I have written several postings related to Various topics including the military, Voting, the economy, religion and etc in America. A list of links have been provided at bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address additional issues in these topics.
Nolte: How Close Is America to Outright Gun Confiscation? Very Close.
The so-called fact checkers at the far-left Washington Post are liars. Straight-up liars. Because here is what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama actually said in favor of gun confiscation:
Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.
When Australia had a mass killing – I think it was in Tasmania – about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
You know, Australia’s a good example, Canada’s a good example, [and] the UK’s a good example. Why? Because each of them had mass killings, Australia had a huge mass killing about 20 or 25 years ago. Canada did as well, so did the UK. In reaction, they passed much stricter gun laws. In the Australian example, as I recall, that was a buyback program. The Australian government as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of … weapons offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns and basically clamped down going forward, in terms of having more of a background check approach – more of a permitting approach.
What you have above are four crystal clear examples of a former president and an almost-president, both of them leaders of the Democrat Party, openly speaking out in favor of gun confiscation — which is precisely what both are talking about when they extol the wondrous virtues of “what Australia did.”
What happened in Australia was that the government sponsored a gun buyback in which Australians were forced to hand their guns in. That is confiscation, full stop.
So how close are we to having the federal government confiscate our guns? So close that the leaders of the Democrat Party are calling for it, while their media gaslights us into believing they did not.
Oh, yes, something is afoot. And that is the least of it. Let’s start at the beginning…
In the 1980s Democrats assured Ronald Reagan that if he signed a mass amnesty for illegal immigrants, they would increase border security. They lied, and now anywhere from 10 to 30 million illegals have invaded our country — and Democrats want to make them voting citizens.
In the early 1990s, Democrats assured President George H.W. Bush that if he broke his famous “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge, they would cut spending. They lied, and Bush lost his re-election bid to Bill Clinton, who passed a ban on “assault weapons.”
In 2009, and on dozens of occasions, Obama promised us that if we backed his scheme for a government takeover of our health care, costs would plummet and no one would lose their doctors or insurance. He lied. Millions lost their insurance and doctors and costs have exploded.
Over the last fifteen years, the left assured us that if we backed same-sex marriage it would in no way personally affect us. They lied. Christian cake and floral artists are now being persecuted by the state, and the Church itself is next.
Gay marriage is the perfect analogy to what we are seeing now, which is the left — with a ton of help from the corporate media — using the Parkland, Florida, school shooting massacre as a means to stigmatize the NRA and gun owners; to turn us into social pariahs, to make it socially unacceptable to be us or to associate with us.
If you recall, though, this push to scarlet letter marriage traditionalists did not work. In fact, had the issue stayed within the democratic process, same-sex marriage would not be legal today. Despite the propaganda push, despite the phony polls to make it look as though those opposed were in the minority, in state referendums all around the union (with three exceptions), voters rejected the legalization of gay marriage. This includes California.
It is important that you never forget that same sex marriage did not and could not win through democracy, that you never forget that same sex marriage was forced upon us by a 5-4 vote — by a single vote on the Supreme Court.
And this is how our guns will be confiscated — through a demonization campaign and a single vote Supreme Court vote.
The scenario by which we are disarmed by our government, is this close to reality….
- Democrat president elected.
- Democrat president replaces a Clarence Thomas with a Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
- Democrat president enjoys Democrat majorities in the House and Senate.
- The Democrat Senate either enjoys a filibuster proof majority (this happened in 2008) or finishes what former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) began — the annihilation of the filibuster. While there are some current Democrat Senators who would oppose confiscation, over time they can be weeded out in primaries, bullied into siding with the Party (as we saw with Obamacare), or simply overwhelmed by their pro-confiscation co-partisans in the aftermath of a Democrat wave election.
- Both Houses of congress pass a gun confiscation bill.
- By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declares gun confiscation perfectly constitutional.
To those of you naïve enough to believe that the Bill of Rights, that the Second Amendment will save you from outright gun confiscation, I give you the District of Columbia v. Heller, where the individual right to own a handgun was barely recognized in the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision, by a single vote.
If the District of Columbia refused its citizens any other right on the Bill of Rights, we would have seen a 9-0 or 7-2 decision. But a Second Amendment right just barely squeaked by.
This is how close we are to having our firearms confiscated.
Do not listen to the assurances from Democrats and their media. Ignore the lying fact-checkers and those scoffing at the very idea of gun confiscation and those in the ruling class ridiculing those of us trying to sound the alarm…
Just remember “My gay marriage will not affect you.”
Remember “You can keep your insurance.”
Remember that 73 percent of Democrats want to ban semi-automatic firearms (which means most handguns), and 44 percent are in favor of banning all guns.
How Real or Possible is Gun Confiscation
The idea of gun confiscation is one of the most divisive issues surrounding gun owners. For opponents, it is seen as gun owners needlessly worrying about something that could never happen. They see the idea of a government coming to gather up all of the guns as nothing but an excuse to hold onto guns tighter. It is seen as fear mongering, whereas for gun owners there is a very real fear that it may happen. These fears are due to the changes and restrictions that owners must experience first hand every time a local, federal, or federal statute changes how they live their everyday life.
But how possible is the big one? Are there any grounds for these fears? Can our government truly come and take our guns from us or is it something that we are needlessly worrying about? Well, to understand this, we need to take a look into the history books.
Throughout history, there have been orders to take law-abiding citizens guns from them. That’s right. This is not a fictitious idea manufactured by the firearms industry. Due to the government’s perception of national urgency or imminent danger, there have been several times in our history it has happened.
Historically, these mass violations of rights have occurred during times of crisis or war. In these times U.S. troops have acted on behalf of their commanders and politicians to restrict the liberties of the people. What’s more is that they actually get the masses to believe that it is for their own good.
The first time this happened in America, was a time when we weren’t truly a country yet, but the principles that formed our Republic were in full effect. It was in 1775, during a time of palpable civil unrest among the colonies, that Massachusetts governor, General Thomas Gage ordered British soldiers to confiscate firearms from civilians in the interest of thwarting a rebellion. The citizens, not standing for this unjust violation of their rights and safety decided to take a stand. In doing so, they set off the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The Battles of Lexington and Concord.
Now, you may be thinking that the prior case is different, due to the fact that it was not our American democracy in force, but rather a tyrant king at that time, but there are several more unfortunate incidents post-revolution where confiscation has occurred. In 1861, after rejecting the power of states to peacefully secede from the Union, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Acts, thus authorizing federal troops to confiscate firearms from civilians in preparation for the upcoming invasion of the south and the beginning of the U.S. Civil War.
In 1890, during Native American “relocation” effort, U.S. troops disarmed the Lakota people “for their own safety and protection” as they were forcibly moved into their new and unwanted home. To add to the darkness, most of the Lakota tribe was massacred when a deaf Lakota man named Black Coyote refused to surrender his rifle to the federal soldiers. This was known as the massacre at Wounded Knee.
And even last century, in 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, under the preface of the attack on Pearl Harbor signed one of the most disgraceful acts in American History, rounding up Japanese citizens, confiscating weapons and property and forcing these American citizens into internment camps.
So to say that this has never happened in our history and that there is nothing but fear-mongering occurring amongst the gun lobby and industry is, as you can see, an unfortunate falsehood.
In 2005, during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans became a veritable disaster area and was rife with violence and vandalism. The government’s response to the wave of crime was to launch a wholesale gun confiscation effort in the city.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin declared that the city was under a state of “martial law” while New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass stated “There’s a martial law declaration in place that gives us legal authority for mandatory evacuations,” Compass said. “No one will be able to be armed. We will take all weapons. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”
Cops and National Guard units then went door-to-door to follow the orders of the mayor. More than 1,000 firearms were seized, and untold numbers of people, houses, and vehicles were searched in the process.
Recently, there was an article that we released that took a look at Attorney Generals and their power over gun laws. The results that we have seen in cases from Pennsylvania and Virginia show that immense power can be wielded by very few people with regard to gun control. In Pennsylvania, it was Maura Healey deciding herself what constituted an assault rifle. While in Virginia an overturned ruling by Mark Herring completely ridded the state of any concealed carry reciprocity from other states.
This is something that has been seen as prodding for what people can get away with regarding gun control. As I mentioned, Virginia was overturned, however, the statute in Pennsylvania remains, and the idea that this may become even more prevalent is gaining more ground.
The Potential Future
So can a situation in which a select few or even one person in our government implement policies to take guns from citizens? Historically speaking, it can happen, because it already has several times over. The main reasons for it happening are that of imminent danger or as a punishment to people the government feels are enemies of America.
It is understandable to think that a confiscation of guns may not happen, but at the same time, nobody believed that this country could round up thousands of its own citizens and place them into internment camps, completely destroying the freedoms that they came to this country to receive. The simple, and unfortunate fact is that our government can do what it wants, but it is the people who need to police the government. Which is one of the very reasons we have the second amendment in the first place.
Why Gun Confiscation Won’t Happen in the United States
Jon Stokes is a founder of Ars Technica and a former editor for Wired. He writes about guns and technology for TechCrunch, All Outdoor, The Firearm Blog and other publications.
