How to legally opt out of RemoteID: Make Your House a FRIA! 

I mean there are actual killers and dealers out there. But we all know the biggest crime against humanity is flippy floppies bro, cmon...

Floppy flippies are a much bigger danger, societaly, i would posit! 😮😅😊

Amen! Keep this comment at the top!

flippy is what floppies does. it certainly must be stop at all cost.

Flippy floppies ARE SCARY!

Illegal to fly in Missouri parks unfortunately

@Todd_Gerhardt that's sad to hear we've had parks in central New york invite us to hold events to generate interest in the parks. State parks are illegal but local municipalities usually don't mind us

@AAronFpv nice, I go to schools on weekends when there's nobody around, I tries to fly one day while waiting on my son to get done at a club and a cop showed uo and told me I couldn't fly there anymore

@Todd_Gerhardt that's ridiculous. I work in schools using drones to get kids interested in STEM. They're doing every kid in the state a disservice if they don't allow drones to be flown on school grounds. Drone Soccer has been sweeping the nation. The nationals are the end of the month in Virginia. I really hope they aren't preventing the children in your state from having this opportunity to get involved in aviation and technology at an early age.

@@AAronFpv I think they are stopping it honestly

✊ to you Bro!

EU has that shit too.

don't worry about us. most of us will just ignore this shit.

The law is a joke

​@@davedauria4782 it's been a good amount of time now. Has anyone been fined for lacking remote id? I don't think they're targeting home builds as much as casual drones but I don't see how this is enforceable unless the FAA shows up on site of an incident or LE holds a drone as part of evidence of a crime

lol

Same😂

No Quarter Ranch is one of the best FPV spots that exists! Glad they got it approved

You can get the location you fly at designated as a FRIA. You don't need to go to a "private field". That's the entire point of the video.

Aren't they pretty much trying to ban drones from ALL government controlled land?

A 1kg threshold might make sense for FPV quads but it's very annoying for other types of flying, eg slope soaring. Those models are often heavier than 1kg and are frequently flown at public sites (cliffs, mountains).

The need for licensing shouldn’t exist.

This is much of the problem in modern times: Law abiding people are always eager to negotiate their own oppression. We got people walking into stores, cleaning off shelves, and just walking out. There are drug addicts in the streets just camping out. There's no shortage of people who have thrown any rule of the law out the window. And then you have the people who try to follow EVERY arbitrary, undemocratic law with sheepish acceptance. Some of them are so blindly obedient, if they were cows they'd march into a slaughterhouse, and even report on the cows that stepped out of line to score brownie points with their butcher. Nobody voted on these laws. It has no mandate by the people. We have the power, not them. They have no chips and no cards. We should be forcing their hand, not folding.

@@MaxSMoke777 go along to get along....and then you're effed and it's too late. The people that went to bat against rID gave up far too easily, their arguments were weak and poorly executed. I imagine many people took a pay check in order to cave so easily.

The FAA approving it as a FRIA means the FAA doesn't require RemoteID there. That is a completely independent situation from whether the state, county, city, etc allow you to fly there.

@@JoshuaBardwell Yes..totally understand. Personally, just frustrated with the whole process...makes me want to fly less and less.

@@RGMGFitness And that's the whole point.

The FAA does not have the authority to set rules and regulations indoors. I know your comment was meant in jest, but this is an important point. For example, kids flying whoops in a gym do not need to worry about any FAA regulations. DaveM

@@Mr748Dave actually my comment was not meant in jest, it was badly worded. I should have said "within the bounds of your property".

Let me know bro I live in Pennsylvania and I have no one to fly with

@@joemck1235where you at? I’m around Harrisburg pa.

@@byronrobinson8633 I'm in Hanover pa

@@joemck1235 you aren’t far at all. Right now I’m crazy busy with my business but after the spring rush we should meet up and rip it sometime. I have a park not far from me that I haven’t had any problems with so far.

*Forgot to say: The motors are still not spinning in my case. Im really desperate☹️

yeah honestly where is the line drawn between models? if I am flying and I break a frame and I replace it with a new frame that is a different model do I have to register it with a new identifier? If not, what if the flight controller also died in that crash and I need to replace that too. Its basically the ship of Theseus. When does it become a new model?

Anyone can apply for a FRIA anywhere, regardless of if they own the property or not. However, getting permission to enter the premises and fly there is between you and the property owner. You can fly 107 at an edu site or wherever you want.

@@JoshuaBardwell Yeah have flown fixed wing for so long and that was normally all you needed was permission. Thankfully around me in East Tennessee there are still a bit of AMA style flying fields but they have never really been all that welcoming to Multi-Rotors.

