Commentary on registration and confiscation by John Farnam

Defacto results:

In NY yesterday the NYSP seized privately-owned guns and the state pistol
permit, all legally owned, of a law-abiding state resident. He was not
charged with anything.

The NYSP, shortly afterward, sheepishly admitted it was all a “mistake!”
They had foolishly acted on little more that an unsubstantiated rumor.

Now, at great personal expense, the owner is trying to get his property and
rights reinstated.

The poorly-written state law (“SAFE Act,” hurriedly passed in the middle
of the night) states that anyone “… likely to engage in conduct that would
result in serious harm to self or others” loses his rights. “Likely,”
according to whom? What does that mean? Of course, no one read any of it
before they voted!

In our Country, “due diligence” is supposed to be applied before one loses
his rights, liberty, or property to the state. Some are apparently
interpreting this new law to mean that no species of due diligence need be
applied at all!

Lessons:

1) Registration of privately-owned guns, always touted as “harmless,”
never helps the law-abiding citizen, in any way.

2) Once your legally-owned guns are unlawfully impounded, they will never
be voluntarily returned to you, even when it is pointed out that the “mistake
” was entirely the state’s. No bureaucrat will ever be charged, nor even
disciplined, for the error. You’ll have to get a court order, at your
expense. Even then, the process may take months, even years, and you’ll be
defenseless in the interim.

3) Leftist/liberal politicians are looking for any excuse to forcibly
confiscate privately-owned guns, while simultaneously making the process of
legally obtaining guns so onerous that most will be discouraged from even
trying. Their goal is to make gun-owners such a minuscule minority, that the
rest of our rights can then be trampled with scant political risk.

4) The goal of leftists is universal confiscation of privately-owned guns.
It always has been! “Registration” is just a necessary intermediate
step. “Enforced-helplessness” is difficult to impose on armed citizens!

“When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you
distrust them, either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of
these opinions generate hatred.”

Niccolo Machiavelli, From “The Art of War,” 1520

2 thoughts on “Commentary on registration and confiscation by John Farnam

  1. Why is it that people are so incapable of learning from history? Farnam quotes Machiavelli from 1520! Here’s another.

    Cesare Beccaria (Philosopher, politician & criminologist) 1794:

    “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…

    Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    And so the liberals embark on another attempt to prove history wrong. “We just want universal background checks”, they say.

  2. I seem to remember hearing you (or one of your co-hosts who is a police officer) saying that police / ATF / FBI were not interested at all in confiscating firearms from normal, law-abiding folk on your radio show last week. I remember thinking “yes, I’m sure those nice young men from the ATF will be exceedingly polite when they plant their knees on my back when I’m on the ground and tell me not to move because I have a few 20rd AR mags.”

    What I think you neglected to consider in your radio commentary was that confiscations / raids will be pushed by The Management, not by the “regular guys”. If the goal of confiscation is cascaded down from the highest political appointee in the organization, it won’t really matter what the grunts say, will it? You said that “…all those guys have heavy caseloads – those cases won’t go away if there is a mag or firearm ban…”, implying that they won’t be motivated to enforce new unconstitutional laws. What if their superiors make the new cases higher priority?

    I know nothing about how these raids are planned or conducted. Maybe you can share your perspective. Are the officers conducting the raid told that the person they’re raiding is just a normal guy with a few banned mags and an AR (that were legal a few weeks ago), or are they simply told the dry peripheral details – “this is a dangerous individual with high-powered semiautomatic weaponry, search for any and all types of contraband”.

    I guess what I’m saying is that if confiscation is pushed from the higher political levels, those nice, regular ATF/FBI guys you hang around with will simply obey orders, some with more relish than others. Nothing personal, just business.

Leave a Reply