I have a theory on this that I’ll probably regret sharing but here goes. A few years ago I thought the talk of violence if there was a gun confiscation was mostly talk. But for the past 2 years a certain dude has given the public a master class in how power really works…
In short, you can get away with anything if the other side is sufficiently scared of civil strife. Violate any law, break any norm. If you’re a star they let you do it. You just have to be willing to go there. The other side will just cower & pray to the norm fairy.
So I think the game has changed, now. All gun owners now know it won’t take much ugliness to put a complete stop to any confiscation effort. And that’s assuming you can get cops to carry out that order, which is not certain.
In NY it’s estimated that most of the gun owners not in compliance with the SAFE Act are cops. In many states the sheriffs are leading the 2A sanctuary city efforts.
So a confiscation is not ever going to happen, no matter what laws pass. It won’t happen because there is no appetite to enforce the law against any but the poor & defenseless. In 2019 laws are only enforced against those who can’t hit back. This truth is now out in the open.
Gun owners as a class can hit back, & they’ve all been well educated that if you can hit back or if everyone just thinks you can and will, nobody will come for you. Lots of powerful lawbreakers have taught everyone this lesson repeatedly now.
Don’t Count On American Compliance With Gun Confiscation
As someone who works in Second Amendment policy, I often feel as though I have heard every bad, impractical or naïve gun-control argument that could possibly exist; in fact, it is becoming increasingly rare for me to find myself truly stunned at a statement made by a pro-gun control politician or advocacy group.
Yet even I was struck speechless when former Congressman Beto O’Rourke suggested during his presidential campaign that Americans would simply comply with his proposed laws to confiscate tens of millions of their firearms.
“If we’re able to pass mandatory buybacks and I’m able to sign that into law, then I fully expect our fellow Americans to turn in their AR-15s and AK-47s,” said O’Rourke.
This was not a misstatement or a one-off comment. As O’Rourke’s spokesman, Chris Evans, later confirmed: “When a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons is enacted, it is the law. We expect people to follow the law here in the United States, and we know that Americans are law-abiding people.”
I am not writing this to promote civil-disobedience, but just to point out fundamentals of human nature that ideologues like O’Rourke and Joe Biden don’t appear to appreciate. They seem to think the American people, or perhaps any group of people, will simply conform to whatever ideological framework they decide to legislate.
This isn’t true for many reasons.
First, non-compliance with gun-confiscation laws has been widespread even in countries that don’t protect the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
Second, Americans are already notoriously non-compliant with strict gun-control measures in states that have enacted them on a smaller scale.
Third, the firearms and magazines that gun-control advocates wish to confiscate simply are not a driving force behind homicides—and America’s lawful gun owners know it. People rarely respond well to being scapegoated, and otherwise law-abiding gun owners aren’t likely to prove an exception to this rule.
Non-Americans Show Minimal Compliance
While gun-control activists in the U.S. regularly point to gun-confiscation programs carried out in other countries, they rarely highlight just how difficult a time these governments have in getting their citizens to comply with those orders.
Consider the minimal compliance recently shown by gun owners in New Zealand, which has no Second Amendment equivalent and where private gun ownership is considered a privilege instead of a right.
Last year, after a terrorist used a semi-automatic rifle to kill 51 unarmed worshippers in two Christchurch, New Zealand, mosques, the government almost immediately imposed sweeping new gun-control laws. Despite the fact that the country seldom breaks double digits for annual gun homicides and had not suffered from a mass-murder episode in over two decades, New Zealand banned the civilian possession of most semi-automatic rifles.
Since the newly banned rifles were not previously subject to registration requirements, it is unclear exactly how many of them were in civilian hands. The Council of Licensed Firearms Owners estimated, however, that New Zealanders possessed roughly 170,000 of them at the time of the ban. Owners of these firearms were required to submit to “mandatory buybacks,” a form of confiscation where the government reimburses the former gun owner for part of the gun’s value.
Gun-control advocates in the U.S. praised this confiscation effort and demanded similar action in the United States. Yet the New Zealand buyback has not gone smoothly. After some citizens in New Zealand turned in their now-banned guns, the homicide rate in the country rose to a 10-year high.
Many New Zealanders simply refused to comply. By the end of February 2020, well after the final amnesty period ended in December 2019, police data indicated that only 57,000 firearms—about one-third of the total—had been turned in. The price tag: $67 million.
Worse, it appears that New Zealand managed to disarm only the most law-abiding of its citizens, none of whom posed a threat to public safety in the first place. Meanwhile, those citizens who were already prone to criminal activity continued to break the country’s gun laws. The head of a local gang candidly told reporters that his members would not turn in any of their firearms, because they needed those firearms to perpetuate gang-on-gang violence.
To add insult to injury, the New Zealand government failed to adequately protect gun owners’ confidential information, including bank account details. An estimated 37,000 firearm owners may have had their personal data breached through the New Zealand government’s official website for registering weapons turned in under the “buyback” law.
In a final assault on liberty, New Zealanders who initially voiced opposition to the law were targeted with police raids. In one case, a SWAT team stormed a man’s home over the possibility that the individual possessed a “tubular magazine” for a .22 LR lever-action rifle bearing little resemblance to a so-called “assault weapon.”
Such mediocre results for gun confiscation are not unique to New Zealand. Australia similarly banned the civilian possession of most semi-automatic firearms in 1996, but the country has spent the last two decades trying—and to a significant extent, failing—to enforce it.
Several reports from the early 2000s estimate that only 20% or so of the banned firearms had been confiscated. Non-compliance is so widespread that the Australian government has seen fit to repeatedly offer extra periods of amnesty, most recently in 2016, after a government report estimated there were still 260,000 “illegal” firearms in civilian hands.
Moreover, while firearm suicides dropped in Australia after the confiscation effort, there was little meaningful effect on the overall suicide rate. Another evaluation found no effect on homicides or accidental deaths, despite claims to the contrary.
Finally, consider the case of Canada when it tried to implement even the comparatively modest program of mandatory long-gun registration in 1997. The effort was initially slated to cost Canadian taxpayers $2 million. By 2002, however, the estimated cost had skyrocketed to over $1 billion. According to one study, fewer than half of the country’s long guns ended up registered.
Between 1997 and 2012, when the law was repealed, only three murders were committed where the accused person used a long gun registered in his own name under the law. Interestingly, rates of gun violence decreased faster in the United States over the same time period, despite the lack of federal gun-registration requirements.
Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino bluntly stated the reality in 2003: “A law registering firearms has neither deterred [gun homicides] nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered…. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as on a host of other public safety initiatives.”
The current Canadian government has completely forgotten its disastrous foray into mandating stricter gun-control requirements, as it has now banned many popular semi-automatic firearms and, at press time, was moving toward some kind of gun-confiscation scheme.
Americans Are Notoriously Non-Compliant With Gun-Control Laws
If this type of significant and widespread non-compliance is so common in countries without America’s gun culture or constitutional protections for civilian gun ownership, it would be almost laughable to presume Americans would be more compliant with overbearing gun-control measures.
After all, civilian gun possession is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, as is an aversion to gun confiscation. The American Revolution itself officially ignited over an effort by King George III and his military generals to disarm the colonists; the battles at Lexington and Concord began because the British were coming to seize the colonists’ powder stores and render them defenseless against the armed enforcement of tyrannical laws.
Non-compliance with British gun-control mandates was widespread before and during the war. The Second Amendment was passed in large part as a counterbalance against government impulses toward tyranny, and an assurance against government attempts to create select militias with which to oppress a citizenry disarmed through arbitrary or burdensome gun-control laws.
It is hardly surprising, then, that even today, many otherwise law-abiding Americans fail to comply with laws they perceive as arbitrary infringements on their Second Amendment rights. Consider, for example, what happened when New York, in 2013, banned the future purchase of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and required current owners to register their estimated 1 million “assault-style weapons” with the state.
Despite the threat of serious criminal penalties for non-compliance and extended periods of “amnesty,” by 2015 fewer than 45,000 firearms had been registered. In other words, it appears that tens of thousands of New Yorkers continue to simply ignore the law.
Similar rates of non-compliance have been observed for constitutionally suspect confiscation laws in other states; in fact, after New Jersey banned the civilian possession of standard magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, an investigation failed to discover a single instance where one of the state’s one million gun owners turned a prohibited magazine in to law enforcement authorities, as the statute required.
New Jersey and New York are states that historically have subjected their residents to much stricter gun-control measures relative to the rest of the country. If non-compliance is so widespread in states where residents are used to being subject to arbitrary and overbearing gun laws, there is no reason to believe that residents in more gun-friendly states would rush to turn in their rifles and magazines just because the federal government mandated it.
Lawful Gun Owners Know Their Rifles Aren’t the Problem
This widespread non-compliance can be explained by America’s historical aversion to gun control. But it can also be explained by the reality that Americans are increasingly aware of how gun-confiscation laws turn them into scapegoats without actually addressing the real problems.
Why? Because lawfully owned semi-automatic rifles are fundamentally not a driving force behind homicides in this country, or anywhere else.
Nearly two out of every three deaths by firearms in the United States are the result of suicide. In cases of suicide, neither gun type nor magazine capacity ultimately matter; moreover, while it is true that the U.S. has a fairly high rate of suicides committed with firearms, our overall suicide rate is relatively unremarkable compared with many countries with much stricter gun-control laws.
Semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, are responsible for only a fraction of 1% of all gun deaths in the U.S. every year, while rifles of any kind account for about 3% of all gun homicides.
And finally, a majority of crimes committed with guns in the U.S. are carried out by individuals who are already prohibited from owning firearms—not by lawful gun owners.
In other words, lawful gun owners in the U.S. are not the problem. Confiscating their rifles and magazines is not a genuine, good-faith policy solution to save lives.
The rule of law has always been an important foundation of American society. But it is shockingly naïve for any politician or organization to expect millions of American gun owners to simply turn in to the government the very types of bearable small arms protected by the Second Amendment. It is even more naïve for them to believe that, even if we were to double the rate of compliance seen in other countries, there would be a profound effect on gun-related deaths in the U.S. because of it.
There are, of course, ways to further reduce violent crime and gun-related deaths in the U.S. States can and should, for example, continue to invest in adequate mental-health treatment for their citizens, in stopping the flow of illegal gun trafficking and in ensuring that more law-abiding citizens can defend themselves in more places.
But, if the government wishes to confiscate the guns of peaceable citizens, it should be prepared to find most Americans unwilling to comply—just as they were in 1775.
IS GUN CONFISCATION GOOD FOR AMERICA?
Gun Confiscation is a hot topic. Today’s politics are on the side thinking that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will solve the problem. Other nations have done this before. Is America on the path to do the same?
We unfortunately live in the days where “active shooter” awareness protocols are prevalent in the world today. School shootings are a common thing as well as preparing for them. ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate) training is common for schools and offices alike. These training sessions inform their students how to go about handling an active shooter in the office, at school, or at a public place. Things like these are common place to counter something that shouldn’t be happening as frequently as they are.
It is true that America does need to do something to prevent more of these shootings from taking place. There have been gun laws put into play to try and help. That being said, gun violence has been on the decline since the 1990s so America has been doing something right since then.
American gun violence has been on the decline since the 1990s – National Institute of Justice
Confiscating guns at this point seems highly irregular, especially from people who legally obtain them and are responsible with them. It seems like the government wants the guns out of people’s hands for another reason. Having a federal gun confiscation that takes the guns away from law abiding citizens is not just unethical, it’s illegal. Take a look at past gun confiscation efforts.
GUN CONFISCATION HISTORY
Gun confiscation in across the world goes back a good number of years. There is a certain pattern when it comes to gun confiscation – once the government takes the guns away, tyranny is soon to follow. Here are a number of instances where nations have put gun confiscation acts in place:
- 1774-1776: In 1774, The British Empire established an Import Ban on Firearms and Gunpowder. In 1775, British authorities seek to confiscate firearms and gunpowder. 1776 marked war against the rebels on the American lands who seceded British rule.
- 1938-1940: Hitler and the Nazi Party established gun control in Germany just prior to them rounding up Jews and causing mass genocide within the country, then moved on to other countries. World War II was then started.
- 1935, 1958: China instituted a gun control policy in 1935 that insured guns were not in the hands of any civilians. When Chairman Mao Zedong led a campaign to transform the country’s economy and society in 1959, private farmers were not permitted to farm. Wide famine spread due to many unable to defend themselves against Chinese enforcers – The Great Chinese Famine began killing some 20-40 million.
These were just of few instances around the world that prove gun confiscation leads to the government terrorizing its subjects. There are plenty more but the idea is clear – gun confiscation = government tyranny.
WILL ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS HELP?
So you are probably asking yourself, “You don’t have to confiscate guns. Why don’t you just do better background checks?” Fair question. To get a better perspective of how to improve the background checks, we first have to dive into what goes into gun purchasing background checks currently.
CURRENT BACKGROUND CHECKS
When a US citizen wants to buy a gun, a couple of things must happen before the gun dealer can decide to sell someone a gun. Someone cannot just walk into a gun store and purchase a gun like they have walked into a convenience store, picked out and buy a candy bar, and walk out. Surprisingly enough, today’s federal background checks are decently thorough.
To do things legally, the gun dealer must first have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Once a buyer has selected a firearm and is ready to purchase, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requires the buyer to fill out their Firearms Transaction Record Form (Form 4473). This is a 6 page background check questionnaire that dives into the buyer’s history by asking personal questions. The questions on the form specify criminal background, mental health, immigration status, and home address. The buyer will also need a form of personal identification to prove who they say they are.
NOTE: Lying on the form is a felony and punishable up to a 10 year prison sentence with a $250,000 fine
THE FBI’S NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL CHECK SYSTEM
The gun dealer will submit the form to the National Instant Criminal Check System (NICS). The FBI’s NICS system was established in 1998 to determine whether a gun buyer was eligible to actually purchase a firearm. The NICS E-Check allows almost instant verification on the buyer’s eligibility while providing secure benefits rather than doing it over the phone. This process has about a 2 minute turn around.
From here the gun dealer will usually know whether they will want to sell the gun or not. The report could come back Proceed, Canceled/Denied, or Delayed. Also, the deal has the “final say” whether they are willing to sell the gun. Just like other restaurants and businesses, they have the right to refuse service or sales to anyone.
WHAT COULD BE CHANGED?
There have been a number of people who have issue with the current background check system. Some have said the current background check isn’t enough and some say the whole background check feature is an infringement on people’s second amendment right altogether.
The quick NICS turn around is a great feature but makes me wonder how the NICS system gets such a quick turn around. What exactly goes into getting a determining factor whether a buyer is eligible to buy a gun or not. The questions on the 4473 form are pretty straight forward and simple. Maybe a little too simple.
To me, what is stated on the 4473 Form isn’t enough. Maybe some psychological questions or additional questions on medication are needed. This would be similar to what the laws New York have if mental health professionals have said something about the buyer being a danger. This might violate current HIPAA laws though. Also, I had an idea for good gun references like interviewing for a job. This way the dealer gets a better sense of the person the dealer is dealing with from the people who the buyer associates with. This might hinder some privacy laws though.
These are my “two cents.” Hopefully someone comes up with something better.
RED FLAG LAWS
Red Flag laws might be the new standard for gun control in America. Here is the definition of a Red Flag Law if you are unfamiliar to them:
a Red flag law is a gun control law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary confiscation of firearms from a person who allegedly presents a danger to others or themselves
Red flag laws in general are a cheap cop-out to gun control and a way of putting responsibility on the citizens to “see something, say something.” The whole idea of this on paper is sound. The problem with this method is that it can be more of a “guilty before proven innocent” kind of deal.
It’s been noted that some red flag laws, like the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” in Oregon, where authorities have the right to deny the accused targets of the red flag law any due process by not giving the accused the chance to be heard. This in itself is a HUGE red flag. This means that anyone can accuse anyone they want of being a danger to themselves or to others and have their guns taken from them whether they are a danger or not.
If more red flag laws come into play, I can see this ending up being like the #metoo movement. Sure, there will be some who are accused who ARE dangers to society. There will also be those who will be falsely accused just because the accuser feels like accusing a gun owner for reasons other than what the law is for. This will seem like more problems than these new laws would be worth.
WHAT WILL A MANDATORY GUN BUYBACK DO?
A government buyback program is, to put it bluntly, a slap in the face to the citizens. If the government is going to do an official buyback program, don’t expect to get anything significant on your turned in weapon. Most buyback programs offer a very small percentage of money back from the how much you actually paid for the gun.
A gun buyback program was established in Detroit, Michigan where Detroit Police setup a “no questions asked” gun buyback. Detroit police totaled 365 guns from the program. The total paid out to people was a staggeringly low amount of $16,820.
That is just over $46 paid for each gun on average.
The gun buyback in Detroit was voluntary. If this buyback is mandatory, the amount paid out would be even worse. A buyback doesn’t seem worth it for anyone but the government.
ARE WE PAST THE POINT OF TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS?
The second amendment was always about keeping the government at bay and keeping your rights. People have seem to have forgotten this. Some think it is more about keeping your gun
The right to keep and bear arms is not about anyone’s “hunting rifle”; the right to keep and bear arms is about the right of the people to defend themselves against anyone who would attempt the taking of their rights. – Lynn Stuter newswithviews.com
So, if the government establishes a gun buyback or a gun ban altogether, would citizens be safe if the government ever became a tyrannical force? The history of governments turning on their subjects has already been stated here. You can see the concern of the people who want to keep guns and see the importance of the second amendment.
If you think that times are different – you are wrong. The government combined with today’s technology which includes weapons, are more advanced than ever before. This is one of the reasons why gun enthusiasts are keen on keeping long rifles which include AR-15 and AK-47 style rifles. With the government knowing its citizens have access to similar weapons that their armed forces have, it keeps all forms of government within the country in check.
To sum up the points here, gun confiscation generally leads to tyranny and genocide. The current American gun laws currently require a background check to purchase a firearm. Maybe background check reform is necessary to block mentally unfit people from getting their hands on firearms. Red flag laws could lead to many false allegations if not handled correctly. A gun buyback is pointless and insulting to the American public. Military grade weapons are necessary to keep the government in check.
