Warner Todd Huston:
A Canadian newscaster has a warning for Americans: Do NOT register your firearms because if you do, the government WILL confiscate your guns and throw you in jail.
Brian Billey, a host on Sun News in Canada, hosted a commentary proving that if we Americans are stupid enough to register our firearms (I’m talking to YOU Connecticut) then we should expect to have our guns confiscated at some point in the future.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/LIrBUrFV2Ac[/youtube]
Billey isn’t just talking mere opinion, here. He has proof. It happened in his own country. Once certain guns were outlawed and the remaining ones were leveled with a must-register law, it wasn’t long before the government began confiscating guns for no legitimate reason.
The newscaster pointed out that critics of the Canadian gun registry program said that the registry would lead to confiscation, but supporters waved off those criticisms as absurd worries meant only to harm Canada’s “safety and security.”But, Billey points out, the critics were right. It wasn’t long before capricious and arbitrary rules began being passed that gave cops the excuse to roam throughout the country confiscating suddenly “illegal” guns and using the registry to do so.
Worse, those who refused were treated as if they were criminals as dangerous as a drug lord and these “paperwork criminals” had the full weight of the government slammed down on their heads.
Canada does not have a bill of rights guarantee. If the government tries to break that guarantee, we have the obligation to remove those responsible from government by whatever means necessary.
@Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:
Best be getting started. In California and New York they are already confiscating once legally owned firearms.
@Ditto, #2:
The “once legally owned firearms” are an estimated 40,000 firearms that were legally purchased at one time, but are now in the hands of persons who are prohibited by law from possessing them.
The legislation in question, which has become law in California, is SB-140.
Here’s a list of the categories of persons who are prohibited from firearm ownership. Those adjudged to be a danger due to a mental disorder, those who are legally incompetent, mentally disordered sex offenders, narcotics addicts… Is there a category of persons on there that most reasonable citizens would prefer to be armed?
Are you now going to pretend that law enforcement only ever arrests or performs search and seizure on the guilty. Tyranny always begins operating under the color of law.
All felonies are not created equal. There are many non-violent minor misdemeanors that could result in a felony conviction. With the continual creation of laws that the public is ignorant of, (esp. in central control fascist states such as California,) it is easily possible for a anyone to be convicted of a misdemeanor felony. Top 10 felonies include: Drug abuse violations, Driving while intoxicated/felony DUI, Property crime, Larceny-theft, Disorderly conduct, Liquor law violations & Drunkenness.
California Penal Code section 29905 includes: (25) Any felony violation of Section 186.22. so let’s go there where we find:
Such blanket, vague “guilt by association laws” ignore the possibility that someone might be accused of being part of a “criminal mob” (a vague term in of itself)by simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and such “guilt by association” laws ignore that a defendant may have never been involved in a violent act.
Let’s look at California Department of Justice – Bureau of Firearms’ Firearms Prohibiting Categories:
Simply being subject to a restraining order does not mean that a person has a proclivity to violence.
The problem herein is that these restrictions take no consideration of temporary insanity, or the possibility of being cured. It is well known that certain legal pharmaceuticals can affect mental behavior as a side effect, and that once you take a person off the drug the side effect will normally wear off.
Again, no consideration that the person may recover or be reformed.
I see huge potential for abuse here.
Really? I mean, ! REALLY?!!! That’s pretty harsh and unfair when you take into consideration that there is no reasonable indication that a dishonorably discharged person would be a danger to the public.
Interesting. I wasn’t even aware of this one. Better inform your illegal immigrant intimidation mobs about this one. (As a side issue, remind your Democratic party that convicted felons can’t vote unless a judge reinstates that right. So any “amnestied” alien with a firearms violation can’t either.)
Oh? Why would this indicate that such a person is always a danger to the public?
What bearing does “mob mentality” have on the law or constitutional rights?
@Ditto, #4:
Indeed, they are not. Section 29905 of the California Penal Code makes that clear.
Have a look at the list of the specific felony offenses for which conviction will make ownership of a firearm unlawful in the state.
I find my self in substantial agreement with SB-140. In my opinion, those who have been convicted of something on that list shouldn’t have a right to own a firearm.
I understand how opinions could vary about 2nd Amendment rights for those dishonorably discharged from the service, or those who have renounced their citizenship. I have reservations about blanket prohibitions in those cases myself. Circumstances leading to either situation could vary greatly.
@Greg:
Of course you do. You’re a gun control fanatic who wants to disarm as many Americans as possible.
it seems that SOME NEW ELECTED ON SEAT OF THE PARLEMENT IN CANADA,
ARE MUCH INFLUENCE, by what is going on with the
AMERICAN decisions which they sell
to their loyals,
IT’S NOT ALL CANADIANS WHO SHARE THOSE IDEAS,
NO BILL OF RIGHT, is now EQUIVALANTE to a BILL OF RIGHT NOT USED IN THE USA BY LEADER,
STEPPING ON THE CONSTITUTION ALSO,