U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Mandatory registration is okay

Register to hide this ad
And yet again, this surprises anyone exactly WHY?
For those not from the Chicago area, Cicero is one of it's W S/W suburbs whose eastern border contacts Chicago's western boundary.
The dynamic in play cannot be fully understood without comprehending the relationship of the city of Chicago to Cook county, the county in which it's located. Cicero too is located in Cook county. Years ago, when Chicago was stymied in it's ability to reach it's authority to close collar suburban gun shops, Daley simply had his lap dogs on the county board do it for him by proxy. While I'm not certain of the current count, I believe only 1 gun shop/range now exists in Cook county. One must think in terms of Cousins having married, then reproduced, in order to fully appreciate what's in play.
 
And yet again, this surprises anyone exactly WHY?
For those not from the Chicago area, Cicero is one of it's W S/W suburbs whose eastern border contacts Chicago's western boundary.
The dynamic in play cannot be fully understood without comprehending the relationship of the city of Chicago to Cook county, the county in which it's located. Cicero too is located in Cook county. Years ago, when Chicago was stymied in it's ability to reach it's authority to close collar suburban gun shops, Daley simply had his lap dogs on the county board do it for him by proxy. While I'm not certain of the current count, I believe only 1 gun shop/range now exists in Cook county. One must think in terms of Cousins having married, then reproduced, in order to fully appreciate what's in play.
Are you trying to tell me that Chicago, with its SPOTLESS record of political honesty and straight forward operations has crooked politicans? I just don't believe it ;).

Wait did I just use the words honest, political, and Chicago in the same sentence? Never mind I must not be feeling well right now.
 
And yet again, this surprises anyone exactly WHY?
For those not from the Chicago area, Cicero is one of it's W S/W suburbs whose eastern border contacts Chicago's western boundary.
The dynamic in play cannot be fully understood without comprehending the relationship of the city of Chicago to Cook county, the county in which it's located. Cicero too is located in Cook county. Years ago, when Chicago was stymied in it's ability to reach it's authority to close collar suburban gun shops, Daley simply had his lap dogs on the county board do it for him by proxy. While I'm not certain of the current count, I believe only 1 gun shop/range now exists in Cook county. One must think in terms of Cousins having married, then reproduced, in order to fully appreciate what's in play.


Now that was interesting. You must be from Chicago.;)
 
What do you suppose they would do if all (or most) gun owners simply refused to comply?

Peaceful civil disobedience will be the key to overcoming restrictive firearms legislation. It worked in Canada when the national government imposed laws requiring owner licensing, registration of all firearms, etc. It took several years, but the government finally gave up (with less than 20% compliance).

Search LUFA (Law Abiding Unregistered Firearms Association), lots of good reading about how activist gun owners overcame C-96 (the law in question).
 
What do you suppose they would do if all (or most) gun owners simply refused to comply?

Umm. How about picking out a few hapless suckers at random, prosecuting them to the max with maximum jail time and penalties? I think "patriots" would do some serious rethinking about civil disobedience.
 
Umm. How about picking out a few hapless suckers at random, prosecuting them to the max with maximum jail time and penalties? I think "patriots" would do some serious rethinking about civil disobedience.

Are you saying the Patriot would comply, or defend their rights with appropriate force? Send the Chicago boyz down to Texas and Oklahoma and see if they enjoy their attempt at forcing "obedience."
 
No offense to anyones sensibilities on this, but I think Norman has listed exactly how it would be handled. Selective enforcement allows the full weight of resources to economically fall upon a relative few, thereby convincing the many.
 
Are you saying the Patriot would comply, or defend their rights with appropriate force? Send the Chicago boyz down to Texas and Oklahoma and see if they enjoy their attempt at forcing "obedience."

I'm saying that very few of us would step up and be true patriots like our country's founders. The "Man" won't have to worry about hoards of gun lovers marching armed in the street because it won't happen.

As far as somebody in any state resisting an attempt to disarm the populace, are you ready to pull the trigger on your local sherriff? He'll be the one charged with coming to your door, not some federal storm trooper. Wide spread armed resistance just ain't gonna happen.
 
You're right. No one is going to start gunning down his local sheriff because he's required to register his guns. And very very few people would start doing so even if there were universal confiscation. Which there isn't going to be.
 
If it ever gets down and dirty will we be any different than the citizens of Great Britain, Australia or Canada just because we've seen John Wayne movies and have a "history of freedom?" If there will be any heros it will be the agent who refuses to make the arrest, the trooper who refuses to fire on a fellow citizen or the sniper who won't make the shot on another citizen standing in the door holding a baby! They will all pay a heavy price for their dereliction of duty. This is what has always scared me about a professional, all volunteer military. A bunch of roudy draftees like us in the 60s might be more willing to tell an officer or NCO to shove it than a pro. (I'll duck now so all you career people can unload on me.)
 