Gun confiscation is definitely NOT good for America. Heck, it’s good for any country. Switzerland has similar laws but very limited gun violence. In can be done. Let’s get there without infringing the second amendment.
Get your guns, get shooting. Remember, Practice Makes Proficient.
A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America
August 29th marks the 10-year anniversary of when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, La. The memory of the devastation wrought by the storm and the resulting chaos is a human tragedy of such a vast scale that it endures to this day; and will well beyond. Further, the measures taken to disarm law-abiding firearm owners in Katrina’s wake should serve as a testament to why gun owners guard our right to bear arms so vigilantly.
The disorder of the storm’s aftermath – and the inability of local law enforcement to contain it – brought into stark realization the importance of the right to keep and bear arms in order to provide for the defense of oneself, loved ones, and community. Stories of looting and violence abounded. A police chief described post-Katrina New Orleans by stating, “it was like Mogadishu.”
Despite their inability to cope with the resulting mayhem, several days after the storm passed New Orleans officials ordered the confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms from city residents. In a September 8, 2005 article, the New York Times described the scene, stating, “Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here… Police officers and federal law enforcement agents scoured the city carrying assault rifles seeking residents who have holed up to avoid forcible eviction.”
As reported by the Washington Post, New Orleans Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made clear, “No one will be able to be armed,” and, “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.” At the time, NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre noted the nature of the seizures, stating, “In many cases, it was from their homes at gunpoint. There were no receipts given or anything else at a time when there was no 911 response and these citizens were out there on their own protecting their families.”
City authorities were selective with their order, discriminating against the most vulnerable. The Times noted that the city’s order “apparently does not apply to the hundreds of security guards whom businesses and some wealthy individuals have hired to protect their property… Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.” In 2005 Ray Nagin served as the mayor of New Orleans. Nagin would go on to become a member of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, and later federal inmate No. 32751-034, following 2014 convictions for fraud and bribery.
In the years that followed, New Orleans officials were unrepentant. In a 2006 interview with local radio station WWL, New Orleans Superintendent Warren Riley said, “During a circumstance like that, we cannot allow people to walk the street carrying guns…as law enforcement officers we will confiscate the weapon if a person is walking down the street and they may be arrested.”
NRA immediately denounced the confiscations as unlawful under state law and unconstitutional, and set to work rectifying New Orleans’ abuse of power and ensuring that no American would be faced with confiscation under a similar scenario.
NRA promptly filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against New Orleans in order to halt the city’s confiscation efforts. On September 23, Judge Jay Zainey granted a temporary restraining order barring New Orleans and the surrounding communities from further confiscations, and required that the seized guns be returned. NRA also successfully worked to lift a ban on firearm possession for those living in Federal Emergency Management Agency housing as a result of the storm.
The city dragged its feet in returning confiscated firearms to their lawful owners. However, NRA persisted until 2008, when NRA and New Orleans came to a settlement in which the city agreed to carry out an acceptable procedure for returning the firearms. The agreement allowed owners to get back their guns without documented proof of ownership, which many residents were understandably unable to provide.
NRA’s post-Katrina efforts did not stop at the Louisiana border. NRA prompted mayors and police chiefs across America to sign a pledge stating that they will, “never forcibly disarm the law-abiding citizens” of their city. Further, NRA worked to limit the power of state and local governments to regulate firearms in times of emergency, by advocating for emergency powers reform legislation throughout the country. Currently, over half of the states have some form of emergency powers provision protecting gun owners from government abuse during a crisis.
In 2006, moreover, President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.View Related Articles
Having gone through such a horrific ordeal, in the years after Katrina New Orleans residents exhibited a greater appreciation for their right to bear arms. The number of Right-to-Carry permit holders in the city doubled from 2004 to 2006. In reporting the experience of Vivian Westerman, a sixty-four-year-old that stayed in her home during Katrina, the Associated Press noted that, “So terrible was [Katrina] that [Westerman] wanted two things before the next hurricane season arrived: a backup power source and a gun.” Westerman told the AP that after purchasing a .38-revolver, “I’ve never been more confident.” In September 2008, when Hurricane Gustav threatened the city, the New York Post reported that those remaining in the city were “locked & loaded,” and detailed the stories of several armed residents.
As we remember the terrible devastation of Katrina, gun owners should further commit themselves to ensuring that Americans are never again deprived of the ability to defend themselves in their hour of need. A decade later, Wayne LaPierre’s words following Katrina are still as relevant as ever, “The lesson of New Orleans is that citizens must be able to rely on their own ability to survive. The answer once and for all to politicians who say Americans don’t need the Second Amendment, government will protect you, the answer forever more is New Orleans.”
Gun Confiscation Has Begun-What Comes Next? History Speaks Will America Listen?
The UN prescription for disarming America.before the implementation of the FEMA camps and the takeover of the United States
First Venezuela, then South Africa, then the United States. Gun confiscation is always the prelude to genocide. History speaks will America listen?
Gun control and ultimately gun confiscation has begun in earnest inside of the United States. Prior to reporting on the simultaneous gun confiscation programs that have begun in earnest in multiple locations, I would first like to visually and graphically present an historical lesson about the dangers that gun control/confiscation poses to a population at the hands of their government.
I once interviewed Paul Martin regarding door-to-door visits by law enforcement all around the country. This is increasing exponentially as evidenced by California Governor Jerry Brown’s Moon-Beam Militia and they are asking residents if they have registered guns. Paul Preston, from Agenda 21 Radio is aware of this as well.
People wonder why I am so opposed to any UN troop presence on American soil. Under the Kigali Principles, the UN has granted itself the right to forcibly enter the sovereign territory of any nation and enact WHATEVER policies they deem necessary to restore the country to a level of normalcy that the UN deems appropriate. Under Obama and former Secretary of State, John Kerry, they both signed the UN Small Arms Treaty which effectively bans all private ownership of guns. If these UN troops ever gain a foothold in America, And there are many people in our country who say this day will never come. Let me remind you, or perhaps reintroduce the evidence that the UN has resources stored inside of our country that will be used by their so-called “peacekeepers” when that day comes that UN troops are rolling down the streets of America. Here is one very small piece of evidence that has already been documented on The Common Sense Show.
UN Vehicles housed on abandoned US military bases such as this one in Hagerstown, MD. Someone should ask the current President why these vehicles have not been destroyed as a direct threat to American sovereignty and national security? Given the track record of the United Nations in previous genocides (eg Rwanda and soon-t0-be-South Africa), I view the presence of any UN personnel and equipment on American soil as a direct and personal threat to both my family and my country.
DEMOCIDE: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT
The University of Hawaii maintains a website regarding an event that they label as demodice, which means mass murder by government. Mass murder by government far and away exceeds death by war. Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. The questions are, then, how is this democide defined, is genocide included, how many have been killed, how do we find this out, and what sources can be used?
All of America should express thanks to the University of Hawaii for presenting this stunning portrayal of democide. The site is crystal clear, all government sponsored GENOCIDE is preceded by gun control, 100% of the time without exception.
That Was Then, This Is Now
In Boulder, CO., just north of Denver, the local authorities are conducting a preliminary and unconstitutional gun registration program. Boulder city council personnel freeely admit that this hope this action is a prelude to the confiscation of all American guns. From the Denver Post:
Residents of Boulder, Co., have until December 27 to “certify” their “assault weapons” or remove the firearms from city limits. Those who fail to comply could face fines, jail time, and confiscation and destruction of their firearms, face fines and even jail time. Boulder police say they have certified 85 firearms since the city council passed an “assault weapons” ban in May. Residents who already owned prohibited rifles, pistols, and shotguns were given the chance to keep their firearms by certifying prior ownership with police. The council also voted unanimously to ban “high-capacity” magazines and bump stocks. “My hope is that we will see more bans at the state level and one day at the federal level so these weapons will no longer be available,” Councilman Aaron Brockett said in May.
The tyranny and genocidal intentions of the anti-gun crowd has spread to New Jersey . From Natural News:
…the New Jersey State Police have told Breitbart News they won’t rule out “house-to-house enforcement” of the new magazine ban, meaning they plan to conduct house-to-house arrests and gun magazine confiscations. These Nazi-style anti-gun operations will, of course, be carried out at gunpoint, further underscoring the entire purpose of the Second Amendment and the need for citizens to arm themselves with 30-round magazines to defend against government tyranny. “Breitbart News contacted New Jersey State Police on Monday to ask how they planned to enforce the newly enacted ban,” reports Breitbart.com. “The NJ State Police refused to rule out house-to-house checks. Rather, they responded: ‘We do not discuss enforcement strategies.’” The very reason citizens need 30-round magazines is because the government wants to use coercion and the threat of violence to take away their legally-acquired firearms and magazines. If citizens surrender 30-round magazines, the next step will be New Jersey banning all magazines, followed by the banning of all semi-automatic firearms. Almost overnight, citizens of New Jersey will find themselves living under an authoritarian regime of pure tyranny and lawlessness… with no means to defend themselves against the state, which will then have a monopoly on effective firearms. This is a repeat of Nazi Germany, which disarmed the Jews before mass murdering six million of them. It’s so much easier to murder people, after all, when the government disarms them first. And anyone going along with the disarmament is signing their own death warrant…
When I read these two account, plus the ones in Florida and California, I feel like I am watching the movie, Haws, as the music starts and comes to a crescendo as the giant shark finds and devours its prey. Gun confiscation has begun in earnest in its various forms. Clearly, the globalists know that wiping out the Second Amendment in a full frontal assault, would result in citizen rebellion. Therefore, they are following the edicts of Agenda 21 implementation, do it locally so as to lower the chances of resistance on a mass scale.
Presently, Florida law enforcement is busy seizing weapons and ammunition with no warrants and no provocation. This is total tyranny. Gun confiscation is being taken to a new level. Have we not learned anything from history? Those that turn in their guns are doomed. The globalists will never go after the guns directly, they know what the American reaction would be. Instead, in states like Washington, they are going after the guns incrementally. And when the guns are gone from law-abiding citizens, history shows that when genocide occurs. Other states are following Florida’s example which began in earnest last summer. Here is the story on the most recent developments in this Stalinist/Hiter/Maoist approach to citizen control through the practice of gun control and ultimately genocide for those that resist the imposition of a tyrannical, authoritarian government. [/caption] If one wants to know where this is headed and they are not persuaded by historical examples go to the CIA mouthpiece site www.deagle.com as it tells us that the US population will decrease, in the next 7 years, from 320 million to 55 million. I only have one more picture to present in this article and it comes from Sherry Wilcox, a previous guest on my radio show. One summer in 2011, Sherry went looking for FEMA camps. Instead, she found this….
If you are unsure what you are looking at, here is a closeup.
History speaks, are you listening America?
Red Dawn forces will complete the cleanup of firearms. Instead, this is what they should find.
Worried Reader Fears Gun Confiscation in America Is Inevitable
I am delighted to finally be writing to you. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am having found your website. I have been studying chemtrails for example for many years now, with literally daily assaults above my house all day, every day of thev year. Your analysis of, understanding of, and attention to the chemtrail dangers is what got me interested in your page in the first place. My study of late of scalar weapons and especially your recent radio interview with ZS Livingstone regarding the earthquakes around the planet provided me with much needed feelings of vindication in areas that I feel I’ve really been isolated in. What disturbs me and hurts too is the ignorance in those around me who choose to hide their heads in the sand rather than take a practical approach to seeing what goes on around them. I read earlier more about the detrimental effects of watching TV on Henry Makow’s site. I’ve become an intense learner about all this, and am seeking more ways to be involved in activism.
Anyway, the real point I wanted to make to you was regarding Feinstein and your response to Keith Howe who was asking you about that and your response about Alex Jone’s site. I have to say that though you’ve really impressed me in so many arenas and aspects of life (understand I just had a full hip replacement and recovered from ulcerative colitis this past year, so I’m no spring chicken nor ignorant of life’s challenges), I have got to take issue with you regarding your view of the futility of Feinstein’s goal of taking our guns. What I’ve come to understand is that this is more than that woman’s fight….this is obviously bigger, at the UN level. Regardless of our collective conscious and gained awareness from the internet and other sources, these people, like Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Obama, et al, have massive resources at their disposal to engage the US citizenry and tell us what they
want is law. I read Alex Jones’ site daily, and though I will attest that you are correct in your summation of some of it’s affect on those getting their news from there, my view is that we have already hit critical mass in being able to stop what these people have put in place, including passing the small arms treaty.
I base my judgements on such things as the Feds arresting people for buying and selling raw milk. The list goes on. When you look at the geoengineering of hurricane Sandy, and the complete void in coverage by the mainstream media, and then come to recognize that the powers that be own the media outlets who are aligned with the Illuminati, you can’t help but to get a sense of humility, fear and sadness when you are able to see the collective fate and incapacity of the general public to discern what is actually going on. I have an ironic sense of positivity for my own survival, but I don’t have that sense at all for the common man. The dots that connect for me at this time ring alarms for my own sanity, survival, and well being. I’ve found that I can’t muster the energy to help enough other people when they choose to ignore or disbelieve that our own government would choose to harm them in such insidious ways that are already understood. To get back on subject, I take complete issue with you regarding where the gun control situation will end up. As a matter of fact,
I think we are right on the precipice of losing the one right that has allowed those of us who understand individualism to prosper. You have it wrong. There is no way these people aren’t going to take our guns. It has nothing to do with popular sentiment, red states considered. This has everything to do with a power grab at a time when the average person doesn’t have a clue as to who they really voted for and what their aspirations are. Your last line in the email I am referencing says “And you can take that to the bank.”. I’d be willing to take that bet, if there are any banks to take that to. The illusion that we are gaining traction on the elite is an illusion. I know you disagree with at least some portion of a broad statement like that, but I would bet you you’re wrong. I know what’s coming. And to believe in anything other than a complete massive suppression of free will happening is in my estimation sheer folly. I will continue to be a continued reader and learner on your site. But I’ll tell ya what….we ARE going to see these people take our guns. Not saying people won’t fight back, but they WILL make a charge to take our weapons. And you can take THAT to the bank.
Hemlock NY….where they spray us so massively one couldn’t possibly not understand there’s a problem.
Good letter, glad to get your read on things.
I didn’t suggest that people should just lay down and not get into Feinstein’s face about any new attempts at gun control legislation because you can be sure the radical Left will push very hard in Obama’s second term, but my original assessment stands: Gun confiscation is not going to happen in this country anytime soon.
You may get the impression from the Zionist controlled media that the NWO Marxist servants who control the legislatures of socialist strongholds like California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are going to steam roll over the entire country with their Communist Manifesto agenda during Obama’s second term, but you do not appreciate just how fiercely the vast majority of people in this country–especially in the Midwest and South– are married to the Second Amendment.
As I mentioned in my reply to Keith, the staged shootings at schools, cafeterias, or movie theaters are no longer going to fly with the public as being credible since many people now realize that such public slaughters–going back to the Charles Whitman Texas school tower shootings of many decades ago– are the product of CIA mind controlled, programmed individuals. The pre-planned propaganda push by the Left (e.g. Amy Goodman) for renewed gun control legislation in the immediate wake of the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting went absolutely nowhere because many people now realize these shootings are staged to agitate for gun control.
It’s a huge mistake to capitulate to any resignation towards defeatism since it is ONLY the will and determination by an informed American electorate that will stop the NWO takeover of America. Reality follows thought. That’s why the Illuminati works so hard to negatively influence people’s thoughts and emotions through movies, music, TV, etc.
We do (and become) what we THINK, therefore you need to be careful about the sort of thoughts which control your attitude and actions.
The other thing you don’t realize is that the Demonic Kingdom, upon which NWO puppets and minions depend upon for power and advantage in advancing their One World government agenda, is rapidly disintegrating beneath their feet. The Illuminated, satanic bastards can murder all the babies and young children they want; but it won’t amount to a hill of beans because most of their demonic deities to whom they offer sacrifice, like Baphomet, are NO LONGER in existence to send them aid and support. ZS Livingstone has written about this in a couple of recent essays. A new day is coming.
America Should Be Asking “What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?”
In the midst of the frenetic Jade Helm activities, it was easy to lose track about the importance of several events. This is precisely what happened in Michigan between July 27 and September 15. During that time, troops from several nations, including 3000 Polish troops practiced seizing the guns from American citizens.
As if this wasn’t bad enough, there are details emerging from the event that are very troubling.
When I viewed the above video near the end of July of 2015, I did not think much of this because the nation was embroiled in the massive military exercises associated with Jade Helm 15. At least that was what I thought until I received the following email:
My husband was involved in a training exercise, here in Michigan in combination with several thousand foreign troops. For weeks, the drills were always the same. They would pull make believe American families out of their homes after they forcibly entered the home look for guns. In the final week of the drill, the exercise to a turn toward the unbelievable.
In the final week, after they pulled would-be Americans, played by actors, out of the home, they would search for guns. They forced the family members to kneel on the ground. If they found guns in the home, they pretended to execute the entire family. My husbands platoon was the only American troops at the scene. The Americans did not participate in the raids on the homes. The National Guard troops provided intelligence and communications support for the units. The abuse of the pretend American families was all done by the foreign troops. This has shaken my husband up. He feels he knows what is coiming. The operation was conducted under the UN flag. He wants the word out but does not want to be discovered as an informant. Because of this I cannot sign my name. God help us Dave what are we coming to?
It Is Time to Start Asking What Happens to a Nation Following Gun Confiscation?
You ever wondered what happens to a people after gun confiscation? Do they live happily ever after? Not quite. Genocide is the most important development that followes a government stripping its citizens of the rights.
Before we passively allow the Obama administration strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.
Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.
Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.
Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly and reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?
Still think Obama is harmless?