I would recommend starting the process to get it approved and see how it comes out.

True, still need a spotter and still can't fly BVR

For now they can they were talking about changing that

Yes all my quads identify as sub 250s. Everyone respect their identity.

The whole point of this video is that I did not get "special treatment" and anyone can apply to make their flight area a FRIA, just like I did.

In short, no. Here's why. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dFXxZxwMYnk.htmlsi=d3XxaQ5fCQK940tB

@@JoshuaBardwell Thanks for the reply. I was getting excited about open source and hoping it was getting closer to be a viable digital replacement to name brands.

Probably. You should contact the FPVFC and find out.

Contact FPVFC for help 😁

It's your choice if you want to do this. We just don't advise this. DaveM

That is a scary reality.

well the big one outside the united states spans the entire rest of the globe

We recommend a FRIA be small. The individuals reviewing FRIA applications are reasonable people. If we get crazy, the application will simply be denied. Dave Messina

​@@Mr748Dave How about talking to local farmers and putting applications in for whole farm properties? Trade with the farmer "we'll do you fence checks via drone for free"...

no

@@G0rg81 thank god for that 😁

Speak for yourself. My current residence, my parents property, my fiancés parents property, several of my friends properties are all fantastic natural FPV playgrounds. theres so much great space out there.

@@SuperWaterskiboy I guess you are "UNCOMMON" lol

Get those places designated as FRIAS.

I agree in principle, but the issue is you don't own the airspace above the property.

I can't tell if people in the comments are missing the point of the video: that if there isn't a FRIA near you, then YOU CAN MAKE ONE at your favorite flight location. There are so many people complaining about the lack of FRIA in the comments, and I don't know if it's just general desire to complain (go for it) or you're missing the point that you can solve that problem yourself, and that's why I made this video.

Watch. The. Video. The entire point of the video is that you can potentially get your home designated as a FRIA.

Then get a remote ID module - or follow JB's advice about creating a FRIA.

Only 107 operations require unique module per drone.

You can try to become a CBO if you really want to, but the steps are difficult and the FAA is not keen to approve more CBO's. For example, to become a CBO, you must be a 501(c)(3). You must develop a safety plan for your members. You must "represent a community of operators". I don't think FPVFC is attempting to be exclusionary when they say, don't try to become a CBO. I think they're saying, if you want a FRIA, you don't have to become a CBO. That's not the intended path. The FPVFC didn't "do it just fine". It was hard, and they did it so you don't have to.

Yeah I think the warning is more so thousands of people don't go trying to do it just for the sake of sending a FRIA application. If you genuinely have an interest in a CBO then go for it.

Correct. Which is why this video is explaining how you can contact the FPVFC to get your home or park where you normally fly declared as a FRIA.

You said it. If you don't cause problems. But accidents tend to occur sooner or later.

Only care if you do commercial work. Everyone else should fly like nothing is going on, just makes it cooler the more they crack down. Fuck the po-lice.

what do you fly now?

Some laws are meant to be broken, just fly!

who cares just disregard remote id if you are not causing issues they will not go after you

This is the title I wrote. I think it accurately describes the information in the video.

So no jumping without FAA permission?

It's a way to comply and not use RID. I'm not sure what's so hard about this concept.

It's playing their stupid game, and it's giving them money to feed this unenforceable anti-hobby nonsense.

It doesn't have to be your own property. They actually prefer it to be public places where more people can utilize.

Tell it to the courts.

if you disguise your drones as guns they may raise fewer eyebrows as they are subject to less regulation? /jk

All this started in 2016, when Congress mandated that the FAA implement RemoteID. What do you think would have gone differently if people had simply ignored it? It's cruel of you to try to blame the very people who are being oppressed for the effect of their own oppression.

@@JoshuaBardwell I'm just frustrated. Too many people still don't realize that the government is not acting in good faith.

@@JoshuaBardwell Sheep

No. This is just a gun-grabber fear-fantasy that does not hold up to rational scrutiny. Cars have been registered for a long time. Have they ever been confiscated? Airplanes and airplane pilots: registered. Fishing and hunting licenses. My property has a deed. It's never been confiscated. And last of all, guns. Even, for example, in 1934 and then 1986, when full auto guns were restricted, they were not confiscated en masse. Not saying that guns have never been confiscated in the USA. The Louisian police confiscated guns after Katrina. Not exactly the type of federal overreach that gun-grabbers fear. And gun registries are used by local PD when wellness checks and traffic stops are performed, to know if the person is armed; but the guns are typically not confiscated; and if they are confiscated, there is a rigorous judicial process before it can be done. None of which should be read as me supporting registration. Just saying, you can't trot out arguments that don't actually have basis in fact to argue against registration. You need to argue from a position of truth.

