Sharp as a Marble - Registration leads to confiscation

<< Hornet's nest. Stick. Some assembly required | Home | Remember I said the race card was used too much? >>

Gun banners , Nanny State

They used to be legal firearms, but now they're either unregistered or outright banned, and they're wanted by police before there's a chance burglars put them in Toronto's underground and underworld markets. Since March 1, Project Safe City swept 400 unregistered weapons 150 of them handguns from homes throughout the city. No charges were filed. Police are reviewing thousands of gun ownership files to determine which weapons have lapsed registrations and which are now banned.

The purpose of registration has nothing to do with keeping the community safe. It is nothing more than a laundry list of addresses for the police to go to when a certain feature is considered too unsafe for the children of society to have (children being you and me. Guess who Papa and Mama are?).

If the police expended the same amount of effort into doing real police work against those who commit crimes rather than those who could might possibly maybe at some point lose an item that might be used in a crime at some point in the future… well, they might actually increase the safety of the populace. But that's hard and dangerous work. Easier to punish those who aren't a threat. Plus it's got that neato effect of making it look like you're 'doing something'.

After all the work the Canucks put into this, what's the over / under that criminals will still have guns? That's a bet I'd be comfortable putting my children's college funds on.

posted @ 9/23/2009 10:14:41 AM

Incoming Links

The View From North Central Idaho - Benefits of gun registration on 9/23/2009 11:41:26 AM

Why Firearm Registration is a Bad Idea « A Geek With Guns on 9/23/2009 1:08:05 PM

SayUncle » Registration leads to confiscation on 9/24/2009 9:14:09 AM

registration leads to… | walls of the city on 2/13/2010 8:36:28 AM

Comments

ExurbanKevin says:

on 9/23/2009 11:44:22 AM

All is not lost: Calgary's police chief is in favour of relaxing Canada's ridiculous gun laws.

Maybe one day my relatives up north will enjoy the same liberties I have here.

Robb Allen says:

on 9/23/2009 11:48:13 AM

Unfortunately Kevin, that could be obtained by lowering our liberties.

ExurbanKevin says:

on 9/23/2009 12:06:53 PM

I fear you're right, but I can always hope. :)

It's important to keep in mind that there are really two Canadas; the East, which already is everything that Boston, New York and Washington want to be, and the West, which is more like Montana, Nebraska or Texas.

Growing up in Alberta, I never thought of firearms as bad or evil, they were just something you used to pick off gophers or bag some geese. Heck, there's even IPSC competitions up north, although not being able to carry a handgun in public does limit the "practical" element of IPSC somewhat. :) That common-sense attitude about guns, however, is not prevalent in the political epicenter of Canada, (Ontario and Quebec), and so Canada's gun laws are more like the gun laws of the liberal "gun-free" havens of Washington D.C. and Chicago than what the people of the Western Provinces really want and need.

But I can hope.

B Woodman says:

on 9/23/2009 12:48:29 PM

The story threw me for a second. When it said un-registered, I was wondering how the Gestapo knew where they were. Then I realized that the story was talking about lapsed-registered.

And yes, you are correct. Registration leads to nothing else but confiscation.

AntiCitizenOne says:

on 9/23/2009 2:58:19 PM

Devil's Advocate:

The order to confiscate can be issued, but who actually carries them out?

This is where the Oath Keepers come in...

Bob S. says:

on 9/23/2009 5:37:07 PM

I think that Katrina and the confiscations in New Orleans showed there would be enough enforcement of a confiscation...at least in the beginning.

It is the incrementalism that is the problem, registration makes non-compliance illegal, a voluntary "turn in" period would proceed confiscation....and anyone not turning their firearms in would be actively breaking the law.

Too easy for enforcement officials to make it a case for the "public good" and portray resistance as equivalent to the worst criminals.

I don't /believe/trust there are enough Oath Keepers to make confiscation impossible or unworkable.

Linoge says:

on 9/23/2009 6:27:12 PM

As predictable as an apple falling off a tree.

And yet despite acres of examples like this (some of them even from here in America), anti-rights advocates will incessantly claim that the registration of firearms they want will never result in a confiscation. Unfortunately for them, the precedents are set, and their words are worth less than the bytes they take up, given their tendency to overreach what they claim...

Wolfwood says:

on 9/23/2009 9:57:21 PM

My own view is that anyone thinking that police/military refusal to go door-to-door to confiscate weapons will prevent a determined and empowered government from ending the gun culture is naive. There are just too many other ways to go about it. We may be faced with dumb progressives now, but smart ones will eventually get the upper hand and will begin implementing their plan, waiting patiently for it to work.

Having paper-less guns is good, but in the end, it's only a small protection.

ATLien says:

on 9/23/2009 11:37:59 PM

Sounds a little defeatist, wolfwood. You forget one of the reasons we have the guns in the first place. Or do you not count the actions of those same progressives and their "upper hand" to be tyranny?

Wolfwood says:

on 9/24/2009 8:45:42 AM

ATLien

The threat or use of deadly force is, and must always be, an extreme response. A Death-By-1,000-Cuts approach makes it hard to find a Rubicon (to mix metaphors).

Would you rise up in armed revolt if your city enacted a noise ordinance that had the effect of prohibiting the use of large-caliber rifles as too noisy? How about contracting bus and rail service to a private company that declared a policy of no concealed or open carry on their routes? An ammunition surcharge of three cents per round? A ban on the use of firearms on public lands by those who don't have a license (similar to a driver's license)?

If you took up arms in protest of any of these, you'd be seen as crazy not only by most Americans but by most 2A supporters. You could always disobey the laws or find ways around them (making your own ammo, for instance), but in the end that's probably not going to be enough to keep your local clubs from closing.

In my area, there aren't that many places to shoot, especially for rifles or shotguns. One gun club closed when the city decided not to allow them to renew their lease on the land, and the remaining one (the only place to shoot outdoors, other than a bench-rest-only area of the local state park) has had to limit some of its activities due to the emergence of housing developments surrounding the property.

It may be that the club's rights should trump those of the new developments, but anyone who would take up arms to protest the inability to shoot .50BMG or all the positions at skeet is crazy.

GunBoy says:

on 9/24/2009 12:50:55 PM

Never. Register. Any. Weapon. For. Any. Reason.

Rick R. says:

on 9/25/2009 12:14:25 AM

GunBoy,

Not so. I've got an old Browning .25 and an SKS (neither of which works right now, neither of which I care enough to repair, either).

If I MUST register (establishing me as part of the "Evil Gun Culture" would not be that difficult for the authorities), I shall register those.

The only guns I own. Yup, yup. Only ones.

Comments have been closed on this topic.