This. Until the companies in the gun industries make it abundantly clear that supporting anti2A is not profitable for these anti2A States, and makes it clear that the State agencies/local police will not be able to acquire the guns and ammunition they want to use to enforce anti2A laws, it will keep going right on with mere lip service.
People have been non-compliant for over 30 years now. There haven't been any pick-offs.
I think the question was... were the majority of these previously "prohibited persons" (felons, gang members, domestic violence, drug users) or just otherwise law-abiding citizens whose only crime was that they bought or possessed guns that are no longer "legal" to own in their States?
It's fair to assume that if somebody is non-compliant with Firearm laws that they will be non-compliant in other areas of their life.
There is this case from 1990s
supreme.justia.com
It is never a good idea to assume.
We are on different wavelengths in this discussion. The discussion that often occurs here is that somebody states that they are not going to comply with abc law. That certainly suggest that they are going to be participating in this non-compliance knowingly and willfully.What would be nice is for a majority of voters to make abundantly clear that it won't profit the careers of the politicians to be anti 2A, but the issue is that the majority of voters these days vote solely for the letter by their names
There is this case from 1990s
Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994)
Staples v. United States: WIthout an indication of legislative intent, a severe penalty attached to a crime usually suggests that the legislature did not intend to eliminate a mental state requirement, especially when this would require the defendant to have knowledge only of conduct that is...
The argument in this case was that the defendant (Mr. Staples) did not know he possessed an illegally modified AR15; and that the State/ATF needed to prove he had prior knowledge of the fact that his rifle could fire automatically.
So again, like someone else pointed out, perhaps a majority of "Non complying" owners are ignorant of new State laws and Federal regulations?
Judging from most of the stories I have read regarding people "picked off" by authorities for firearms violations, they usually were or had been non-compliant in other areas of their lives.
Again,...assuming is never a good idea.
Your point is well seen, and acknowledged; but a simple look at the "compliance" rates for several States regarding certain gun bans/laws and the simple fact that so far; we only have the word of the State parties that seized "illegal weapons" that their owners intended to become criminals by not complying. The question the other poster brought up was whether or not, that most of these people were already prior prohibited persons/criminals; or simply gun owners who were ignorant of the laws? Certainly there were likely some who knowingly chose not to comply.
You just made my point about screw-ups getting busted. One bust had explosives another was a drug bust.Another was a guy selling AW'S and then you filled out your selection with gun busts in Mexico and England. WGAF about those countries?
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Adding a wrinkle.
Probably EXTREMELY rare as long as the person is NOT going online to show the world what they have. Again though for those who choose to own something that they of course know is not legal its also not going to be of much use. Can't enjoy it, can't use it for defense. Worst of all of course is anyone new to the game also can't really just go buy it. Authorities do not need or want to go door to door. Sadly they don't have too.
I understand and agree with what you say, but as was earlier stated, people who say they won't comply with a law know that law exists. And many have documented their stance on this forum.
I believe a similar thing occurred in California, and as long as these 'registration' requirements remain at the State level, non-compliance makes sense seeing as the only other effective way for them to get this info in mass would be to seize 4473's from all of the State's FFLs. It is possible that some radically leftist Federal judge from a lower court might sign off on that, but at current, it probably wouldn't stand long enough to be implemented, but some damage could be done none the less. While a State could still band certain firearms and related accessories, and you can count on them prosecuting people on these bands whenever possible, the real concern regrading mandatory registration of firearms and/or accessories is at the Federal level, though even then they'd face many 'privacy' issues trying to make it pass 'constitutionality' mustard.
