full rights. If you are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody.


    Agree 100%

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Hundreds of CHARGES ?

    Edit: I'm referring to criminal charges. I think you would know that brother...
    200 charges, ... charged 100x with being a desperado charged another 100x with being a lady killer

    found guilty on every one ... but w/o any conviction

  17. #17
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    200 charges, ... charged 100x with being a desperado charged another 100x with being a lady killer

    found guilty on every one ... but w/o any conviction
    Yea and I'm an astronaut.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Yea and I'm an astronaut.
    Me too ! Strange .. small world

  19. #19
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I have a sincere question about this.

    If the thought is "if your too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody" does that mean you or anyone truly believe that a rapist, murderer, violent criminal magically becomes non violent if they spend an arbitrary number of days locked in a cage with other violent males who still continue to violently beat and rape each other on a daily basis and then are released back to society?

    This is a prevalent thought and I do understand the basis of it. Call me jaded but I've met too many guys that literally have dozens of charges/court appearances if not over a hundred. Yes they may be free. But if a dude literally has 100 adult court appearances you think he's magically cured? Ok maybe he is. Maybe it takes 102 times to get the hint. But what about 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, etc. Times he was out? Clearly he was still violent if he keeps coming back.

    I mention this because I recently had an older gang member on a call the other day. He literally had like 108 adult appearances and almost 20 juvenile appearances. Now this guy is in his 50s and hasn't been I trouble since 2010 (low and behold it was an a&b charge) so I cut him a serious break. But this guy was free. I would literally bet my life on it if he had free access to guns and someone made him mad he'd shoot them.

    So again... Does anyone seriously believe that spending arbitrary number of days locked up with other violent males some how makes you nonviolent? Remember, many guys are released on "good behavior" or reduced sentences since jails are crowded. If a sentence is 15 years for murder will they become non violent if they serve all 15? Or will reduced sentence/charge of say 4 years suffice to make you non violent?
    I believe the evidence shows that prison makes most criminals more criminal. We should only have prison for the violent or insane and we need to hold onto them forever if need be. In the meantime, we still shouldn't make everyone ask permission to exercise rights because someone else is going to abuse their freedom. And of course, a criminal mind bent on violence will only be inconvenienced by not being able to buy a gun through an FFL.

    The modern concept of prison is insane. Any justice system should be built around restitution and not prison. I'm also for the liberal application of the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever that someone is guilty of a violent crime.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I believe the evidence shows that prison makes most criminals more criminal. We should only have prison for the violent or insane and we need to hold onto them forever if need be. In the meantime, we still shouldn't make everyone ask permission to exercise rights because someone else is going to abuse their freedom. And of course, a criminal mind bent on violence will only be inconvenienced by not being able to buy a gun through an FFL.

    The modern concept of prison is insane. Any justice system should be built around restitution and not prison. I'm also for the liberal application of the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever that someone is guilty of a violent crime.
    First, I appreciate the sincere thought out response.

    Second, we are in agreement that prison makes violent people more violent and the entire system needs to be fixed.

    But if we are in agreement on these points then how does that square with violent guys getting released? Can you address the question of whether you believe guys are suddenly not violent after x amount of days? And finally if your willing to admit that they probably still are violent even after x amount of day, how does that square with the initial concept (non violent enough to be held means guns).
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    First, I appreciate the sincere thought out response.

    Second, we are in agreement that prison makes violent people more violent and the entire system needs to be fixed.

    But if we are in agreement on these points then how does that square with violent guys getting released? Can you address the question of whether you believe guys are suddenly not violent after x amount of days? And finally if your willing to admit that they probably still are violent even after x amount of day, how does that square with the initial concept (non violent enough to be held means guns).
    Honestly I have no problem with violent felons being barred gun ownership if they are released. This is a concession, because I realize that right now violent felons are routinely released from prison when they shouldn't. In a perfect world, those felons who are released would not deserve to have their fundamental human rights taken from them, and I think the right to bear arms is such a right.

    What I am always and forever against is everyone going through prior restraint hoops like "background checks" to see if someone is a felon before they buy or carry a gun.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    Honestly I have no problem with violent felons being barred gun ownership if they are released. This is a concession, because I realize that right now violent felons are routinely released from prison when they shouldn't. In a perfect world, those felons who are released would not deserve to have their fundamental human rights taken from them, and I think the right to bear arms is such a right.

    What I am always and forever against is everyone going through prior restraint hoops like "background checks" to see if someone is a felon before they buy or carry a gun.
    Well there ya have it. You and myself are in 100% agreement on first paragraph and some stuff in second paragraph. I appreciate the honesty.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  23. #23
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Primus, never once did I say I believe that everyone released from prison was instantly non violent. What I said was that if you're too dangerous to own a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody. This was a neutral statement in that it does not convey my feelings about the prison system one way or another, only my opinion on prisoners.

    There is no good reason for barring any free man from owning a gun. After all, the law only stops those who wish to abide it. The people you shouldn't be worried about. The criminals will just source their weapon from somewhere other than an FFL.

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I have a sincere question about this.

    If the thought is "if your too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody" does that mean you or anyone truly believe that a rapist, murderer, violent criminal magically becomes non violent if they spend an arbitrary number of days locked in a cage with other violent males who still continue to violently beat and rape each other on a daily basis and then are released back to society?
    Why is the gun of such importance, why not disbar violent criminals from possessing a knife, a car, a baseball bat, a ax, a metal pipe? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    This is a prevalent thought and I do understand the basis of it. ....
    Again, why is the gun special? The fact that judges and prosecutors set these miscreants back on the streets, for you to again haul them in front of a judge, because they are miscreants, is not the guns fault. Nor does they not having a gun mean that they will not commit a violent crime again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I mention this because I recently had an older gang member on a call the other day. ....
    Missouri does not have the crime of battery. There is misdemeanor assault and felony assault in RSMo. The "requirements" for the two are very different and the facts of the incident are key. Being convicted of "assault" does not necessarily mean that you should be disbarred from possessing a gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So again...
    Will being disbarred from possessing a gun make them non-violent? I suspect that violent folks will likely be violent whether or not they have a gun.

    "I say to those critics, again, if we can get one of these guns off the streets that could be used to commit a crime or injure a member of our community, it's a good thing," Mayor Byron Brown told WIVB during the summer.
    Any cop who claims to be "pro-2A" and then participates in this "program" reveals himself/herself to be anti-liberty and anti-citizen...and a liar.

    TOTAL ALL AGENCIES: Number of "Aggravated Assaults" known (FBI Stats 2012)

    Firearm: 143,119
    Knife or cutting instrument: 123,701
    Other weapon: 214,484
    Hands, fists, feet, etc.: 176,241
    Why does the gun receive particularized focus? The answer should be obvious and has nothing to do with the a fore mentioned criminals.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    I have stated this before, but I guess it bears repeating.

    You are, in my opinion, only a criminal if you are currently engaged, or preparing to engage, in criminal activity.

    So I completely agree that the only people whom should be stripped of their second amendment right are those that are currently in state custody. Be it the crazies or the convicts.

    Once you've been released you should have your full rights. If you are too dangerous to be allowed a gun, you're too dangerous to be released from custody.
    I disagree, but only because I wouldn't be against a "probation" period after being released. Something like 2-3 years where you're out of prison (and thus out of their custody) but still have to report to a probation officer and are loosely watched. The intent would simply be to show that you've reformed and are now a functioning member of society. Once the probation is over then you get all your rights back. Kind of like an in-house then out-of-house rehab program where you have to do both to get all of your rights back.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •