Buy what you can....

[The Heretic]

How do they "enforce the 4473 issue"?

Both OR and WA just passed the laws to enforce that on firearms purchased from any source after the laws went into effect.

You no longer have the plausible deniability you once had if you buy a firearm (private or from dealer) in OR or WA now. You can't say you sold them as there would have to be the BGC records to support it.

The only way I see around this is to take up legal residency in a different state that doesn't require records on private transactions, even if it is for a short time. This is why the anti-gunners want to pass these laws in more states. They haven't been able to get these kinds of laws passed at the federal level, but if they can get them across more states then they can have what is in effect de-facto registration. Once that is done, then they have the precursors for actual registration and/or confiscation.

Baby steps - Connecticut.

 

[jbett98]

Look what happened in Boston when they storm trooped into houses looking for Tsarnaev.
No search warrants, just a boot heel on the front door.
Death by a thousand cuts for gun owners, with one new prohibitive law after another.

 

[Member 5605]

Here, I went online and made this meme for you:

View attachment 259888

Thanks. I feel...."special", can I have a gold star for today?

It's also important to know people outside of the state you live in for specific goods that may or may not need to be "grandfathered" in if the need comes.

What is compliance?

 

[etrain16]

How do they "enforce the 4473 issue"?

Both OR and WA just passed the laws to enforce that on firearms purchased from any source after the laws went into effect.

You no longer have the plausible deniability you once had if you buy a firearm (private or from dealer) in OR or WA now. You can't say you sold them as there would have to be the BGC records to support it.

The only way I see around this is to take up legal residency in a different state that doesn't require records on private transactions, even if it is for a short time. This is why the anti-gunners want to pass these laws in more states. They haven't been able to get these kinds of laws passed at the federal level, but if they can get them across more states then they can have what is in effect de-facto registration. Once that is done, then they have the precursors for actual registration and/or confiscation.

Baby steps - Connecticut.

I agree, the records are there. But are they readily accessible? Let's say someone bought a long gun in WA, on a 4473, but are a resident of Oregon. Is that sale recorded in Oregon? Do they send those records to Oregon? As far as I can tell, they don't. So, if Oregon doesn't have that record, because the sale didn't process through Oregon, how will they know? They would have to go through the State of Washington and/or the ATF and request those records, for every single transaction. Would WA and the ATF supply Oregon that information, unless it was part of an active criminal investigation? I don't know, but I would wonder if they would or could do it for everyone?

I'm not trying to discount the severity of this. But I'm looking at it realistically. Even anti-gun bastions like New York can't get most people to comply, and they have substantially more resources to do so than Oregon. Heck, during 941, the State Police essentially admitted they just don't have the staff to follow up on the law. Some agencies, say, some sheriff's offices, likely wouldn't participate, just like they've already refused to do with 941.

And I still think, if they started knocking down doors, going after guns, after the first few, word would spread rapidly, and all those guns and magazines would suddenly disappear from existence. Plus, they would likely be saddled with numerous lawsuits alleging illegal search and seizure. The whole thing could be tied up in courts for ages.

Best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

 

[etrain16]

What is compliance?

It's from the French for "we surrender"

 

[Asp]

And I still think, if they started knocking down doors, going after guns, after the first few, word would spread rapidly, and all those guns and magazines would suddenly disappear from existence. Plus, they would likely be saddled with numerous lawsuits alleging illegal search and seizure. The whole thing could be tied up in courts for ages.

Best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Effectively the anti-gunners win, because they no longer see the citizen has being armed on a daily basis and moreover the likelihood of being able to practice and train drops dramatically, after a few years, a shooter's skills depreciate.

Imagine stop and frisk nationwide.

 

[CHLChris]

I'm not going to imagine NYC writ large. Stop-and-frisk nationwide is only something that comes if, for several steps of gun-control before it, good people have allowed tyranny to march.

The only thing we really have to fear is incrementalism. The flame getting turned up ever so slightly, year after year.

If a sudden shift were to come, as the democrats want desperately to see, fighting would break out and our SHTF day would come. What a sad day for all, because which side is armed?

 

[edslhead]

I agree, the records are there. But are they readily accessible? Let's say someone bought a long gun in WA, on a 4473, but are a resident of Oregon. Is that sale recorded in Oregon? Do they send those records to Oregon? As far as I can tell, they don't. So, if Oregon doesn't have that record, because the sale didn't process through Oregon, how will they know? They would have to go through the State of Washington and/or the ATF and request those records, for every single transaction. Would WA and the ATF supply Oregon that information, unless it was part of an active criminal investigation? I don't know, but I would wonder if they would or could do it for everyone?

I'm not trying to discount the severity of this. But I'm looking at it realistically. Even anti-gun bastions like New York can't get most people to comply, and they have substantially more resources to do so than Oregon. Heck, during 941, the State Police essentially admitted they just don't have the staff to follow up on the law. Some agencies, say, some sheriff's offices, likely wouldn't participate, just like they've already refused to do with 941.

