Firearm legislation introduced would ban most handguns, requires registration.

PBulldog2 wrote:Two questions:

Will they expect law-abiding gun owners to give their weapons back to the government?

What will happen if the government tries to do this?

It worries me.

The proposed legislation

"Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law"

This is a carry over from the National Firearms act of 1934 and 1968. What NFA did in a nutshell was make it illegal to own unregistered machine guns, silencers, destructive devices, or "AOW any other weapon that was classified as a NFA weapon. You can buy a NFA weapon if you complete the paperwork, pay the tax, and get permission from your local law enforcement to allow the transfer of ownership of a NFA weapon.

What this does is "IF" this legislation is passed and you own lets say a glock 27 or a any firearm that has "ONE" military characteristic (wonder what a military characteristic will be, has a scope= no more hunting rifles, is black or green in color= just about everything else) the law will require you to register that firearm. During the registration process you will have to get the signature of your local Chief of police or county sheriff. If you do not have that signature it is illegal for you to own that firearm. This gives local law enforcement the ability to deny you ownership of your glock 27 or any firearm that the government deems a NFA weapon.

So if you live in an area like California which no LEO will sign AFT form 4 to allow you to transfer ownership of a NFA weapon you already own you can not legally own your firearm and your only recourse is to file more paperwork with ATF and if it is still denied you can sue. So basically what they (anti gun shitheads) are trying to do is make owning a firearm prohibitively expensive as they have done with the owners of current NFA weapons. They will not take your gun but they will make it cost a fortune for you to keep it. What this will do is ensure only people with enough money can own a certain type of firearm just like what they did with current NFA weapons.

Or you can say fuck it and become a criminal because criminals are criminals because they do not comply with the law.


National Firearm Act facts
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html

[quote="alecto"]

PBulldog2 wrote:Two questions:

Will they expect law-abiding gun owners to give their weapons back to the government?

What will happen if the government tries to do this?

It worries me.

The proposed legislation

"Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law"

This is a carry over from the National Firearms act of 1934 and 1968. What NFA did in a nutshell was make it illegal to own unregistered machine guns, silencers, destructive devices, or "AOW any other weapon that was classified as a NFA weapon. You can buy a NFA weapon if you complete the paperwork, pay the tax, and get permission from your local law enforcement to allow the transfer of ownership of a NFA weapon.

What this does is "IF" this legislation is passed and you own lets say a glock 27 or a any firearm that has "ONE" military characteristic (wonder what a military characteristic will be, has a scope= no more hunting rifles, is black or green in color= just about everything else) the law will require you to register that firearm. During the registration process you will have to get the signature of your local Chief of police or county sheriff. If you do not have that signature it is illegal for you to own that firearm. This gives local law enforcement the ability to deny you ownership of your glock 27 or any firearm that the government deems a NFA weapon.

So if you live in an area like California which no LEO will sign AFT form 4 to allow you to transfer ownership of a NFA weapon you already own you can not legally own your firearm and your only recourse is to file more paperwork with ATF and if it is still denied you can sue. So basically what they (anti gun shitheads) are trying to do is make owning a firearm prohibitively expensive as they have done with the owners of current NFA weapons. They will not take your gun but they will make it cost a fortune for you to keep it. What this will do is ensure only people with enough money can own a certain type of firearm just like what they did with current NFA weapons.

Or you can say fuck it and become a criminal because criminals are criminals because they do not comply with the law.


I would be inclined to agree with the Dalai Lama on this one.....when he was talking about education on the show Compassion and Emptiness.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Rights don't come from the government. If something called government tries to take away a peoples rights then it is not a government but strong-arm robbery by criminals posing as government and should be dealt with as such.....Teo

*****WARM SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSWAkJ3h8E

stormwatch89 wrote:

alecto wrote:

2seaoat wrote:This legislation may feel good, but it does nothing to make sure every weapon in America is registered, and foid cards are smart cards with dynamic gun possession information. Register cars and register guns.......this is not rocket science. Once that is done then discuss how safety can be improved. Passing this bill is a joke.

After that stunt in New York registration will never happen. I would never register a firearm that the government can track. Same goes with RFID tagging. Will never comply with it if it became law.

Agreed, Alecto!

Eeeeyup. Here, too.