Finally, most would wonder what gun confiscation would look and feel like in America. Nobody knows because it has never happened. It is only a matter of time.
thoughtco.com, “Timeline of Gun Control in the United States.” By Robert Longley; breitbart.com, “Nolte: How Close Is America to Outright Gun Confiscation? Very Close.” By John Nolte; concealedcarry.com, “How Real or Possible is Gun Confiscation?” by Jacob Paulsen; thetruthaboutguns.com, “Why Gun Confiscation Won’t Happen in the United States.” By Dan Zimmerman; americas1stfreedom.org, “Don’t Count On American Compliance With Gun Confiscation.” by Amy Swearer; gunmagnetworld.com, “How to Hide Your Guns from Confiscation and Martial Law: Preparing for Gun Confiscation.” By admin; beginnergunner.com, “IS GUN CONFISCATION GOOD FOR AMERICA?”; nraila.org, “A Decade Later, Remember New Orleans … Gun Confiscation Can (and Has) Happened in America”; thecommonsenseshow.com, “Gun Confiscation Has Begun-What Comes Next? History Speaks Will America Listen?” By Dave Hodges; pjmedia.com, “What Liberals Don’t Understand: A Serious Attempt at Gun Confiscation Could Lead to Civil War.” by John Hawkins; educate-yourself.org, “Worried Reader Fears Gun Confiscation in America Is Inevitable”; the libertybeacon.com, “America Should Be Asking ‘What Happens to a Nation After Gun Confiscation?’.” By Dave Hodges;
Timeline of Gun Control in the United States
The gun control debate in the United States goes back to the nation’s founding, when the framers of the Constitution first wrote the Second Amendment, allowing private citizens to “keep and bear arms.”
Gun control became a much bigger topic shortly after the November 22, 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy’s death increased public awareness of the relative lack of control over the sale and possession of firearms in America.
Until 1968, handguns, rifles, shotguns, and ammunition were commonly sold over the counter and through mail-order catalogs and magazines to just about any adult anywhere in the nation.
However, America’s history of federal and state laws regulating private ownership of firearms goes back much farther.
The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, gains final ratification.
The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Georgia passes a law banning handguns. The law is ruled unconstitutional by the state’s Supreme Court and is thrown out.
In a reaction to emancipation, several southern states adopt “Black codes” which, among other things, forbid Black persons from possessing firearms.FEATURED VIDEOhttps://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.493.0_en.html#goog_5478745250 seconds of 2 minutes, 13 secondsVolume 0%02:13 Timeline of the Vietnam War
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians’ marksmanship in preparation for war.
The U.S. Congress passes the Miller Act, a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.
The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating the manufacture, sale, and possession of fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is enacted for the purpose of “keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence.”
The act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record-keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.
The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is created, listing as part of its mission the control of illegal use and sale of firearms and the enforcement of Federal firearms laws. The ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.
The District of Columbia enacts an anti-handgun law which also requires registration of all rifles and shotguns within the District of Columbia.
The Armed Career Criminal Act increases penalties for possession of firearms by persons not qualified to own them under the Gun Control Act of 1986.
The Firearms Owners Protection Act (Public Law 99-308) relaxes some restrictions on gun and ammunition sales and establishes mandatory penalties for use of firearms during the commission of a crime.
The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (Public Law 99-408) bans possession of “cop killer” bullets capable of penetrating bulletproof clothing.
President Ronald Reagan signs the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, making it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors. The law prohibited guns from not containing enough metal to trigger security screening machines found in airports, courthouses and other secure areas accessible to the public.
California bans the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons following the massacre of five children on a Stockton, Calif., school playground.
The Crime Control Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) bans the manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the United States. “Gun-free school zones” are established, carrying specific penalties for violations.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 prohibits the sale, manufacture, importation, or possession of several specific types of assault-type weapons for a 10-year period. However, the law expires on September 13, 2004, after Congress fails to reauthorize it.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Printz v. United States, declares the background check requirement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act unconstitutional.
The Florida Supreme Court upholds a jury’s $11.5 million verdict against Kmart for selling a gun to an intoxicated man who used the gun to shoot his estranged girlfriend.
Major American gun manufacturers voluntarily agree to include child safety trigger devices on all new handguns.
A Justice Department report indicates the blocking of some 69,000 handgun sales during 1997 when the Brady Bill pre-sale background checks were required.
An amendment requiring a trigger lock mechanism to be included with every handgun sold in the United States is defeated in the Senate.
But the Senate approves an amendment requiring gun dealers to have trigger locks available for sale and creating federal grants for gun safety and education programs.
New Orleans becomes the first U.S. city to file suit against gunmakers, firearms trade associations, and gun dealers. The city’s suit seeks recovery of costs attributed to gun-related violence.
Nov. 12, 1998
Chicago files a $433 million suit against local gun dealers and makers alleging that oversupplying local markets provided guns to criminals.
Nov. 17, 1998
A negligence suit against gunmaker Beretta brought by the family of a 14-year-old boy killed by another boy with a Beretta handgun is dismissed by a California jury.
Nov. 30, 1998
Permanent provisions of the Brady Act go into effect. Gun dealers are now required to initiate a pre-sale criminal background check of all gun buyers through the newly created National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) computer system.
Dec. 1, 1998
The NRA files suit in federal court attempting to block the FBI’s collection of information on firearm buyers.
Dec. 5, 1998
President Bill Clinton announces that the instant background check system had prevented 400,000 illegal gun purchases. The claim was called “misleading” by the NRA.
Civil suits against gunmakers seeking to recover costs of gun-related violence were filed in Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade County, Fla.
April 20, 1999
At Columbine High School near Denver, students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shoot and kill 12 other students and a teacher, and wound 24 others before killing themselves. The attack renews debate on the need for more restrictive gun control laws.
May 20, 1999
By a 51-50 vote, with the tie-breaker vote cast by Vice President Al Gore, the U.S. Senate passes a bill requiring trigger locks on all newly manufactured handguns and extending waiting period and background check requirements to sales of firearms at gun shows.
Aug. 24, 1999
The Los Angeles County, Calif., Board of Supervisors votes 3-2 to ban the Great Western Gun Show, billed as the “World’s Largest Gun Show” from the Pomona fairgrounds where it had been held for the last 30 years.
Sept. 13, 2004
After lengthy and heated debate, Congress allows the 10-year-old Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 banning the sale of 19 types of military-style assault weapons to expire.
Massachusetts becomes the first state to implement an electronic instant gun buyer background check system with fingerprint scanning for gun licenses and gun purchases.
California bans the manufacture, sale, distribution or import of the powerful .50-caliber BMG, or Browning machine gun rifle.
President Bush signs the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act limiting the ability of victims of crimes in which guns were used to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers. The law includes an amendment requiring all new guns to come with trigger locks.
In a move supported by both opponents and advocates of gun control laws, President Bush signs the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act requiring gun-buyer background checks to screen for legally declared mentally ill individuals, who are ineligible to buy firearms.
June 26, 2008
In its landmark decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment affirmed the rights of individuals to own firearms. The ruling also overturns a 32-year-old ban on the sale or possession of handguns in the District of Columbia.
A federal law signed by President Barack Obama took effect allowing licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law.
Dec. 9, 2013
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, requiring that all guns must contain enough metal to be detectable by security screening machines was extended through 2035.
July 29, 2015
In an effort to close the so-called “gun show loophole” allowing gun sales conducted without Brady Act background checks, U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduces the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015 (H.R. 3411), to require background checks for all gun sales, including sales made over the internet and at gun shows.
June 12, 2016
President Obama again calls on Congress to enact or renew a law prohibiting the sale and possession of assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines after a man identified as Omar Mateen kills 49 people in an Orlando, Fla., gay nightclub on June 12, using an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. In a call to 9-1-1 he made during the attack, Mateen told police he had pledged his allegiance to the radical Islamic terrorist group ISIS.
A bill titled “Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act,” or SHARE Act (H.R. 2406) advances to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. While the main purpose of the bill is to expand access to public land for, hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, a provision added by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) called The Hearing Protection Act would reduce the current federal restrictions on purchasing firearm silencers, or suppressors.
Currently, the restrictions on silencer purchases are similar to those for machine guns, including extensive background checks, waiting periods, and transfer taxes. Duncan’s provision would eliminate those restrictions.
Backers of Duncan’s provision argue that it would help recreational hunters and shooters protect themselves from hearing loss. Opponents say it would make it harder for police and civilians to locate the source of gunfire, potentially resulting in more casualties.
Witnesses to the deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas on Oct. 1, 2017, reported that the gunfire coming from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Resort sounded like “popping” that was at first mistaken as fireworks. Many argue that the inability to hear the gunshots made the shooting even more deadly.
Oct. 1, 2017
Barely over a year after the Orlando shooting, a man identified as Stephen Craig Paddock opens fire on an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas. Shooting from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, Paddock kills at least 59 people and wounds more than 500 others.
Among the at least 23 firearms found in Paddock’s room were legally-purchased, semi-automatic AR-15 rifles which had been fitted with commercially-available accessories known as “bump stocks,” which allow semi-automatic rifles to be fired as if in fully-automatic mode of up to nine rounds per second. Under a law enacted in 2010, bump stocks are treated as legal, after-market accessories.
In the aftermath of the incident, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for laws specifically banning bump stocks, while others have also called for a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Oct. 4, 2017
Less than a week after the Las Vegas shooting, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) introduces the “Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act” that would ban the sale and possession of bump stocks and other devices that allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire like a fully-automatic weapon.
The bill states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a trigger crank, a bump-fire device or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.”