"Gun Confiscation Around The World: Playbook & Results" (Pew Pew Tactical website, by Paul Yes, Esq., updated December 26, 2019): "How do regimes and first world countries take guns? We cover China, UK, New Zealand, Canada, and more. Plus the results on crime and current US affairs. We can always count on politicians to call for the passage of new firearms regulations, or outright gun bans. Of course, this isn’t specific to the United States, unlike many other countries around the world, U.S. civilians have something called the Second Amendment on their side, and for the most part, are allowed to own firearms for private use. Many countries like Australia and the United Kingdom have all but banned firearms ownership for the general public, and in the process, confiscated existing firearms owned by civilians. We’ll take a look at the instances of gun confiscation, or mandatory “buybacks” that followed the enactment of new firearms regulations in countries around the world, and whether they had any effect on firearms homicides. AUSTRALIA When US politicians talk about enacting new gun control laws, Australia is always mentioned as the gold standard. That’s because Australia has one of the most restrictive firearms laws in the world. Licenses are required in order to purchase and own a firearm, and are only issued for the purposes of hunting, sport shooting, pest control, antique collections, and for farmers and farm workers. How Did We Get Here? The main incident that led to the current state of firearms laws in Australia was the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, when a gunman opened fire on store owners and tourists using two semi-automatic rifles, that left 35 people dead and 23 wounded. This tragic shooting led to the National Firearms Agreement of 1996 being passed just 12 days later, which included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, as well as a new system for firearms licensing and ownership. With the new laws in place, thousands of previously legally owned firearms, were suddenly rendered illegal. The Australian government graciously offered a temporary firearm buyback program for these now-illegal firearms, which resulted in the buyback of over 650,000 firearms. A few years later in 2002, a mentally ill student at Monash University killed two other students with pistols he owned as a member of a shooting club. This led to the National Handgun Control Agreement of 2002, and the National Handgun Buyback Bill, that required mandatory buybacks of certain types of handguns, as well as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Most recently in 2014, during the Sydney hostage crisis, a lone gunman held 18 people inside a Lindt chocolate cafe hostage. One hostage was killed by the gunman, one was killed by a police bullet ricochet, and the gunman himself was killed by police. This incident led to the 2017 National Firearms Amnesty, which resulted in about 51,000 unregistered firearms being surrendered. Effectiveness With two subsequent instances of tragic mass shootings following the initial National Firearms Agreement of 1996, it’s tough to say that the firearms ban and corresponding mandatory buyback programs (aka confiscations) were very effective. This result may be partly due to the fact that the approximately 650,000 to 1 million guns which were surrendered in the buyback programs, only account for about one-fifth to one-third of the total number of firearms in the country. In terms of actual studies done on the effect of the ban and buyback programs, even a study performed by the University of Melbourne was not able to find much, if any, significant support that prohibiting certain types of firearms reduced the number of firearms homicides. NEW ZEALAND Gun control has always been a part of New Zealand’s history, stemming as far back as the Arms Act of 1860. The Act was mostly unenforced, though, since it was originally passed during the period of conflict between the colonial settlers in NZ and the indigenous Maori people. Labor unrests after WWI led to the Arms Act of 1920, which in addition to requiring firearms permits and registration, also banned semi-automatic pistols. Lead-up To Confiscation In 1990, a 33-year-old Aramoana man killed 13 people, including a local police sergeant, after an argument with his next-door neighbor. This tragic shooting led to additional amendments to restrictions on “military-style semiautomatic” (MSSA) firearms. The most recent shooting happened on March 15, 2019, at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, when a 28-year-old opened fire at two separate mosques when prayers were being held, killing 51 people and injuring 49. Following the Christchurch shooting, politicians went into overdrive to enact new gun legislation, leading to bans on numerous semi-automatic weapons and MSSAs. They also went