What would you…really do?

Banning semi-automatic weapons is all the vogue in today’s liberal media. It’s been tried in various forms around the world.  The most famous and touted example is Australia. That government, in a fit of insanity after a shooting in Tasmania, banned semi-automatic weapons.  Many dutifully turned in their weapons.  Many, including criminals, did not. A study revealed that the weapons ban had no effect on the homicide rate.

California tried to ban “assault” weapons.  First they mandated registration with confiscation for those who didn’t register. When the compliance was low, they threatened to seize the weapons of those who did comply with the law. Fortunately, it was all talk. I’ve not heard of any actual confiscations. But, there aren’t any new sales of so-called “assualt” weapons in California except individually, private sales which are also illegal for “assault” weapons in California.

Was the ban effective in California? No. There are still semi-automatic rifle in the possession of many, many Californians. The ban did reduce the spread of those rifles, legally. However, the black market thrives.

But, what about registration?  Canada has it.

Well, yes, Canada had it Not anymore.

It started in 1995. It ended in 2012. It lasted 17 years, cost multiples of millions of dollars, was corrupt in its administration, weakened by fraud and mismanagement and in the end, it did nothing.

There were numerous promises to expand it, others to eliminate it. The history was littered with non-compliance. Fees were levied initially to register weapons. The program had a history of false reporting, corruption, misuse and misdirection of fees and funds. A registration amnesty was granted to allow registration without fees. That had low compliance as well. The cost-overruns continually made headlines in Canada and the purpose of the program—reducing criminal and homicide rates could not be met. You can find the history of Canada’s registration program through 2011 here.

On October 25, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-19, legislation to scrap the Canadian Firearms Registry.[3] The bill would repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns) and mandate the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.[3] The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons (156 to 123).[36] On February 15, 2012 Bill C-19 was passed in the House of Commons (159 to 130) with support from the Conservatives and two NDP MPs. On April 4, 2012 Bill C-19 passed third reading in the Senate by a vote of 50-27 and received royal assent from the Governor General on April 5.[37]

Upon passage of Bill C-19, the Province of Quebec moved for a motion to prevent the destruction of the records. A temporary injunction was granted on April 5, 2012 which will leave enough time for proper legal arguments to be heard.[5]Wiki

Canada ended their registration program on November 5, 2012. The experiment failed. After millions wasted on the development of the registry, it never really worked. Despite of the claims from the RMCP, there was not a single instance that the registry ever prevented a single crime nor helped to resolve a single crime or criminal act. It was a complete failure. One estimate said that 2/3rds of Canadian gun-owners, especially in western Canada, never registered their weapons.

If a semi-automatic weapons ban is ordered here in the U.S., what would happen? Most likely massive non-compliance like that in Australia and in Canada.

What about a ban on “large capacity” magazines? It’s shockingly easy to make large capacity magazines. With a source for magazine springs, any sheet metal fabrication shop could make the bodies. It’s easy to make the magazine base-plate and to mold magazine followers.

I doubt few would obey an order to turn in their ARs, AKs, other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns. It would be very difficult, next to impossible, if firearm dealers mislaid, lost, or destroyed their sales records.

It is the BATFE form 4473 that links a particular weapon to an individual. Those records are retained by the FFL, the firearms dealer. The 4473s are “supposed” to be turned in to the BATFE if the dealer goes out of business.

There has been attempts by the BATFE to copy the books of some FFLs in Alaska illegally. The dealers refused to comply. If a ban occurs, would FFLs comply with a law that has effectively put them out of business?  Maybe. Maybe not.

The reality is that the federal government doesn’t really know who has what. Except for a few states, there is no registration in the US. A weapons ban would be ineffective. All it would do would be to create a massive class of new “criminals.”

A probable outcome would be the creation of a black market of weapons; expensive ones at that. Locally, enforcement of a confiscation or registration law would be ignored resulting in a “you don’t bother me, I’ll not bother you” attitude. Wyoming has drafted a law preventing the enforcement of any such federal law.

The feds, however, will try to enforce the law, probably using their usual no-knock entry in the middle of the night, with some CCW holder. It won’t take long until someone is killed. What happens then?

