• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Apparently, Registration DOES Lead to Confiscation

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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"
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
< 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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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?
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!

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?

Primus,,,, demonstrating his outstanding reading comprehension skills!!!
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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?
 

OC Freedom

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
646
Location
ADA County, ID
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%
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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).
 
Top