after parts, magazines, and ammunition that could be used to assemble a prohibited firearm or convert a firearm into a semi-automatic firearm, and most importantly, a firearms amnesty and buyback scheme. As of September 2019, more than 19,000 Firearms have been surrendered to the New Zealand government. Is It Working? Unlike Australia, there have not been many studies done on the effectiveness of gun buyback programs mainly due to the fact that there haven’t been many buyback programs. It’s also not clear what percentage of total firearms in the country have been turned in, because registration has been lax and essentially unenforced throughout the years. If neighboring Australia is anything to go by, however, the laws may not have much effect beyond providing a false sense of security. UNITED KINGDOM In the UK, the right to keep and bear arms originated as far back as the Assize of Arms in 1181, when King Henry II essentially required (almost) all English subjects to be armed. This concept found its way into British common law, and eventually the colonies in North America that would eventually become the United States, in the form of the Second Amendment in the US Constitution. How Did We Get So Far? There were many laws on licensing and restrictions passed from WWI into the 1950s, but gun bans and confiscations really took off once the Firearms Amendment Act of 1988 was passed, following the mass shooting in Hungerford. In 1987, a man used a handgun and two semi-automatic rifles in a series of random shootings to kill 16 people and injured 15. The Firearms Amendment Act following this incident banned semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, shotguns that had magazines and self-loading rifles, among other types of firearms. Less than 10 years later, in 1996, a man entered an elementary school gym in Dunblane, Scotland, and fired indiscriminately, with his legally-owned handguns, killing students and teachers, and injuries many others, before committing suicide. The tragedy led to the Firearm Amendment Acts of 1997, which essentially banned private ownership of handguns, with very limited exceptions. In fact, the handgun ban was so comprehensive, that even Olympic shooters were not exempt, and had to train outside the UK. The buyback program following the ban resulted in the surrender of over 160,000 firearms More recently, in 2010 a taxi driver, using a 12 gauge double-barreled shotgun and a 22 caliber bolt-action rifle, killed 12 people and injured 11, before killing himself. Measuring Success Types of restrictive Firearms regulations in place, you would expect the number of firearms crimes to be at an all-time low. During 2011 to 2014, the recorded number of firearms crimes from about 6,000 to a little under 5,000. However, that number rose back up above 6000 during the period from 2014 to 2017. To make matters worse, crime overall in the UK has been on the rise, and in fact, London overtook NYC for the number of murders as of 2018. Many of these crimes have been increasingly been perpetrated by other types of tools, primarily knives. Based on these results, it seems firearms regulations have not done much, if anything to reduce the number of gun-related crimes, and with crime in general on the rise, additional bans on guns, knives, or any other items that could be used as weapons, may not be the way to ensure public safety. CHINA The birthplace of gunpowder! With a resume like that, it would be a shame to put any sort of regulations on firearms usage or ownership! And it is. Soon after the People’s Republic of China was established by the current communist government, firearms regulations were put into place. These laws identified and helped the government take inventory of the firearms that were in the country at the end of the Civil War in 1949. Firearm possession was still permitted in limited situations where carrying the gun was a necessary part of a person’s official duties, with approval from the government. No Gun For You! Unlike many other countries, regulating firearms in China was not a result of mass shootings, but rather came as the Communist Party of China likely wanted to keep tabs on all the firearms in the country after the decades-long intermittent civil war. Did It Work? Since there is a blanket ban on private firearm ownership in the country, there are much fewer instances of gun violence in China compared to other countries. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any instances of shooting however, since hunting rifle ownership is still permitted in some situations. Overall, however, there is very little gun violence among the civilian population. Actual data on this may give us a better idea of the effectiveness of the ban, but the Chinese government is not nearly as open with their data and statistics as other countries around the world.