What would you do? Comply? Turn in your weapons? Or, ignore any such law and become a criminal in the eyes of the Feds? The liberals already consider you as such.

Attack of the Leftists


General Norman Schwartzkopf

So many things have appeared today. Hobby Lobby told Obama to pound sand on their contraception mandate. General Norman Schwarzkopf died (how did he get to be 78!?). Hypocrite Diane Feinstein, who possessed a concealed carry permit…lapsed she now says, wants to ban semi-automatic weapons and place the existing ones under the 1934 NFA act and require them and their owners to be registered—plus pay a federal tax. Finally, a story appears on the CNBC website that suggests that millionaires on death’s door be given a push to spare their heirs the higher inheritance tax that arrives next week with the new year.


The leftists plan at nibbling away our rights under the Constitution is working. With Justice Roberts betrayal last summer on Obamacare, we no longer have a conservative majority on the Court. If this latest gun-grabbing scheme fails in the House, Obama will use his regulatory “powers” to enforce some provisions of Feinstein’s plan.

Of course, the leftists know that gun control isn’t about curbing crime. Chicago has had the nation’s strongest gun control laws for decades. As this story shows, gun control doesn’t stop children from being killed.

446 school age children shot in Chicago so far this year with strongest gun laws in country – media silent

The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light? Amazingly, no Obama crocodile tears either.

For those of you too dense to get the point of this post, it’s to make the point about gun laws. No matter how tough the gun laws are, the crazed, nut jobs will find a way to get them and if they so chose, use them. No draconian law can stop this, no matter how well intentioned the law is, or if it’s just about leftists grabbing power from citizens and taking away their constitutional rights.

If any of Feinstein’s proposal is passed, or if Obama ignores Congress again and issues another edict, I expect many across the country will follow Hobby Lobby’s lead and just ignore the law.  I wonder how many FFLs will have unexpected fires in their 4473 archives?

We know Obama, now that he’s won his second term, has no restraints. He’s told us so. More and more, I wonder if the country can survive these next few years without another civil war.

New NICS Requirement: Birth Place

I just received this from Gunbroker.com. This is the first I’ve heard of this requirement. But, I haven’t bought any firearms since June. I guess the gubmit needs more information for our federal dossiers.

Birthplace Now Required for Background Check

Beginning June 29, 2009, the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) section is requiring that place of birth be provided for all FBI-initiated transactions.

This will be a valuable and efficient addition to the NICS process for the following reasons:

NICSCurrently, place of birth is a mandatory field on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 and is therefore readily available for inclusion in the NICS check. There are no additional information disclosures for the potential purchaser or data collection requirements for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs).

Being a name-based search, having additional data points such as the place of birth helps to increase the accuracy and efficiency of firearm eligibility determinations. Place of birth is either a mandatory or optional field for entry of records into all three of the databases that the NICS searches against: the Interstate Identification Index (III), the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and the NICS Index.

This new requirement, to provide place of birth when initiating a NICS background check, will have minimal impact to the FFL. Currently, FFLs who contact the NICS Section directly, via one of the three Call Centers or NICS E-Check, are not required to provide the place of birth to initiate the NICS check. However, starting June 29, 2009, all FFLs who contact the NICS Section directly, via one of the three Call Centers or NICS E-Check, will be required to provide the place of birth when initiating a NICS check. If the place of birth is not provided, the check will not be processed.

FFLs who conduct business in a state in which there is a state-designated agency that conducts their firearm background checks currently may or may not be providing place of birth to initiate the check. If you are an FFL in a state that currently requires the place of birth be provided when initiating a firearm background check, you are required to continue to provide this piece of information.

If you are an FFL in a state where you contact a state-designated agency to conduct your firearm background checks and you are not required to submit the place of birth prior to initiating the check, you will be notified by your state-designated agency detailing when you will be required to provide the place of birth prior to initiating a firearm background check. Once you are notified by your state-designated agency that the place of birth is required to initiate a firearm background check, if you fail to provide the place of birth, the background check will not be processed.

If you have additional questions regarding the newly required place of birth information when initiating a NICS check, please fell free to contact NICS Customer Service at (877) 444-6427.