THEY’RE COMING FOR THE GUNS! – How Will They Confiscate Your Guns?
John Sutter
Latest on the gun control propaganda...
For decades I have heard gun owners claim that the government would never be able to confiscate our firearms because the government would lose too many men. The implication being, of course, that gun owners would actively resist confiscation, even to the point of shooting back. But I believe this thinking is outdated and doesn’t align very well with reality. But before you tell me how big your honor guard in Hell will be when that day comes, let’s think about how the government could really do it.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, the government bans all civilian possession of firearms at the end of this month. Congress passes a total ban and the President cuts his own re-election throat by signing it. Gun owners get some grace period to turn them in, even beyond the deadline, without being charged with a crime. If we use Australia and Britain as examples there will still be a significant number of firearms that are not turned in. Some estimates put the Australian turn-in at less than 25% and the British faired only about 28%. But Australians and the British have long been used to obeying almost every gun control law. Not so the Americans. When laws are passed that we don’t like, we bite. We scratch. We vote. So here we sit after the guns have been collected and the amnesties have run out. Now what? Send out the personnel carriers, swat and shock troops to seize the guns from those militia “terrorists” who refused to turn them in? Don’t be silly.
The government has lots of records about you. If you purchased a firearm since 1968, chances are that they have some record of it somewhere. Most likely, it will take quite some time for them to compile all the serial numbers of “surrendered” guns (surrendered essentially at gunpoint) and cross off the ones you turned in. It’ll take more time for them to attempt to “clean up” their data. Say, about two years, maybe three. Add to that the hordes of people keypunching in hundreds of thousands of sales and registration records from hundreds of gun stores forced out of business. At some point the government decides they have something approaching a “good” database of unaccounted-for guns.
Find out more about using cold weapons for survival on Bulletproof Home.
A Prepper’s Guide in Safeguarding a Home
The next thing you’ll get from the government is an official looking notice that they think you still have a firearm. Their information will probably include all the information from registration forms, right down to the serial number. That notice will tell you that you’re in violation of the law, subject to prosecution and imprisonment. It will give you some period of time to surrender the gun. It will also give you a very limited number of days to return the form with an explanation of why you don’t have the gun, any proof you have, and your signature that the gun was lawfully disposed of. For many people the idea that the government “knows” they didn’t turn in that pistol or rifle and they have the detailed information about it will be enough to get them to surrender the gun. Some people will ignore the letter, others will scrawl a note that “I sold this in 1982 in a private sale”. After some time, the government will figure out how many guns are still out there and what the “compliance rate” is with the gun ban. More importantly, they’ll start sorting their database by the number of guns someone supposedly has “unaccounted”.
If you think they’ll come at these multiple-gun owners with a swat team, guess again. Their most likely tactic will be yet another letter (maybe two more) that generate what they’ll call “insufficient responses”. That means they can’t track a gun after you owned it. This they’ll use as fodder for a search warrant and/or perjury charges at a later date if they can. My guess is that the time between April and August will be a bad time for a lot of “former” gun owners. Remember that the BATF is an arm of the Treasury department and they control the IRS. You’ll probably get a notice in the mail that the IRS has some questions about your taxes or wants to audit you. When you make the appointment to visit the IRS they will pass that information to the BATF. While you are sweating over your deductions, the BATF and local police will execute a search warrant and search your home looking for guns. With you safely off site and distracted, essentially forced into “the royal presence” of the IRS they will snag your guns. Expect them to use slow-scan and ground penetrating radar to search walls, yards, under the patio or deck, the basement, etc. You might even find your hot tub has been drained and moved. Yes, they’ll search your car in the IRS parking lot too.
If you are one of the those people they suspect of having multiple guns and they don’t find any guns at your home, expect them to find and search storage facilities, safety deposit boxes and other places you might use. Warn your relatives who live nearby that they can expect a visit too, even (or perhaps especially) if they never owned a gun. If they are thorough, I’d expect the government agents to check your neighbors to see which of them previously owned a gun and perhaps search their homes, arguing that your neighbor could have held your guns while agents searched your home. Remember that at this point the government authorities don’t have much to fear from the general population. And by the time your complaints are run through the mill, rejected and turned into lawsuits, they’ll have changed the rules.
