Cuba has declared a two-month amnesty for citizens to register unlicensed guns, and says those passing aptitude and psychological tests will be allowed to keep their weapons.
The move is unusual in a state where almost no one except some active military personnel and plain-clothed state security agents are allowed to possess weapons.
Even most police officers are required to leave their pistols at the station or in a regional barracks when on vacation or leave, and young men participating in mandatory military service are given unloaded firearms for most exercises.
Starting Feb. 12, Cubans will have the “exceptional and one-time only” chance to register their guns with police, and will be allowed to keep them provided they are over 18 and have passed the proper tests administered at police stations.
According to a weekend bulletin carried by state news media, gun owners must “maintain conduct consistent with the appropriate norms of social behavior, meet security and protection conditions for the firearms and pay established taxes.”
Cubans were encouraged to register any weapons they owned in the years after Fidel Castro and his band of rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista on Jan. 1, 1959. But later authorities used a list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms - even antiques considered family heirlooms.
While Cuba is among the safest countries in the hemisphere, it is not unusual to find firearms in Cuban homes, though most are weapons improvised from household materials or guns that were smuggled into the country and bought on the black market.
The call to register arms is for Cubans civilians, and the bulletin stated that “security and protection agents, detectives and bodyguards will be summoned by the Ministry of the Interior” for an independent licensing process.
How do you think that would go over in the U.S.? Is that how they did it in Canada?
Please leave a comment.
"But later authorities used a list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms."
ReplyDeleteBest argument ever against licensing and registration. Like i've said before, registration only serves two purposes: taxation and confiscation.
"How do you think that would go over in the U.S.?"
Depends on what part of the US you're in. In California or New Jersey, I expect many gun owners to comply like the obedient sheep they are.
However in a place like Oklahoma or Montana, not only would people not comply, I imagine there would be an increase in dead bodies.
"Cubans were encouraged to register any weapons they owned in the years after Fidel Castro and his band of rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista on Jan. 1, 1959."
ReplyDeletenuff said.
"Best argument ever against licensing and registration. Like i've said before, registration only serves two purposes: taxation and confiscation."
ReplyDeleteEverybody knows that's what's kept people from registering their automobiles for the last 100+ years.
Cubans were encouraged to register any weapons they owned in the years after Fidel Castro and his band of rebels toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista on Jan. 1, 1959. But later authorities used a list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms - even antiques considered family heirlooms.
ReplyDeleteThank you MikeB for proving EXACTLY why I will NEVER register my firearms.
Either Demo can't read or the quote flew right over his head. The automobile comparison is a non-sequiter, since the government hasn't so much as hinted about confiscating privately owned cars.
ReplyDeleteOTOH we've actually SEEN examples of registration followed by confiscation of firearms, even here in the U.S.
It's also an invalid comparison, since I DON'T have to register my car for mere ownership.
later authorities used a list of those who had sought licenses to go door-to-door and encourage them to turn over their firearms
I love how they use the term "encourage." An armed agent of the state coming to your home telling you to give up your arms is far more than simple "encouragement" (especially in Cuba)
Without registration & licensing there is no list of gun owners for the government to use for such confiscation. This is a perfect example of why we oppose such measures so vehemently.
democommie: "Everybody knows that's what's kept people from registering their automobiles for the last 100+ years."
ReplyDeleteHow many politicians, lobbying groups, and editorials have called fo sweeping automobile bans?
Now, how about guns? I see a difference.
Britain used to have registration of handguns and pump and semiauto rifles and shotguns. Now they don't. What happened?
UH, Haven't you read DC v. Heller? Gun bans are unconstitutional, but not registration.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the gun control groups all love it.
Read the latest Brady Blog.
"The automobile comparison is a non-sequiter, since the government hasn't so much as hinted about confiscating privately owned cars."
ReplyDeleteIt's not completely non-sequiter, considering the main reason governments register cars is for taxation. And government does confiscate cars on occasion.
"UH, Haven't you read DC v. Heller? Gun bans are unconstitutional, but not registration."
ReplyDeleteAs someone who claims to be a lawyer, you should know that nothing in the Heller verdict prohibited gun bans.
As someone who claims to be a lawyer, you should know that nothing in the Heller verdict prohibited gun bans.
ReplyDeleteThat is indeed news to me.
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Yet it would be another reason to despise DC v. Heller if it is true that it allows for bans.
The only ban ruled unconstitutional by Heller was a ban on handguns in the home. There nothing in it to prevent import bans, "assault weapon" bans, bans on "unregistered guns", etc.
ReplyDeleteAztec - Yup, and that's because the handgun ban was the only thing at question in the case.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think Laci would understand that, since she's supposedly a lawyer.