Quote of the day—Stephen P. Halbrook

In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group.

In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.”

During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews.

Stephen P. Halbrook
December 2, 2013
How the Nazis Used Gun Control
[See also the Belgian Corporal.

Avoid gun registration as best you can. And never register your guns in such a way that you can’t plausibly deny still owning them a month or two later. “Tragic boating accident” is the classic out. But there are lots of other ways.

Trading guns with close relatives in another state is sometime a legal and viable option. Or a chain of legal trades/purchases across families linked by marriage might work too.

If you don’t need for the trail to go cold in the short term quietly buy a gun from an elderly relative. In a dozen years or so the trail dies with the relative.

Move to another state, even if for a month, and purchase or trade there.

Never put yourself in a position to have your guns confiscated.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Stephen P. Halbrook

  1. That’s only one case in history. There are many more. It goes back even to the times before the invention of the gun, to sword confiscation, and it’s always for the safety of the tyrants (criminals) who intend to rule by brute force. “Public Safety” in Left-Speak therefore always translates to “the safety of the criminals” in English.

    In a world ruled by criminals, of the mind if Cain, the honest, productive, principled, citizen represents the greatest threat to “authority”. Judaeo/Christian civilization then must be put down, thus the centuries-long, never-ending campaign of infiltration, corruption and smear.

    The Decalogue is of this nature, and so, of course, the leftists hate it with a burning passion. It leaves no room for any earthly authority at all, other than one’s parents, and it is specific and exquisitely detailed in prohibiting any form of coercive redistribution. Thus, to uphold the Ten Commandments is to be a direct insult and a deadly threat to the authority of the state.

    To shout out in public the tenets of the Protestant Reformation then; “Sola Gracia! Sola Christos! Sola Scriptura!” is to be, in essence, marked for death, for your very existence is a terror, an insult and a threat to The Powers That Should Not Be.

  2. Gun confiscation is a SYMPTOM of the problem. Registration just makes the process a bit simpler. Avoiding registration will NEVER keep power hungry evil
    people from seeking to disarm society. The response to attempts at confiscation should not be to hide guns, deny ownership etc. It should be the signal that hunting season is open and there are no bag limits.

  3. Dan (above) is correct – registration makes it a lot easier, but for an organization with nearly unlimited police power – the state – it’s not necessary. Especially in today’s data-linked environment, phone GPS data, credit card purchases, security and surveillance video histories coupled to facial recognition software, emails, web site visits, etc. it’s child’s play to link any citizen (or resident, for that matter) to an “undesirable” act or object.

    The solution is tolerance, and patience, with the Solzhenitsyn Solution held in abeyance until it’s needed and then applied ruthlessly and without hesitation.

    The downside to tolerance and patience is the steady chipping away, continual erosion at the edges, of foundational components until all rests on a single tottering pillar.

    California is the current example; I suspect come next Monday opportunities for wealth will abound; Joe Kennedy built his estate and financed his kids’ political futures smuggling booze in the twenties. Midnight deliveries of 5.56 don’t have quite the same romantic cachet as speedboats of Canadian whiskey, and the fortunes to be made not as vast, but the possibility of creating a useful secondary network, or multiples of them, and related communication, financial and social structures, should not be overlooked.

    • They can reasonably conclude you owned guns in the recent past. But how many, and which ones, do you own today?

      I spent a fair amount of time talking to a couple cops at a match once. They told me search warrants have to demonstrate reasonable knowledge that the specific object(s) to be searched for are where you think they are. If the information on contraband is a month old they probably couldn’t get a search warrant.

      Any lawyers here want to comment on this?

      • IANAL, but it seems to me the bar for search warrants (if the authorities bother) is very low. At least in anti-freedom jurisdictions. It seems trivial there to find a sufficiently dishonest and compliant judge to sign the relevant piece of paper.
        And wasn’t there a case some decades ago involving anonymous search warrants, i.e., ones allegedly signed but with the signature redacted? Neil Smith referred to that. It might have been artistic license, but the way it was presented gave the impression it was based on an actual event.

        • I’ll second the motion on sketchy justification for some search warrants; every detective knows which judges demand rock solid proof and which are “more flexible.”

          Kathryn Johnston was killed in 2006 during a police raid conducted with a fully legal warrant; problem was, the info came from a street druggie maintaining his freedom and CI cred who claimed drugs were being dealt in her house. They might have been there at one time – Johnson threw her grandson out for possessing them – and plainclothes officers killed her when they kicked in the door and she picked up a gun to defend herself. Some cops eventually went to jail for it but Johnson was still killed.

          And, there’s always the “exigent circumstances” excuse – gotta move right now or the perp escapes/evidence disappears/etc.

          The process – on paper – is good. The process – in real life – isn’t because if humans devise a system, humans can figure a way around it.

          I do not doubt what the cops at the match told you is true – on paper. I do doubt, however, that they would publicly discuss the “workarounds” or instances when those workarounds happened.

          Bottom line is voluminous data is available on all of us, can be used by the heavy hand of government to suit its own needs, whatever those are in the moment, so stay alert.

          For gunowners “shall not be infringed” should say it all, but that doesn’t seem to be the case, does it?

          • IIRC, one of the situations was that some idiot judge had signed a stack of blank warrants for a cop drug group. I think there was some mild hand smacking as a result of it becoming public.

  4. One of the newer lines of horsepuckey I’ve seen trotted out is ‘Adolf Hitler actually relaxed gun control in Nazi Germany’.

    Which is technically true. After every other undesirable had been purged, Adolf was more than happy to arm members of the Nazi Party who were in good standing.

    Somehow, they forget to add that part though.

Comments are closed.