But you only have one gun you say? Fine. They won’t come looking for it. But they will make sure that possession of ammunition is also a serious crime. Don’t leave any loose cartridges around and where will you hide that case of ammo you rushed out to buy? Expect any “gun parts” to be made illegal at some point in time too. Spare magazines, maybe even old cleaning kits. Anything that says “gun” will be interpreted as “probable cause” to search your entire home. Also expect that you can never use that gun without becoming a serious felon in the eyes of the government. Even if some thug has repeatedly stabbed you with a large knife and threatened to rape your six year old daughter, they won’t forgive you for having the gun. They may even give you extra penalties for using it to save your family. Especially if you are one of the first few hundred people caught this way, they will use you to “set an example”. This will cause people to “bury” their guns away in hiding places, making them all but useless. If the government does come to confiscate it, you won’t be able to get to it fast enough and they will probably find it.
You’ve moved several times since you bought a gun? Remember showing your ID when you bought a gun? Remember writing down your place of birth? Why do you think the government has so many computers? Linking you to your new driver’s license in another state shouldn’t be too hard. Besides, the Treasury folks know where you work. Think you’re safe because you had unregistered guns? Think again. I would expect that the government’s database will contain a lot of old data. Some of it might indicate that a gun was sold to a resident at your address. If they can tie you to ammo sales or range use with your credit card in the previous 2 years you might get a surprise visit. Or that seller might have remembered you bought that gun from him and filled out his gun notice to get “off the hook” for that gun.
The point of this article is that by thinking in limited terms of a “raid” to confiscate guns we lose sight of the alternative methods the government can use. Put yourself in the government’s position and think of your own methods to avoid a conflict. Meanwhile, let’s ensure that every gun owner votes for gun rights this year and the next. You can think of a thousand excuses not to vote, not to help a campaign, not to help another gun owner register to vote. I can think of one important reason to do all of those.
(source)
Government has intervened in the individuals ability to reproduce, raise their young naturally and keep guns.
Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more.
Arm yourselves: 54% of Americans support legally carrying guns for self-defense
Although more than half of Americans support some form of gun
control measures, a new poll finds that a majority of adults think
people should be encouraged to legally carry guns for self-defense.
Americans
are long known to support the passage of stricter gun control measures
in the wake of a mass shooting. Just over a week after Omar Mateen
opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and killed 49 people
and injured 53 others, the Washington Post and ABC News conducted a survey that had similar results.
Surprisingly, however, 54 percent of respondents supported encouraging more people to legally carry guns for use in self-defense, while 42 percent opposed. The vast majority ‒ 86 percent ‒ would like to block people from buying guns if they appear on the FBI’s list of people with possible connections to terrorism. Congressional Republicans have defeated several such measures introduced by Democrats since the Pulse nightclub shooting, arguing that such a ban would violate the constitutional right to due process. Democrats have likewise prevented the passage of more narrowly tailored options introduced by Senate Republicans.
Respondents
were almost evenly split, 51-48 percent, in favor of a nationwide ban
on the sale of assault weapons, with 41 percent of all adults saying
they strongly favored such a ban, while 37 percent strongly opposed one.
The numbers were statistically the same when looking at only the
answers by registered voters.
For the first time during a post-9/11 presidential election campaign, significantly more people trusted the Democratic candidate on terrorism over the GOP candidate, according to previous polling by the Pew Research Center. Exactly half of adult respondents said presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was more trustworthy on terrorism than presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, while 39 percent opted for the GOP candidate.
In 2012, 47 percent of respondents thought President Barack Obama was better able to handle terrorism, compared to 43 percent for his opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. When Obama first sought the White House, however, only 39 percent of thought he was better suited on the topic, and 53 percent preferred the GOP nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona. In 2004, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and President George W. Bush, a Republican, were statistically tied on terrorism, with only a percentage point difference between them.
Respondents were more likely to think that Clinton had a better reaction to the Orlando massacre than Trump. Nearly half ‒ 46 percent ‒ of adults felt the former secretary of state “did a better job responding to the attacks overall,” compared to 28 percent who preferred the billionaire businessman’s response.
A quarter of respondents didn’t have a preference (17 percent), didn’t
like either (7 percent) or liked both equally (1 percent).
The preference for Clinton on terrorism didn’t extend to her party, however, as respondents tended to trust Republicans overall more than Democrats, 46-37 percent.
Clinton also gave more than half of respondents ‒ 53 percent ‒ “the most confidence” that she “could handle the situation as president,” while 34 percent preferred Trump. Nearly six in 10 felt the Democratic candidate “showed better temperament in responding to the shooting,” compared to only a quarter who thought Trump had the better mentality.
