Posted on 01/14/2012 9:23:27 AM PST by marktwain
With the firearms registry on death's door, the RCMP are using what little time remains to reclassify and seize certain scary-looking guns from Canadian firearms owners.
Among the guns being seized is a small-calibre varmint rifle called the Armi Jager AP80. Like many non-restricted rifles, it is semi-automatic and fires the .22-calibre bullet, the smallest and weakest used in any long gun.
The AP80 has been singled out because it looks too much like the infamous AK-47 assault rifle, although it shares no parts or technical similarities with that infamous battle rifle.
On Dec. 20, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program — the office charged with administering gun control regulations in Canada — served hundreds of registered firearms owners with a "notice of revocation."
"This notice is to inform you that the firearm registration certificates indicated below have been revoked," says the letter, obtained by Postmedia News. "You have 30 days to deliver your firearms to a peace officer, firearms officer . . . or to otherwise lawfully dispose of them."
The letter says the AP80 was "incorrectly registered" in the past, and is being banned because it is now considered a member of the AK-47 family.
"The above mention firearm is prohibited as a variant of the design of the firearm commonly known as the AK-47 rifle," the letter says.
Until Dec. 20, the AP80 was classified as a non-restricted firearm, the most lightly controlled category of firearms in Canada. It has now been moved to most tightly controlled category: the prohibited firearms list.
As a result, the AP80 can now be owned or used only by people possessing certain rare "grandfathered" prohibited licences.
The RCMP also issued a notice of revocation for the Walther G22 rifle on Dec. 30. This gun, also a .22-calibre semi-automatic, was prohibited because it
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
This is what repealing the registry was supposed to prevent. The Prime Minister needs to stop this now.
Control freaks exist in all societies, and THEY are the ones who need to controlled the most, because they will enslave us all if given the chance.
“”With the firearms registry on death’s door, the RCMP are using what little time remains to reclassify and seize certain scary-looking guns from Canadian firearms owners””
Oh no, a SCARY looking gun. I’d rather get shot by one of these popcorn fart things than my non scary looking single shot 7 mag.
The gun-grabbing mountie aholes deserve more than having their hands slapped. They should be ashamed of themselves.
That's quite a loophole.
I wonder if anybody is stupid enough to actually "turn in" their weapons to "the authorities".
“On Dec. 20, the RCMP Canadian Firearms Program — the office charged with administering gun control regulations in Canada — served hundreds of registered firearms owners with a “notice of revocation.”...”This notice is to inform you that the firearm registration certificates indicated below have been revoked,”
There are, no doubt, a lot of FReepers, lurkers, and Sores-types, that wonder why gun registration is inherently bad.
Let me explain here - as you can see, once you register your gun, the government knows what you possess - from there, they can “call in” your gun, if it is perceived to be a threat to “innocent people”, as stated here.
Bottom-line is that the government should NEVER know what you have (or care what you have). If the government is a “good government” (as opposed to a bad government, as in Stalin), they would not care what you owned...they would only care that you didn’t threaten others, without cause.
In addition to your post, they can (and will) measure their response in their efforts of getting into your home. A registered gun owner may (Will) require SWAT teams to do even minor visits.
That means that instead of a knock at the door with two officers who want to talk, it will be a 4 am cacophony of flashbangs, dead dogs, and tear gas.
No, gun registration is wrong. Do whatever you can do confuse and collapse the system. Get actively involved in canoeing, trade for christmas gifts, confuse,confuse,confuse. Alinsky works both ways.
“In addition to your post, they can (and will) measure their response in their efforts of getting into your home. A registered gun owner may (Will) require SWAT teams to do even minor visits.”
I hear you. It sounds like they must consider gun owners as nutcases, and must hit them fast, before they have a chance of getting their (possibly) unregistered guns out of sight. Horrible.
It appears someone has seen the possible value of small caliber semi-autos with cheap ammo, either from a tactical or survival standpoint.
I have reams and reams of stuff to say about this, and that. But I have come to the resolution lately that the less said, the better. The Second Amendment gives us the license - we don’t need to explain it, register it, or expound on it. Just do it.
“Being exposed to the govt that you have gun(s) by applying for gun insurance from NRA for instance...”
Wow, never heard of “gun insurance”, but I can why it’s out there. Overall, I would not let ANYONE know if I had guns at home (other than a well-trained kid, or a wife that wasn’t born in the United States). Letting ANYONE else know, puts you at HUGE risk, such as in the example above, where you have to give the NRA some very sensitive information, to get their ‘insurance’.