And I still think, if they started knocking down doors, going after guns, after the first few, word would spread rapidly, and all those guns and magazines would suddenly disappear from existence. Plus, they would likely be saddled with numerous lawsuits alleging illegal search and seizure. The whole thing could be tied up in courts for ages.

Best to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

The gov couldn't even put up a working website for health insurance. I give them zero chance in tracking 300 plus million guns.

 

[donaldc]

...The question is how far can they go finding ways around the 2nd. At the moment, they're experiencing some success, but there are still limits. Some courts will back them, others will not. An all out gun ban, in my opinion, could never happen here, I don't think even an extremely left leaning court could pull that one off....

Maybe an outright gun ban wouldn't happen here, but keep in mind the next President will likely appoint 2-3, possibly 4, Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg, age 82; Kennedy, age 79; Scalia, age 79; Breyer, age 77).

You could imagine a situation where a Supreme Court, with 3-4 Justices appointed by Hilary Clinton and confirmed by a Congress similar to the Congress who passed ObamaCare, upholds a "may issue" case for guns in public. Or a situation where they uphold 7 round magazine limits. Or a situation where they uphold background checks for each purchase of ammunition. Oh and don't forget, you can only buy 20 rounds per day - that was upheld too.

If that doesn't scare you enough, remember, both Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 votes.

 

[The Heretic]

I agree, the records are there. But are they readily accessible? Let's say someone bought a long gun in WA, on a 4473, but are a resident of Oregon. Is that sale recorded in Oregon? Do they send those records to Oregon? As far as I can tell, they don't. So, if Oregon doesn't have that record, because the sale didn't process through Oregon, how will they know? They would have to go through the State of Washington and/or the ATF and request those records, for every single transaction. Would WA and the ATF supply Oregon that information, unless it was part of an active criminal investigation? I don't know, but I would wonder if they would or could do it for everyone?

It is a matter of political will. If they want, all they need to do is make sure that their computer systems, where they store this data, will share the data. It isn't like they need to send forms - just ones and zeros - and Oregon's computers will know what Washington state's computers know - if they don't already. Ditto with federal.

I'm not trying to discount the severity of this. But I'm looking at it realistically. Even anti-gun bastions like New York can't get most people to comply, and they have substantially more resources to do so than Oregon. Heck, during 941, the State Police essentially admitted they just don't have the staff to follow up on the law. Some agencies, say, some sheriff's offices, likely wouldn't participate, just like they've already refused to do with 941.

Again - a matter of political will. Once they have the data, they have the means, and all they would have to do is spend the political capital and funds to make it happen.

[quote[And I still think, if they started knocking down doors, going after guns, after the first few, word would spread rapidly, and all those guns and magazines would suddenly disappear from existence. Plus, they would likely be saddled with numerous lawsuits alleging illegal search and seizure. The whole thing could be tied up in courts for ages.[/QUOTE]

Are you willing to risk that you would not be one of the first people they come to?

Yes, the word will get around. But that may not help you if you are one of the people to be unlucky enough that they visit you early on before the word gets out.

It is a consideration. The safest bet is to not have guns in "the system", the next safer bet is to not have guns that you can't plausibly deny your possession of.

Personally, I don't think confiscation will happen in my remaining lifetime, but the possibility/risk is increasing and these BGC laws just made it easier for those whose ultimate goal is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens.

 

[jbett98]

If you own the Supreme Court, you own the country.
And having Executive Power of the Presidency doesn't hurt either.

 

[Asp]

The gov couldn't even put up a working website for health insurance. I give them zero chance in tracking 300 plus million guns.

That's why their backup plan is billions of rounds of ammunition for the Dept. der Führerland, national socials werks, ja.

 

[etrain16]

Maybe an outright gun ban wouldn't happen here, but keep in mind the next President will likely appoint 2-3, possibly 4, Supreme Court Justices (Ginsburg, age 82; Kennedy, age 79; Scalia, age 79; Breyer, age 77).

You could imagine a situation where a Supreme Court, with 3-4 Justices appointed by Hilary Clinton and confirmed by a Congress similar to the Congress who passed ObamaCare, upholds a "may issue" case for guns in public. Or a situation where they uphold 7 round magazine limits. Or a situation where they uphold background checks for each purchase of ammunition. Oh and don't forget, you can only buy 20 rounds per day - that was upheld too.

If that doesn't scare you enough, remember, both Heller and McDonald were decided by 5-4 votes.

It is a matter of political will. If they want, all they need to do is make sure that their computer systems, where they store this data, will share the data. It isn't like they need to send forms - just ones and zeros - and Oregon's computers will know what Washington state's computers know - if they don't already. Ditto with federal.

Again - a matter of political will. Once they have the data, they have the means, and all they would have to do is spend the political capital and funds to make it happen.

