‘Maybe There Will Just Be a Confiscation:’ State Senator Floats Full Confiscation After Gun Owner Calls Her Out
For years, anti-Second Amendment gun control advocates would routinely seek to reassure skeptical gun owners that they had nothing at all to worry about, as “nobody is coming to take your guns.”
More recently, however, a growing number of the gun control crowd have been more honest and forthcoming that, yes, their proposals to further restrict firearms and the rights of gun owners will indeed include confiscation, and a Democratic state senator in Illinois is now the latest to expose her true intentions.
The Lake County News-Sun reported that Democratic Sen. Julie Morrison and Democratic state Rep. Bob Morgan — both representing the Deerfield, Illinois, area — held a town hall June 11 to address questions and concerns from constituents following the conclusion of the legislative session.
While several different topics were discussed, Morrison’s support and sponsorship of gun control legislation was one of the more fiery issues.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the News-Sun utterly failed to even acknowledge Morrison’s commentary on gun confiscation, which the pro-gun Illinois State Rifle Association captured on video and posted online.
Of particular concern to one attendee (who wasn’t identified) at the town hall event was Morrison’s introduction of a bill known as SB 107, which sought to effectively ban the possession, purchase, sale or transfer of any and all “assault weapons” in the state. Those included a vast majority of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and even pistols.
The rather draconian legislation, which named and banned no fewer than 63 particular firearms, made it a felony for any resident to knowingly possess any banned weaponry unless a fee was paid and the firearm was registered with the Illinois State Police — along with other hoops the gun owner must jump through to avoid prosecution.
Breitbart noted that the gun owner expressed the concern that this legislation would lead directly to the confiscation of formerly legally purchased and possessed firearms, a charge Morrison initially attempted to deny. She said the idea wasn’t to confiscate already owned weapons, but merely to prevent the sale and possession of any new weapons.
“You want me to turn it over to the state police, unless I pay a fine for each firearm and register them, then I get to keep them,” the gun owner said.
Following her twisted logic, the gun owner asked, “If I get to keep it — if I pay a fine and register it — then how dangerous is it in the first place, and why do you need to ban it all?”
That drew a moment of applause from some of the audience, until Morrison snarkily replied, “Well, you just maybe changed my mind. Maybe we won’t have a fine at all, maybe it’ll just be a confiscation and we won’t have to worry about paying the fine.”
Rep. Morgan attempted to dance around the issue of confiscation and argued that the registration fee didn’t actually constitute a “fine,” an argument the gun owner was unwilling to accept.
Morrison chimed in by suggesting the registration of firearms was no different than the registration of vehicles. But the gun owner accurately noted that vehicle ownership was a privilege and not a constitutionally guaranteed right, like gun ownership.
This gun owner is right to be concerned about Morrison’s gun control bill, as he is correct that should he decline or fail to properly register his previously legal firearms — that is now retroactively rendered illegal — with the state police, he would face fines and prosecution and the confiscation of his legally possessed property.
It has been said before but bears repeating: Registration leads to confiscation, which will inevitably lead to bloodshed, as many gun owners will refuse to comply with unconstitutional registration and confiscation schemes — which would ironically be enforced at the barrel of the same types of guns deemed illegal and too dangerous for the citizenry or society to allow.