The nationwide survey of 1,001 randomly sampled adults was conducted June 20-23. A third of respondents identified themselves as independents, while 36 percent said they were Democrats and 24 percent identified as Republicans. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Surprisingly, however, 54 percent of respondents supported encouraging more people to legally carry guns for use in self-defense, while 42 percent opposed. The vast majority ‒ 86 percent ‒ would like to block people from buying guns if they appear on the FBI’s list of people with possible connections to terrorism. Congressional Republicans have defeated several such measures introduced by Democrats since the Pulse nightclub shooting, arguing that such a ban would violate the constitutional right to due process. Democrats have likewise prevented the passage of more narrowly tailored options introduced by Senate Republicans.
For the first time during a post-9/11 presidential election campaign, significantly more people trusted the Democratic candidate on terrorism over the GOP candidate, according to previous polling by the Pew Research Center. Exactly half of adult respondents said presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was more trustworthy on terrorism than presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, while 39 percent opted for the GOP candidate.
In 2012, 47 percent of respondents thought President Barack Obama was better able to handle terrorism, compared to 43 percent for his opponent, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. When Obama first sought the White House, however, only 39 percent of thought he was better suited on the topic, and 53 percent preferred the GOP nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona. In 2004, Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and President George W. Bush, a Republican, were statistically tied on terrorism, with only a percentage point difference between them.
The preference for Clinton on terrorism didn’t extend to her party, however, as respondents tended to trust Republicans overall more than Democrats, 46-37 percent.
The nationwide survey of 1,001 randomly sampled adults was conducted June 20-23. A third of respondents identified themselves as independents, while 36 percent said they were Democrats and 24 percent identified as Republicans. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
Hawaii becomes first state to put gun owners in FBI database
The governor of Hawaii, David Ige, signed a bill that makes his
state the first in the nation to register gun owners in a federal
database. The system will automatically notify police if a resident of
the island is arrested.
Ige signed the
first-of-its-kind bill on Thursday, which he said was aimed at
increasing safety in communities by requiring Hawaii gun owners to
register with the FBI’s “Rap Back” system, which provides criminal
record-monitoring services for law enforcement.
"This is about our community's safety and responsible gun ownership," Ige said in a statement. "This
system will better enable our law enforcement agencies to ensure the
security of all Hawaii residents and visitors to our islands. This bill
has undergone a rigorous legal review process by our Attorney General's
office and we have determined that it is our responsibility to approve
this measure for the sake of our children and families."
When a firearm owner from Hawaii is arrested anywhere in the country, the system will alert local police departments in Hawaii. Authorities would then be able to determine if that person can still legally own firearms.
Gun rights groups opposed the measure, saying that it would subject law-abiding citizens to unnecessary monitoring.
“The exercise of an individual’s Second Amendment rights is not inherently suspicious and should not require a person to surrender other civil liberties, including unwarranted invasions of privacy or unequal treatment under the law,” the Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, wrote on its website. “The lawful acquisition, possession, carrying, or use of a firearm does not justify subjecting citizens to ongoing monitoring.”
Ige also signed two other bills related to firearms alongside the database legislation. One disqualifies perpetrators of stalking and sexual assault from owning guns and ammunition, and the other requires those with mental illnesses to give their weapons up if they have been diagnosed with a significant mental disorder.
The state legislation comes during a contentious time in US Congress, where lawmakers are deadlocked over the issue of gun control. Democratic representatives recently staged an unprecedented 24-hour sit-in on the House floor, demanding that Republicans put the issue of gun rights to a vote.
Read more
When a firearm owner from Hawaii is arrested anywhere in the country, the system will alert local police departments in Hawaii. Authorities would then be able to determine if that person can still legally own firearms.
Gun rights groups opposed the measure, saying that it would subject law-abiding citizens to unnecessary monitoring.
“The exercise of an individual’s Second Amendment rights is not inherently suspicious and should not require a person to surrender other civil liberties, including unwarranted invasions of privacy or unequal treatment under the law,” the Institute for Legislative Action, the lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association, wrote on its website. “The lawful acquisition, possession, carrying, or use of a firearm does not justify subjecting citizens to ongoing monitoring.”
Ige also signed two other bills related to firearms alongside the database legislation. One disqualifies perpetrators of stalking and sexual assault from owning guns and ammunition, and the other requires those with mental illnesses to give their weapons up if they have been diagnosed with a significant mental disorder.