Oct. 5, 2017
Sen. Feinstein introduces the Background Check Completion Act. Feinstein says the bill would close a loophole in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
“Current law allows gun sales to proceed after 72 hours—even if background checks aren’t approved. This is a dangerous loophole that could allow criminals and those with mental illness to complete their purchase of firearms even though it would be unlawful for them to possess them.”
The Background Check Completion Act would require that a background check be fully completed before any gun buyer who purchases a gun from a federally-licensed firearms dealer (FFL) can take possession of the gun.
Feb. 21, 2018
Just days after the February 14, 2018, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, President Donald Trump orders the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to review “bump fire stocks”—devices that allow a semi-automatic rifle to be fired similarly to a fully-automatic weapon.
Trump had previously indicated that he might support a new federal regulation banning the sale of such devices.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters:
“The President, when it comes to that, is committed to ensuring that those devices are—again, I’m not going to get ahead of the announcement, but I can tell you that the president doesn’t support use of those accessories.”
On February 20, Sanders stated that the president would support “steps” to raise the current minimum age for buying military-style weapons, such as the AR-15—the weapon used in the Parkland shooting—from 18 to 21.
“I think that’s certainly something that’s on the table for us to discuss and that we expect to come up over the next couple of weeks,” Sanders said.
July 31, 2018
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle issued a temporary restraining blocking the release of blueprints that could be used to produce untraceable and undetectable 3D-printable plastic guns.
Assembled from ABS plastic parts, 3D guns are firearms that can be made with a computer-controlled 3D printer. The judge acted partly in response to a lawsuit filed against the federal government by several states to block the release of blueprints for 3D-printed plastic guns.
Judge Lasnik’s order banned the Austin, Texas-based gun-rights group Defense Distributed from allowing the public to download the blueprints from its website.
“There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made,” Lasnik wrote.
Before the restraining order, plans for assembling a variety of guns, including an AR-15-style rifle and a Beretta M9 handgun could be downloaded from the Defense Distributed website.
Shortly after the restraining order was issued, President Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump) tweeted, “I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!”
The NRA said in a statement that “anti-gun politicians” and certain members of the press had wrongly claimed that 3D printing technology “will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms.”
In the wake of three mass shootings in Gilroy, Calif.; El Paso, Texas; and Dayton, Ohio in the span of two weeks that left a total of almost three dozen people dead, a new push was made in Congress for gun control measures. Among the proposals were stronger background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines. “Red flag” laws also were proposed to allow police or family members to file a court petition to remove firearms from individuals who might pose a danger to themselves or others.
August 9, 2019
President Donald Trump indicated he would support new legislation requiring “common-sense” background checks for gun purchases. “On background checks, we have tremendous support for really common-sense, sensible, important background checks,” Trump told reporters at the White House. Noting that he had spoken to National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre, the president said the issue “isn’t a question of NRA, Republican or Democrat. We will see where the NRA will be, but we need meaningful background checks.”
The House of Representatives had previously passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would ban most person-to-person firearm transfers without a background check, including firearm transfers at gun shows and between individuals. The bill passed 240-190, with eight Republicans joining almost all Democrats in voting for the bill. As of September 1, 2019, the Senate had taken no action on the bill.
August 12, 2019
President Trump voiced his support for red flag gun confiscation laws. “We must make sure that those judged to pose a grave risk to public safety do not have access to firearms and that if they do, those firearms can be taken through rapid due process,” he said in televised remarks from the White House. “That is why I have called for red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.”
August 20, 2019
After speaking with NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, President Trump seemed to back away from supporting expanded background checks for firearm purchases. “We have very strong background checks right now,” he said, speaking from the Oval Office. “And I have to tell you that it is a mental problem. And I’ve said it a hundred times it’s not the gun that pulls the trigger, it’s the people.” Trump also stressed his support for the Second Amendment, stating that he would not want to go down the “slippery slope” of infringing on the right to bear arms.
January 20, 2020
Rep. Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, on Jan. 30 introduced H.R. 5717, which would, among other items, ban the purchasing and possession of assault weapons. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., introduced in February the Senate version of the bill, S.3254.
“The Gun Violence Prevention and Community Safety Act will save lives and make our country safer – without infringing on any law-abiding individual’s right to own firearms,” Johnson said in a news release issued as the bill was filed.
The legislation introduced a variety of reforms with the intent to “end the epidemic of gun violence and build safer communities by strengthening Federal firearms laws and supporting gun violence research, intervention, and prevention initiatives.”
The bill addresses background checks, taxes on firearms and goods related to firearms, gun storage, accessibility of guns on school campuses, and more.
How to Hide Your Guns from Confiscation and Martial Law: Preparing for Gun Confiscation
Yep, you read that title right. I know – I sound like my tin foil hat is a bit tight right now. It’s 2018 – why would you need to learn how to hide your guns from confiscation? Gun confiscation in America hasn’t happened yet – what’s there to worry about? My response to that: the key word is in that sentence is “yet”.
Before I go any further into this article, I’ll start off by letting you know that I’ve been a patriot from birth and will be a patriot until I die.
However, while I may bleed red, white, and blue, I can’t say everyone else in America does – both citizens and government officials. And as we know, the 2nd Amendment has been a touchy subject across the United States in recent times. With changing laws and recent court cases, I’ve started to listen a bit more when my fellow gun owners talk to me about preparing for gun confiscation. In this past half year alone, I’ve been asked at least 10 different times by fellow gun owners on how to hide your guns from confiscation and/or potential martial law.
In this article, I’m going to cover why should start THINKING about the possibility of needing to prepare for gun confiscation, how gun confiscation might rear its head during martial law, and teach you how to hide your guns during confiscation.
As you read this, remember: the Oval Office has been gun friendly in recent times. Also, while there have been some instances of gun confiscation in America, confiscation isn’t something that is going to just happen tomorrow. The rule for off-chance occurrences (soldiers knocking at your door demanding your firearms, asteroids hitting your house, etc.) is to not worry about them.
HOWEVER, it’s good to know these things ahead of time and prepare. Because they could happen, and you don’t want to be caught with your pants down. Our job is to inform you on everything gun concealment related, we would be doing you a disservice by not covering one of the more extreme examples: when you need to hide your firearms from the government to protect your 2nd Amendment rights and your family.
“If it is time to bury your guns, then it is time to dig them back up”
-Tam, gun owner from Indianapolis
Table of Contents
Gun confiscation in America: what is the fear and when has it been realized?
Does the federal government protect against gun seizures?
What might gun confiscation in America look like?
How to hide your guns from confiscation and martial law
So, what are the odds?
Gun confiscation in America: what is the fear and when has it been realized?
We’ve all heard of the “end-of-days” scenarios where the government finally passes through enough “gun control” laws and mounts a full-scale attack on democracy, running through houses with gun sniffing dogs to confiscate guns, running concealed carry permits, etc. The general fear held by most anti-gun confiscation groups (which should probably include any and all gun owners) is the idea of the US government announcing martial law during an “emergency” and seizing all firearms to “maintain peace”.
Now, I have full trust in our great American democracy. I know that as long as we as gun owners stand up for our God given right to own firearms, we will be able to protect the gold.
However, I’m generally an optimist and there unfortunately have been moments in American history where gun confiscation HAS happened. For instance, take the Hurricane Katrina Gun Confiscation. You’ve all probably seen the below video (and if you haven’t already, watch it).https://www.youtube.com/embed/PKkUG1F2JiI?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent
Not really what you’d want to see your grandmother (or mother) go through. Some context: as New Orleans fell apart after Hurricane Katrina swept through the city, local law enforcement had ordered the confiscation of firearms from local residents to more easily herd them into localized areas (while evicting them from their homes).
New Orleans Superintendent P. Edwin Compass was recorded saying “no one will be able to be armed…guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns”.
This brutal crackdown resulted in armed officers going door to door throughout New Orleans to law-abiding, 2nd Amendment practicing Americans houses, demanding their guns from them. These demands were frequently made at gunpoint (oh, the irony). Given the dangers of looting and crime during that time frame, it’s hard to say what gun owners in New Orleans felt like after being evicted out of their own homes and stripped of their firearms.
Does the federal government protect against gun seizures?
The short answer, as of today, is yes – the American government unequivocally and absolutely does protect against gun seizures and gun confiscation. As per 42 U.S. Code § 5207:
- Prohibition on confiscation of firearms No officer or employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—
- temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal, State, or local law, other than for forfeiture in compliance with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation;
- require registration of any firearm for which registration is not required by Federal, State, or local law;
- prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State, or local law; or prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise authorized to carry firearms under Federal, State, or local law, solely because such person is operating under the direction, control, or supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from the major disaster or emergency.
In plain English, this means that under no normal circumstances, can any federal official confiscate your firearms during a disaster or emergency. However, does this mean states are prohibited from seizing/confiscating your firearms during an emergency?
For one example, let’s look at Texas law – specifically Government Code Chapter 418. This section of law allows the Texas government to suspend certain local laws during certain emergencies:
Sec. 418.003. LIMITATIONS. This chapter does not:
(5) except as provided by Section 418.184, authorize the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from an individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition;
Sec. 418.184. FIREARMS.
(a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful execution of the officer’s official duties during a state of disaster may disarm an individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.
