Armory, Self Defense, And EDC > Black Powder and Primitive Weapons

Gun confiscation, are blackpowder rifles exempt?

<< < (3/5) > >>

The Professor:

--- Quote from: backwoods_engineer on December 06, 2012, 03:41:18 PM ---Just so you know, there isn't supposed to be gun registration in the free states (of course CA, NY, NJ, etc have it).  To do confiscation, the Jack Booted Thugs would have to grab ALL the Form 4473's, which is a violation of federal law.  Also, not all firearms in the US are bought through gun stores.

This isn't something I'm worried about.  American public opinion is toward MORE GUNS, not fewer.

--- End quote ---

Two issues here:

First of all, ATF IS grabbing the information. . .they're just not taking it from the 4473's.  It's now common practice to pull Bound Book information directly from the FFL's computer or copy it outright.  This way, the 4473's can remain in the hands of their owner (the FFL).  Illegal?  Arguable, but they're doing it, anyway:

http://www.examiner.com/article/alaska-gun-stores-say-atf-engaging-new-illegal-activity

Second, American opinion does not matter.  The average American's opinion in 1994 was against an "assault weapon's" ban.  Yet, it didn't stop many from jumping onto the bandwagon including Bill Ruger and the National Rifle Association from supporting such a bill, or at least from not fighting it.

Ten years of absolute stupidity.   Whatcha wanna bet that this time. . .their ain't no 10-year eclipse to the law?  In fact, it won't even BE a law, but a Presidential Directive to the ATF.

Yes, it can happen here.  It already has.  How short our memory is.

The Professor

Rayray250:
@proffesor

Agreed but supporting an assault weapons ban and supporting the realization of gun confiscation is a jump across a chasm of different degrees. 

That said I wouldn't buy a BP powder rifle for this post's reason.  If guns are confiscated you'd be risking detainment firing any firearm BP or whatever you hid from them.

The Professor:

--- Quote from: Rayray250 on December 07, 2012, 05:17:46 PM ---@proffesor

Agreed but supporting an assault weapons ban and supporting the realization of gun confiscation is a jump across a chasm of different degrees. 


--- End quote ---

I really don't mean to derail this thread, but:

No, it's not.  You're thinking like a sane, rational individual, not a hoplophobe.

Let me put it this way, and this IS how I think it will happen.

It will be done in two Presidential Directives.  The first one is to destroy gunshows.  The BATFE is directed to prosecute any transfers or sales of firearms by licensed dealers at any location other than that which is on their license.  This means, they cannot sell or transfer outside their shop or place of business.    Bam. In one stroke of the pen, gun shows are gone.

The second Directive is that any semi-automatic firearm, or firearm that takes a detachable magazine, or any firearm that holds more than five rounds of ammunition, be declared a title II (or even III) device.  Now, initially, there won't be a confiscation.  First, there will be a "grace period" of six months to a year in which anyone with the aforementioned firearms will be required to submit the appropriate forms and documentation for licensing of said firearms.

During this grace period, as part of the directive, the BATFE will be required to locate all firearms which meet the criteria and which were sold in the past, say, 50 years.  Initially, existing FFL's will be required to submit copies of the information in their bound books in electronic or paper format for any sales of aforementioned firearms.  Failure to do so will result in severe punishment (i.e., no burning of 4473's or bound books. . .think your FFL is a super patriot?  Watch what happens when he or she is faced with sharing a cell with a hairy-backed guy/gal named "Sweet Meat.).

Eventually, not immediately, there will be intentional raids and seizures of firearms.  No door-to-door stuff will be necessary.

For, you see, the average gun-owner is a law-abiding citizen by nature.  They won't rise up to fight the system.  They'll try to work within the system to fix the problem. . .in other words. . .they'll try to elect another President or have their elected officials figure out a way to overturn the directive.

In the mean time, Mr. Average Gun Owner will either turn the weapons in, or go through the paperwork.  Put this into place and, in 10-15 years, you'll see no private sale/transfer of these firearms and drastically diminishing legal sales.  The market will be so tight that few will spend the necessary $$ to get the guns.  Many manufacturers will go out of business, since the millions of assault weapons sales will trickle to a minimum.  Eventually, the market will balance out, but the price for said firearms will go through the roof, compared to what they are now.

A prime example is Class III weapons or, foreign-made assault weapons.  Try to buy an original Galil or Valmet, now.  They have to make new versions with a certain percentage of US-made parts.  Even class III weapons are ridiculously expensive because no new ones can be made since (iirc) 1986 for non-military/law enforcement use.

The same will happen to Semi-Autos.  A few raids may happen, but you won't see any Jack-Booted Thugs kicking in every door on your block looking for guns.  (But the precedent has been set for that, too. . .look at what happened to the bank-robber in Aurora when they stopped an entire block of traffic looking for the guy.  The LEO's won that.  So, someone calls and says "Hey, I saw a guy in a pick-up run into this subdivision with what looked like an AK47.  Bam!  The subdivision is locked down and every house searched with the occupants handcuffed on their lawns until the LEO's are through.  Oh wait!  They didn't find the suspect, but did turn up X number of other illegal weapons, which they now must prosecute, as well.)

Makes me sick just to write this.

The Professor


Rayray250:
I certainly see your logic and understand what you are saying. 

So to answer the OP question in those circumstances that you are proposing he may be well off having a black powder gun b/c I only saw you foreseeing magazine fed weapons being banned and semi confiscated.

The Professor:

--- Quote from: Rayray250 on December 08, 2012, 05:55:49 AM ---I certainly see your logic and understand what you are saying. 

So to answer the OP question in those circumstances that you are proposing he may be well off having a black powder gun b/c I only saw you foreseeing magazine fed weapons being banned and semi confiscated.

--- End quote ---

As long as the language of the directive doesn't directly impact the blackpowder weapon. 

This is supposition, here, purely, but. . .will  ". . .a firearm that holds more than five rounds. . ." apply to my LeMat Revolver (9-shot + 1)?

Historically, blackpowder weapons  have been exempt from most legislation applying to regular firearms.  How liberal, pardon the pun, will they be in application of the law?

I'd still be somewhat interested in blackpowder guns.  Say, a small .30ish caliber rifle for small game and a larger bore for deer, elk, etc.  Black powder can be readily made at home as can percussion caps (or, hell, why not flintlocks?) and bullets/shot.  Decent revolvers can be found that still shoot black powder.  My Le Mat is fearsome, if not rather large, for personal defense. Nine shots of .44 ball and, basically, a 20-gauge shot barrel.

Granted, I may not even be able to see the target after two or three rounds, but if I don't kill my attacker at short range, I'll either set him on fire or be able to do the ninja thing with all the white smoke hanging around.

The Professor

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version