The state legislation comes during a contentious time in US Congress, where lawmakers are deadlocked over the issue of gun control. Democratic representatives recently staged an unprecedented 24-hour sit-in on the House floor, demanding that Republicans put the issue of gun rights to a vote.
NRA chief: Terrorists "on the verge of overwhelming us"
One week after a gunman armed with an assault rifle killed 49 people
in an Orlando nightclub, National Rifle Association President Wayne
LaPierre said Sunday that gun control legislation would not be effective
in stopping mass shootings in the United States.
"What we're doing with this debate on the Hill right now, it's like they're trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think we need to look right in the face of what these people are that we're facing: they don't care about the law," LaPierre continued. "Laws didn't stop them in Boston, laws didn't stop them in San Bernardino, where you had every type of gun control law you can have, and they didn't stop them in Paris, where people can't even own guns."
LaPierre continued, saying President Obama and other Democrats are trying to blame guns for the shooting in Orlando to deflect from their "failure" to effectively combat terrorism.
"We all mourn for what happened, John, but we face a terrorist challenge where they're on the verge of overwhelming us," he said. "What happened this past week is the president, the whole gun ban movement, said don't look at terrorists, look over here, divert your attention, take your eyes off the problem because they don't want to face the embarrassment of their failure in this terrorist area and they want to cover their butts and not talk about it."
LaPierre said the idea of using a watch list to determine who's legally allowed to buy a gun is flawed because federal law enforcement often wants to gather more evidence to build a case against potential terrorists.
"I have never seen so much misinformation and poorly researched stories the last week as that. They set it up exactly the way they wanted it," he said of the watch lists.
"What law enforcement wants to do 90 percent of the time -- 99 percent of the time -- is let it go through. They want to watch it, they want to build a case."
The NRA chief said allowing individuals to own their own guns is so important because terrorists will focus their attention on "soft targets" like schools, malls and churches -- places without armed law enforcement present.
LaPierre broke with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on the issue of concealed carry in clubs like Pulse, where the shooting occurred last weekend. Unlike Trump, LaPierre said he does not believe people should carry guns in drinking establishments.
"I don't think you should have firearms where people are drinking," he said. "But I'll tell you this: everybody, every American needs to start having a security plan, we need to be able to protect ourselves, because they're coming."
Still, he praised Trump, who the NRA endorsed back in May.
"You know, Donald Trump, as far as I know, he wants to attack criminals, he wants to protect the law-abiding, and he wants to attack ISIS and get the bad guys," he said. "And that's where we are."
"What we're doing with this debate on the Hill right now, it's like they're trying to stop a freight train with a piece of Kleenex," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think we need to look right in the face of what these people are that we're facing: they don't care about the law," LaPierre continued. "Laws didn't stop them in Boston, laws didn't stop them in San Bernardino, where you had every type of gun control law you can have, and they didn't stop them in Paris, where people can't even own guns."
LaPierre continued, saying President Obama and other Democrats are trying to blame guns for the shooting in Orlando to deflect from their "failure" to effectively combat terrorism.
"We all mourn for what happened, John, but we face a terrorist challenge where they're on the verge of overwhelming us," he said. "What happened this past week is the president, the whole gun ban movement, said don't look at terrorists, look over here, divert your attention, take your eyes off the problem because they don't want to face the embarrassment of their failure in this terrorist area and they want to cover their butts and not talk about it."
LaPierre said the idea of using a watch list to determine who's legally allowed to buy a gun is flawed because federal law enforcement often wants to gather more evidence to build a case against potential terrorists.
"I have never seen so much misinformation and poorly researched stories the last week as that. They set it up exactly the way they wanted it," he said of the watch lists.
"What law enforcement wants to do 90 percent of the time -- 99 percent of the time -- is let it go through. They want to watch it, they want to build a case."
The NRA chief said allowing individuals to own their own guns is so important because terrorists will focus their attention on "soft targets" like schools, malls and churches -- places without armed law enforcement present.
LaPierre broke with presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump on the issue of concealed carry in clubs like Pulse, where the shooting occurred last weekend. Unlike Trump, LaPierre said he does not believe people should carry guns in drinking establishments.
"I don't think you should have firearms where people are drinking," he said. "But I'll tell you this: everybody, every American needs to start having a security plan, we need to be able to protect ourselves, because they're coming."
Still, he praised Trump, who the NRA endorsed back in May.
"You know, Donald Trump, as far as I know, he wants to attack criminals, he wants to protect the law-abiding, and he wants to attack ISIS and get the bad guys," he said. "And that's where we are."
