Gun Regulation and Confiscation … Believe Us Now?

Written by Suzanne Olden on March 6, 2013

800px-Defense.gov_News_Photo_041011-N-4614W-084I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read a comment made on a blog, Facebook or news story where concerns about gun confiscation are answered with a “You people are idiots! No one is taking anyone’s guns!”; or something similar. Well, a Department of Justice memo was leaked this past week that puts the Administration’s goal of total gun confiscation out in the open. Believe us now?

What I find troubling about this memo is how the Administration wants to use what many rational gun control advocates (i.e. those who believe that there should be gun ownership, just with restrictions) call “common sense rules or legislation.” There is nothing “common sense” about how the Obama Administration plans on using them. The plan is, in fact, insidious. This is, of course, in stark contrast to public statement by Obama and his mouthpieces like Jay Carney who stated in February that Obama would not “take away a gun from a single law-abiding American.” Really?

The memo, dated January 4, 2013 and written by Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D., Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, outlines current gun control policy and its effectiveness. Coached in terms of “reducing gun violence” it actually spells out what needs to be done in order to succeed in the ultimate goal of gun confiscation.

The first item is gun buyback programs. “Buybacks are ineffective unless massive and coupled with a ban.” (emphasis added). It states that the goal of buyback programs is to “reduce access to firearms” (emphasis added). It then states that evidence shows buybacks are ineffective. Of course normal people saw how effective those were with the “Fast and Furious” debacle, but I digress. The reasons are threefold: “buybacks are too small to have an impact; The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime; and Replacement guns are easily acquired ” (emphasis added). You bad people, exercising your Second Amendment right and buying another GUN!

Next: Large capacity magazines restrictions. Restrictions have “great potential to reduce lethality …” but it “requires a massive reduction in supply” and the goal should be to place “restrictions on the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of large capacity magazines…” It goes on to discuss the 1994 ban, and its ineffectiveness. Then it states that for a ban to again have an effect, “large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession…” and offer no exemption for previously owned magazines. What was it that Einstein said? “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Yeah, that ban thing will work so well the second time around…

OK, so now onto controlling the supply of ammunition. There are some key points made here. First, they summarize that a requirement to keep ammunition logs, or records of purchases of ammunition, will “increase the opportunities to detect illegal firearm possessors.” The memo states that “Ammunition purchase logs are a means of checking for illegal purchases and for developing intelligence on illegal firearms” and that “There is evidence that the program can be used to identify prohibited purchasers and can aid in the recovery of illegal firearms.”

Remember, item one laid the groundwork for massive firearms bans. “But wait” you say “there are people who shouldn’t be buying weapons or ammunition. You know, crazy people and criminals.” OK, let’s be clear, people who illegally own firearms of whatever kind don’t go to your local WalMart and buy their ammo. Legal gun owners do. So, couple a massive firearms ban with gun logs and all of those who don’t lockstep in and register each and every handgun, rifle and weapon they may have will be targeted. Trust me, this isn’t to target criminals. I know this because the very next statement on the memo says “The volume of recoveries is not of a scale likely to impact the illegal firearm trade…” Ya think?

Next, universal background checks. “Now come on,” you say, “we should check the background of those purchasing guns from anyone anywhere. You catch criminals buying that way!” Right, because criminals buy guns legally, every time.

“OK,” you say “but what about crazy people?” Well, define crazy. Not all people who suffer from one disorder or another are violent or “crazy.” A recent action by the Department of Veterans Affairs, now call military veterans “crazy”. A letter was sent out to military veterans stating that they are considered disabled (or incompetent) and a “determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” Punishable by federal prison time. Generally, are veterans incompetent or crazy? No. But why not disarm the biggest threat to gun confiscation? The retired troops who are trained to use them?

In short, this memo states that “Gun registration aims to … improve law enforcement’s ability to retrieve guns from owners prohibited from possessing firearms.” (emphasis added). Since they are looking to ban all firearms, per above, we would all be prohibited. Knowledge is power, and we need to keep the power and not abdicate it to Washington or your state capitol. Will it come to pass? Only if we don’t pay attention and act accordingly.

Suzanne Reisig Olden is a Catholic Christian, Conservative, married mother of two, who loves God, family and country in that order. She lives northwest of Baltimore, in Carroll County, Maryland. She graduated from Villa Julie College/Stevenson University with a BS in Paralegal Studies and works as a paralegal for a franchise company, specializing in franchise law and intellectual property. Originally from Baltimore, and after many moves, she came home to raise her son and daughter, now high school and college aged, in her home state. Suzanne also writes for The Firebreathing Conservative website ( and hopes you'll come visit there as well for even more discussion of conservative issues.