And I still think, if they started knocking down doors, going after guns, after the first few, word would spread rapidly, and all those guns and magazines would suddenly disappear from existence. Plus, they would likely be saddled with numerous lawsuits alleging illegal search and seizure. The whole thing could be tied up in courts for ages.

Are you willing to risk that you would not be one of the first people they come to?

Yes, the word will get around. But that may not help you if you are one of the people to be unlucky enough that they visit you early on before the word gets out.

It is a consideration. The safest bet is to not have guns in "the system", the next safer bet is to not have guns that you can't plausibly deny your possession of.

Personally, I don't think confiscation will happen in my remaining lifetime, but the possibility/risk is increasing and these BGC laws just made it easier for those whose ultimate goal is to take guns out of the hands of private citizens.

I agree with you both. Under certain circumstances, it could be really bad. I am continuing to hold out hope that there are still enough 'good' people in America that will start standing up against tyranny and oppression by their government.

And, if you think they don't already have you on record, whether they know exactly what you own right now or not, you'll be fooling yourself to believe that it wouldn't still be your door they could come and knock on. And no, I wouldn't want to be one of those who get that knock at the door. Heck, everyone here on this forum would be easy enough to track down with simple IP address traces. No, we are, all of us, already on their books, and we have been, for a long time.

There are a lot of things that have to go their way, in order, for them to get to that point. And, it assumes all along that people will continue to go along, will continue to follow their lead. No doubt many will, but many won't. People are starting to recognize the debacle that is Obamacare. Next year will bring even more economic realities for people that bought the lie that the would actually save money.

People are waking up. Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, but I think come November 2016, we're going to see a shift in the tide, for now. And hopefully it is one of ours, because we do need to protect, even alter, the SCOTUS, in our favor.

 

[jbett98]

When Hillary gets elected for her second term is when the big hammer comes down.
It will more then likely start out with a gun buy back program and the closing of all public lands to target shooting.
Then slowly the noose gets tighter with ammo restrictions, nation wide permits to travel with firearms, etc, etc.

 

[erudne]

 

[tkdguy]

If you reload buy enough powder, primers and bullets systematically at these lower and attractive prices. Items are now on sale.

If you can buy [pistol ammo in bulk the bulk price might equal the price of components. I do both--relaod and buy in bulk. I like having 1000's of rounds readily available in care of a threatening disaster.

 

[The Heretic]

And, if you think they don't already have you on record, whether they know exactly what you own right now or not, you'll be fooling yourself to believe that it wouldn't still be your door they could come and knock on.

Certainly the gov knows I have guns.

The gov probably has a clue that I have some "evil" guns too.

But very few of them can they prove that I ever owned them in court, and all of them I could say with plausible deniability that they were sold or otherwise disposed of before the BGC laws went into effect, and at least with our current state of the justice system, they would have to prove otherwise.

Of course, in OR/WA, if you buy a gun now, you could still claim to have destroyed the gun before they make it illegal to do so without showing proof or turning them into the gov so the gov could do the destruction. It just wouldn't be as plausible in court - that would be something that would probably have to go up through the court system, and would probably last until they implement mandatory registration (*cough* Connecticut *cough*).

 

[donaldc]

I agree with you both. Under certain circumstances, it could be really bad. I am continuing to hold out hope that there are still enough 'good' people in America that will start standing up against tyranny and oppression by their government.

And, if you think they don't already have you on record, whether they know exactly what you own right now or not, you'll be fooling yourself to believe that it wouldn't still be your door they could come and knock on. And no, I wouldn't want to be one of those who get that knock at the door. Heck, everyone here on this forum would be easy enough to track down with simple IP address traces. No, we are, all of us, already on their books, and we have been, for a long time.

There are a lot of things that have to go their way, in order, for them to get to that point. And, it assumes all along that people will continue to go along, will continue to follow their lead. No doubt many will, but many won't. People are starting to recognize the debacle that is Obamacare. Next year will bring even more economic realities for people that bought the lie that the would actually save money.

People are waking up. Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, but I think come November 2016, we're going to see a shift in the tide, for now. And hopefully it is one of ours, because we do need to protect, even alter, the SCOTUS, in our favor.

They wouldn't even need to track down every gun owner. They could set an example by ruining enough families lives (for example, 10 years in Federal prison for both parents) that people turn in their guns. That leaves a much small percentage of gun owners to deal with.

If you think that someone who just watched their neighbors family get torn apart for owning an "assault weapon" isn't going to turn in their "assault weapon" or at least think about it, I've got a bridge to sell you. It is DISGUSTING that something like that could happen in this great country, but remember, we are not talking about what should happen or what is right, we are talking about reality and what will happen.

 

[DieselScout]

Yes let's all panic again, strip the shelves so we can spend the next 18 months moaning about it. We are our own worst enemy. How about taking that money and time and investing in the election, get someone we want in office.

 

[edslhead]

"When Hillary gets elected for her second term, is when the big hammer comes down"

We all need to make sure she doesn't get a first term.