A bunch of roudy draftees like us in the 60s might be more willing to tell an officer or NCO to shove it than a pro. (I'll duck now so all you career people can unload on me.)

Ain't no career people gonna unload on you - leastways, I don't think so. You have a legitimate concern there. However, my limited experience (25 years, with & without a draft) was that the post-draft crowd was pretty much just as American as the earlier crowd. However, by that time, I had a bit of rank myself, so maybe you should take my observations with a grain of salt.
 
It is most likely that, barring an all out civil war, invasion, and occupation, "free" places will remain "free" despite what some big city, big government politicians might put down on paper.

The idea that the People in "free" places will not gun down their lawfully elected sheriff follows closely on the heels of the idea that their lawfully elected sheriff will not gun the People down to appease a bunch of corrupt big city, big government politicians. Thus the comments about "them Chicago boys havin' trouble enforcing their will" on the good people of Texas, Oklahoma, Montana, Kentucky, etcetra are not all that outrageous.

While I agree that, most likely, enacting overly restrictive gun laws would just widen the rift between the big cities and the rest of the country and trying to enforce such laws in places where a vast majority of the people oppose them would only serve to widen the rift irrepairably. I can see people "taking to the streets" over a variety of political and cultural issues if the economic situation persists or gets worse. The sad truth is that the greatest force compelling us to civility (or apathy, depending on your view) is comfort. When times are not good and people feel helpless, they are less concerned with upsetting the balance of things.

I doubt it will ever come to that because licensing, banning, and confiscating privately held firearms in this country would be the ultimate "fool's errand." What we must focus on is combating the anti-gunners' continuing efforts to make firearms ownership and use as difficult and "socially unacceptable" as possible...with the goal of marginalizing current gun owners and discouraging gun ownership amongst future generations.
 
When that day does come (God, may it be long after I am dead), the vast majority of us will go along quietly. The mantras will be, "better to register and keep them, than invite confrontation and lose them, or home, loved ones or life itself" or "live to fight another day"...as if anyone would. Just like the majority of members here in this forum who believe it's prudent to take a politically correct stance on open carry at political events (not to open that dead conversation again), most of us are frogs in the ever warming water. Appeasement will be the order of the day, and even the beloved NRA will advise us to cooperate with the authorities, while of course peacefully voicing our extreme displeasure.

At that time, the first man to confront the authorities on this issue will no doubt be as quickly cast to the wolves by our own as by our enemies, using the very same argument as the one used in the case cited above. God forbid we exercise or defend a God-given right at the risk of offending some soccer mom's gun sensibilities, and of course, we must always operate within the law (or, as is more often the case today, even the color of law), lest we be branded "nut-balls" (perish the thought!).

As for our police and standing army, I have every confidence that they will faithfully carry out the orders of their commanding officers (at the expense of their sworn oath). When given the choice, very few will risk the security of their own lives, wives and children to stand on a principle, no matter how core it is to our way of life. History repeats itself. Their response is predictable and well documented.

We are losing, and will inevitably lose this war. The time for us to have definitively secured the right (which should have never come in to question in the first place), has long since passed us by. The minor battles we think we've won recently have little to do with securing a right, on the contrary, they've only managed to reduce what was a right into a government controlled and taxed privilege. And we all do love our little privilege permits so much, don't we? So likewise, we will all cherish our new certificate of registration, which records each of our firearms. And every year, we will gladly render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's (That'll be $35 for each long gun, and $60 each for each handgun...please make your check payable to the BATFE and include your SS# on the check. Failure to pay on time could result in confiscation of your firearms and permanent loss of your right to keep and bear arms [as if one existed]).

As if.

Your humble nut-ball,
Fitz
 
Last edited:
Good luck with that here in Maine. The coastal sections might comply...but in the "Other" Maine it would never fly.

Molon labe...

giz
 
Very interesting discussion.
I am not certain of course but I think the reason that Chicago and New York for example have had very restrictive laws for many, many, years is that the majority of the voters there approve of them.
At least there is not enough vocal opposition that politicians must take opposition into consideration. The Newspapers mostly have supported very restrictive laws, and in times passed were very influential.

Even where one party rules there are competitive primaries. I don't think many politicians really give a damm about anything but themselves and getting reelected, if they thought there was a competitive advantage in supporting the right to own, carry, and use in self defense they would support it.

In Florida we are approaching critical mass, there are enough CC holders to constitute a serious voting block.
The Castle Doctrine sailed through the Legislature easily.

I think it unlikely that even given natural disaster, there would be an attempt at confiscation here, perhaps in Miami not elsewhere.
 
Back
Top