Posted on Sat 16 Oct 2010 10:36:12 AM MST by marktwain
The holy grail of the anti self defense and anti rights special interest groups is gun registration. This is because once your gun is required to be registered, it is in effect, already confiscated. Only a little thought will reveal to you why this is so. The Government will know who has legal possession of each firearm. They will know where the firearm is stored. When physical possession of the gun is desired, they can order you to turn it in. This has happened repeatedly. The historical examples include NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, and Cambodia. Recent examples include Kosovo, Great Britian, Australia, New York, and California. Not having possession of the firearm registered to you can be grounds for criminal action. If you have reported the gun stolen, and it is then found in your possession, you can be charged with obstruction of justice.
It is a truism that once all guns are required to be registered, the only people who will legally possess guns will be those who have registered them. If you choose to follow the course of civil disobedience, and not register your firearms, mere possession of an unregistered gun can put you at grave legal risk. Civil disobedience has been the most common course of action in California and Canada, where it has proven impossible to enforce the laws requiring registration. If you choose this course of action, you would now be at the mercy of any informant who discovers that you possess a gun illegally. Children in the public schools are already being trained to tell the police if there is a gun in the house. Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home. A warrant was issued in California for a SWAT raid based on the mere picture of people holding unidentified guns which were legal. The picture had been sent to the police by an informant in the film developing company. If you are not on the list of those who have registered, you have become a criminal. If you are forced to use the gun for self defense, you will have committed a serious crime. It will become extremely difficult to train your children in firearms safety or to bring friends or relatives into the gun culture. In a few years, the number of people with personal knowledge of guns will be much smaller. The people who urge gradual or immediate gun registration are attempting cultural genocide of the gun culture.
The common practice, once guns are required to be registered, is to gradually tighten the requirements of registration to reduce the number of gun owners. When the number is low enough to limit effective political action by the members of the gun culture affected, the remaining guns can be confiscated with little effort.
Gun registration has proven to be universally ineffective in reducing crime. In fact, crime is likely to increase because of the transfer of police resources from crime fighting to administer and police the political requirements of the gun registration scheme, and because of the reduced number of people willing or able to use their firearms for self defense. Self defense is never acknowledged by the anti rights special interest groups because it trumps their arguments for disarming the people. The primary purpose of gun registration has always been to reduce the political power of the people rather than reduce the crime rate.
The current attempt at requiring gun registration started in 1968, when congress required gun dealers to obtain a federal license, and purchasers of guns from federally licensed dealers were required to fill out a form 4473 to take possession. Congress forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from constructing any national gun registration list from this data, although a registration scheme of purchasers of more than one handgun within a week has been kept on the grounds that it was started before the congressional action forbidding such, and is therefore “grandfathered”. In 1994, Congress passed the Brady bill, which required handgun purchasers to undergo an instant check or a five day wait to purchase a handgun. While parts of this act were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, a little known part of the bill went into effect in 1998, requiring all purchasers of firearms from licensed dealers to undergo an “instant check” before taking possession. Two safeguards had been built into the bill to insure that it would not be used to develop a national registration of firearms. First, the FBI was forbidden to keep any records of instant checks that allow purchase. Second, the instant checks only applied to dealers, not to private sales. Since any gun owner could sell their firearm whenever they wished, without government permission, no registration list could effectively be developed, and effective gun confiscation was prevented.
During the last year, both of these safeguards have been under attack. The FBI has refused to immediately destroy the instant check information, although required to do so by law. Recently a three judge panel in Washington, D. C. has voted two to one to uphold their ability to do so. Both judges voting for gun registration are Clinton appointees. The Clinton administration has been vociferously promoting the elimination of the other safeguard, private sales, which they call the “gun show loophole”. Once private parties are forbidden from selling guns without government permission, it is only a matter of time before all guns and gun owners who are not registered are illegal.
I find particularly troubling the emphasis during the last decade on guns that are seldom used in crime, but are quite useful in military service. The same people who stated that they were only interested in limiting handguns, now call for limiting the ownership of military style rifles. Many models of guns which are almost never used in crime, are now illegal for people to own in some locations. The latest outrageous attempt to remove power from the people is to place severe restrictions on the sale of .50 caliber rifles. The authors of this bill don't even claim that these guns are used in crime. They want to ban them because they have a military purpose! The clearest reason for the Second Amendment to the Constitution is to insure that the people retain a large measure of military power, to balance the power of the government. The republic is in grave danger when congressmen openly state that they fear military power in the hands of the people.
The only purpose of gun registration is gun confiscation, whether it is done individually and piecemeal, as the legal requirements to own a gun become more and more difficult, or en mass, when the government feels the necessity to disarm its citizens in order to further its control.
Governments that push for gun registration distrust their people, and have earned the people's distrust.
What does this mean?
“What does this mean?”
Immigrants seem to understand American Constitutional Liberties a lot better than the brainwashed OWS crowd...that’s all.
“Doctors are being urged to ask children if there are guns in their home.”
Tell me about it...dealt with this one 7 years or so ago. The read this pediatric garbage and go out on a crusade.
So if a woman isn’t an immigrant she is part of the OWS crowd?
TheMom and Allegra I have some bad news for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.