(b) The peace officer shall return a firearm and any ammunition to an individual disarmed under Subsection (a) before ceasing to detain the individual unless the officer:
(1) arrests the individual for engaging in criminal activity; or
(2) seizes the firearm as evidence in a criminal investigation.
As per this, there is no Texas law in place that allows for the disarming of citizens during emergencies (otherwise, most Texans would probably already know how to hide their guns from confiscation). The same rule goes for most other states as well.
What might gun confiscation in America look like?
If you watched the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation video above, that’s more or less what any gun confiscation campaign would look like in America. Any government troops knocking on your door to ask for your guns probably aren’t going to ask too nicely. They know you have firearms, and likely feel that citizens owning firearms is a dangerous idea. Some likely scenarios/factors:
In online reports about the Hurricane Katrina gun confiscation, it was reported that police officers went door-to-door, holding citizens at gunpoint while interrogating them/searching their houses for firearms.
Gun sniffing dogs
Like drug sniffing dogs, gun sniffing dogs are trained by LEOs to sniff out any part of your gun. They can smell the powder, barrel, oil – anything. If you are trying to learn how to hide your guns from confiscation, taking gun sniffing dog into account while planning out gun concealment is crucial.
Radar and metal detectors
With radar and metal detector technology more powerful ever, LEOs will likely have equipment on them that can detect metal within a structure or in the ground. This makes hiding your guns from confiscation via burying them in walls or the ground difficult.
Existing knowledge of the guns you own
The officials searching your home for guns will have your Concealed Carry Permit records and records of any gun registries you’ve registered to. Thus, you should operate under the assumption that they know about your guns before they get to your front door.
Extensive knowledge of potential existing gun hiding spots in your house
The searchers in charge of any martial law gun confiscation will have searched many houses before yours. Thus, they will know many, if not most, nooks and crannies where you might hide your guns from confiscation.
Strong air of authority and potential aggression
As we’ve seen in the Hurricane Katrina video, some of these officials might be aggressive with you. As you won’t be able to protect your family if you get shot and killed, DO NOT physically resist in these scenarios.
How to hide your guns from confiscation and martial law
Now, things might seem a bit dire. I’ve just listed out some doomsday scenarios, with seemingly no relief in sight. However, as you’ve probably known by now, GMW always has solutions. Before proceeding, for the record: we are NOT suggesting for you to carry through and implement any of the below methodologies to hide your guns from confiscation.
However, these are tips and tricks to bear in mind as POSSIBILITIES for the “worst case scenario”. Remember, love your country – the USA is the best country on Earth. But also protect your 2nd Amendment rights.
Hide them in plain site
Yes – I did mention earlier that your searchers will probably know many if not most of your potential hiding spots. However, most does not mean all, and there’s a lot of room to get creative. Underneath shelves with a gun magnet, in air vents, inside a cereal box, inside your mattress…the list goes on. For a quick shortlist on how to hide a gun in your bedroom, click here.
Use gun concealment furniture
While some officials might have a keen eye for gun concealment furniture, some gun wardrobes are so well designed they can fool the naked eye. Read our guide on gun concealment furniture here.
Getting throw away guns or decoy guns
This is a tactic that has been advocated by many survivalists on how to hide your guns from confiscation via “giving up” a gun or two to satisfy searchers. If your guns are not registered in any gun registry and your searchers somehow have not done their homework/are in a rush, handing over a couple of cheap guns you don’t care about to keep them happy (government are bureaucratic – sometimes it just comes down to checking off a box) may keep them walking. This will allow you to keep your other guns that you’ve hidden more carefully.
Build your own gun
Want to go completely off the grid? Start thinking about 3D printed guns.
Get guns as gifts from friends
Get a gun as a gift, and it’ll be off any records under your name. However, the person who gave it to you may have it registered under his/her own name. Thus, be sure to collaborate ahead of time.
Bury your guns underground (with other pieces of metal lying around in the same area)
This method is one of the most common ways to hide your guns from confiscation. However, it’s a bit more complex than just burying your gun directly into the ground. The general protocol gun owners follow when burying their guns in the ground:
- Disassemble and clean the firearm as per manufacturer standards
- Oil the firearm
- Place firearm into a PVC pipe with desiccant packets
- Seal the PVC pipe
- Bury the PVC pipe
This method protects your gun from moisture and protects from the elements. To learn how to keep your gun from rusting during long term storage, check out our more in-depth storage article here!
As for burying other pieces of metal around your firearm – government officials probably won’t run radar/metal detectors across every section of your property as doing so would be too expensive. Thus, burying “dummy” scrap in the same area you buried your firearm will cause their devices to first find the decoy scrap metal. After a few such discoveries, they might get discouraged and move on.
Build a hidden gun room
Do you have room in your basement to carve out a hidden gun room? It might be worth investing into, especially if you’re good with your hands. Once built, you’ll be able to mount your guns on the wall around your gun room.
Hide them in your car
Government officials searching your house will also probably be looking to check your car as well. However, if you have your car parked elsewhere away from your home with your guns hidden in it, it’s a mobile hiding spot. We covered 12 ways to hide your gun in your car here.
Report your gun as stolen
This is a highly illegal and not advisable, and definitely NOT something that GMW supports and is suggesting you to do. But if the day comes when you need to start talking about burying your guns, well….
In this scenario, you would report your gun as stolen after hiding it in a secret location ahead of time before government officials come to take away your guns.
Store your guns in offsite locations away from your home
Hiding your guns in other properties that you own might be risky because those properties are linked to your name. Thus, this tactic involves hiding your guns in secluded areas with easily identifiable landmarks.
Such areas would not be linked to your name and would not be easy to find. Many gun owners hide guns buried in the ground in secluded, wooded areas near their house in case of “doomsday” confiscation scenarios.
So, what are the odds?
What are the odds of the US government knocking on your door to take away your guns? In this day and age, it’s hard to say, but within the next few years, not very likely.
However, you never can know for certain what might happen in our current political and social climate, and it never hurts to be ready. It’s certainly never too early to learn how to hide your gun from confiscation, because when it comes, you might not see it coming.
Gun confiscation in America is a complex issue, and the best you can do is prepare for the worst to protect yourself and your family.
Thoughts? Comments? If so, shoot us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org or comment in the comment section below. Or, share this post on Twitter or Facebook and see what your friends think!
What Liberals Don’t Understand: A Serious Attempt at Gun Confiscation Could Lead to Civil War
“From my cold, dead hands!” – Charlton Heston
Liberals love to fantasize about confiscating every gun in America. It may be their most beautiful dream. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment; Washington makes gun ownership illegal; almost all the guns come pouring in or are destroyed; a few hapless Jim Bobs who won’t get in line get shot up by the cops and then the government is free to do anything it wants and if people don’t like it, well, what are they going to do about it without guns?https://2da42d2ecae71821034bcbd2e2e99d58.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
Let me suggest a less happy, but probably more accurate version of how an attempt at gun confiscation would likely go. Liberals get control of the Supreme Court and ignore the Second Amendment followed by Washington making gun ownership illegal. So far, so good, right? Then the vast majority of police departments across the country refuse to do more than accept weapons that are turned in and, of course, very few citizens actually hand over their weapons. At this point, D.C. would have no choice other than to accept that gun confiscation is impossible, which would be the most likely outcome.
Or, alternately, D.C. could hire goon squads in local communities to go house to house to confiscate weapons. Yes, people would be killed in conflicts with the police and goon squads that come to take their guns. Liberals would cheer. They would not be cheering when police chiefs, officers, and goon squad members who carry out these orders are assassinated at their homes by armed people from their own communities.
Since many Americans would assume, probably correctly, that gun confiscation would be a prelude to government violence against civilians, the assassins would be openly cheered as patriots by tens of millions of Americans. Messages supporting them would show up on social media; talk show hosts would call them heroes and others would encourage them to go further. This would enrage liberals who would demand more use of force against not just the assassins, but the people supporting them. These comments would likely harden positions on both sides, and if the attempts at gun confiscation continued (and they probably wouldn’t), things would get even more violent. Police chiefs, politicians, and anti-gun activists would probably be assassinated and millions would cheer on their killers. The government response would become ever more violent. There would be calls to get the military involved except the people making those calls would soon find our troops just as split as the rest of the country. A majority would likely refuse to go into action against their fellow citizens and some might even openly join them. By that point, the potential for a genuine civil war would be quite real.https://2da42d2ecae71821034bcbd2e2e99d58.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html
The response to this from liberals would probably be something like, “Well, that certainly didn’t happen in Australia.” Very true, but what most liberals believe Australia did and what it actually did are very different.
Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per hundred people and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per hundred people. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent. How much of a difference would that make in America where there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens and open borders that would allow illegal weapons to stream in if there were ever a large-scale demand for them?
To get rid of guns on a scale widespread enough to matter in the United States, you’d need to go house to house and search because most people would claim their weapons were stolen or lost. Doing that with millions of up-to-that-point law-abiding citizens would be considered tyrannical and it would produce a violent backlash that hasn’t been seen in this country since the Civil War. If you want to turn ordinary American citizens into “freedom fighters” against an abusive government, try to take their guns and it will work about as well as anything else you can imagine.
Miscellaneou(Military, Voting, Economy , Religion and etc) Postings