You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
37

[–] speedisavirus 2 points 37 points (+39|-2) ago 

Nobody is going to give up their guns. The glory is we don't have gun registration. They don't know who has the guns. Not to mention this has already been deemed unconstitutional many times so all one has to do is take it to court. It should be an easy win.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
7

[–] edistojim 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Not as simple as you think. Those paper records are kept at the FFL and never go to the feds. To trace that gun from a crime scene you'd have to know when and where it was sold/traded/bought which is damned near impossible. Source is that brother is an ATF agent. The system they use is so archaic that its impossible to tell what gun went where.

0
4

[–] speedisavirus 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

FFL-holders have to have written records of every sale or transfer

The FFL does. Not the government. Other than record that the NICS check happened. I mean, unless the FFL goes out of business then they give them to the ATF. Any local enforcement requires a warrant for those records and no judge "should" be granting a blanket warrant on those records.

0
1

[–] Plavonica 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Also every time a consumer submits a background check that info is stored somewhere. Sure they are supposed to delete those, but who believes the FBI doesn't keep that data and cross-check it for their own purposes?

This right fucking here. There's already a list of gun owners.

citizens have to get a special ID card in order to buy or possess weapons and ammunition

That's totally fucked. Isn't that against the 2A?

0
1

[–] elitch2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Ha. In Canada I can sell my unrestricted firearms to anyone who has a valid PAL, legally. There is no record. Buy your weapons with cash here, and there is zero paper trail.

0
10

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

This is one of those charges they tack on after they raid a house for whatever reason. It will be used to get plea deals out of people until one well to do person actually uses it to get all the other charges drop as

Seeking these charges is a clear and blatant assault on my second amendment rights and proves extreme prejudice by the prosecution.

1
3

[–] huhu11 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

People sure did give their guns away when their lives were threatened by the US army. During the Katrina catastrophe innocent citizens got their guns illegally taken away by US army. Their power demonstration showed what (((they))) will do when they truly want to disarm the US citizens. You rather die than give your guns away truly? That was what the innocent Katrina citizens faced.

Want proof? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKkUG1F2JiI&feature=youtu.be

0
5

[–] RevDrStrangelove 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Katrina sure did expose the National Guard's willingness to obey unconstitutional orders against Americans. It definitely destroyed the whole "the military won't act against citizens" nonsense.

BUT

There's a flip side to this. The people that had their guns taken were lone holdouts in a city that was largely abandoned. So, sure, a group of 10 National Guardsmen kicking in the door of someone holed up by themselves after the storm was effective. However, a SHTF scenario is a horse of an entirely different color. Katrina was a hurricane not a civil war. When evacuation isn't an option and your only choice is to stand and fight, I promise there won't be many firearms confiscated. They'll try, let there be no doubt, but there won't be many takers.

0
0

[–] Dysnomia 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

All it takes is one dumbassed judge to set a precedent. The courts are a dangerous place to bring these arguments.