[Continued.] CANADA Despite being our neighbors to the north, Canada has many restrictions when it comes to military-style rifles, non-sporting ammunition, and “high-capacity” magazines. In addition, handgun are limited to 10-round magazines, and most semi-automatic center-fire rifles are limited to 5 rounds. How Did This Come Aboot? With Canadians being so friendly, they shouldn’t be afraid of anyone owning a gun, right? Overall, Canada is a relatively safe country, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a share of gun crime as well. No single incident has been responsible for the firearms legislation passed throughout the years in Canada, however, and the gun laws are more the result of politicians attempting to address the ongoing issue of gun violence in the country. Not Very Effective, Eh? While the number of firearms-related homicides in Canada is relatively low compared to other countries, studies conducted regarding the laws passed in 1991 regarding rifles concluded that the law itself was not related to firearms homicides. Despite the lack of evidence showing any effect laws have had on reducing the number of firearms-related homicides, the Canadian government nonetheless has plans to begin a buyback of semi-automatic rifles in 2020. JAPAN When it comes to gun control, Japan has most other countries beat by at least a couple hundred years. In 1662, Japan prohibited possession of guns by civilians other than hunters, and in 1685 people who turned in illegal guns were rewarded. Over the years the gun laws only became more restrictive. Rifles were still allowed for hunting, after applying through a very restrictive process. On the other hand, civilians were not permitted to possess handguns except for researchers conducting testing or research. What’s more, when a gun owner dies, relatives must give up the firearms owned by the recently deceased gun-owner, and are not permitted to inherit the firearms. Gun laws in Japan are so prohibitive, that even police officers must leave their guns at the station when off duty. Trusting The Process Because of these laws, there is very little gun violence in Japan, since almost no one is allowed to have one. There is still plenty of violence and crime in the country, but typically not through the use of guns. By that metric, the gun control laws in Japan are very successful. But then again, there is also very little tank-related homicides in countries where civilians have a difficult time obtaining tanks. USA! USA! Thanks to the Second Amendment, there has always been a great amount of push back against any attempt to confiscate or “buy back” guns from the civilian population in the United States. The most famous attempt at gun confiscation occurred in Texas, though technically Texas was not part of the United States at the time. Now known as the Battle of Gonzales, arose when the Mexican military demanded the settlers of Gonzales, Texas return a cannon that had been previously provided to them by the Mexican government for protection against Comanche raids. The settlers were able to fend off the Mexican military, which eventually withdrew its forces, and led to the famous “Come And Take It” flag flown by 2A enthusiasts all over this great country. They’re Coming For Our Guns! Fortunately, there have not been any large-scale attempts at gun confiscation or buyback programs in the United States. Because of Section IX of a little thing called the U.S. Constitution, federal and state governments are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws. In other words, new laws cannot retroactively make previously legal activities illegal. For gun owners, this means that newly passed laws cannot make previously legal possession of firearms illegal just because possession of those firearms going forward has been made illegal by any new laws. That fact alone plays a big part in why there will likely not be any sort of mass confiscation of firearms in the United States. Even when the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was passed, enacting a 10-year ban prohibiting the manufacture, transfer, or possession of “semiautomatic assault weapons,” the law contained a grandfather clause to permit the possession or transfer of weapons and ammo that were legal before the law went into effect, so there were no confiscation or mandatory buyback programs. Another Way Around Even though confiscation and mandatory buyback aren’t permitted, that doesn’t mean voluntary buybacks aren’t allowed. The City of Baltimore initiated a buyback program in 1974 in an attempt to address its rising firearms-related homicides. The program didn’t go as well as hoped, as the cities gun homicide and assault rates actually increased during the buyback period. It’s important to note, however, that there are gun confiscations occurring in the country, just not on a large scale. In states with red flag laws, there are situations where firearms owners can have their guns confiscated for a period of time. We won’t get too much into detail on that in this article, but you should definitely check out our red flags law article to learn more about those laws being enacted by states across the country. Political Pressure Of course, politicians, and even some presidential candidates in the current election cycle, don’t let little things like the US Constitution get in the way of taking away our guns, for our own protection of course. Politicians seem to forget one little detail, however, that passing laws regulating guns only works when people follow those laws. Criminals, on the other hand, will just continue to ignore gun regulations the same way they ignore laws on robbery, assault, and even murder. Passing more laws making murder super illegal won’t stop criminals from continuing to kill innocents, the same way new gun laws won’t stop criminals from illegally bringing firearms into gun-free zones. Many advocates of gun control argue that voluntary buyback programs will get many guns off the streets, making them much safer for everyone. Unfortunately, the history of buybacks in this country argue otherwise. In fact, the types of guns confiscated in buybacks aren’t the ones typically used in crimes. Guns collected at buyback events are usually nonfunctioning guns or guns that were sitting unused, such as inherited firearms. Some entrepreneurial individuals even take advantage of buyback programs and make their own guns to hand for a nice profit. SO WHAT’S THE SOLUTION? There are many arguments on how to address the issue of firearms-related homicides in the US, but confiscation and forced buybacks should be at the very bottom of the list. Aside from the legal issues surrounding forcibly taking away legally-owned firearms, there might not be too many members of law enforcement willing to go door-to-door demanding people hand over their guns. Even from the few countries mentioned in this article, it’s pretty clear that simply banning firearms and confiscating them does not definitively have any impact on firearms-related homicides, nor homicides in general. Ultimately, the problem to be solved is likely not a gun problem, but a crime problem in general. Until we can all agree on the best way to address the root of the problem, the best thing we can do is to stay armed, keep practicing, and support the 2A groups that continue to protect our rights everyday." -------------

"How the Nazis Used Gun Control" (National Review website, by Stephen P. Halbrook, December 2, 2013): "The Weimar Republic’s well-intentioned gun registry became a tool for evil. The perennial gun-control debate in America did not begin here. The same arguments for and against were made in the 1920s in the chaos of Germany’s Weimar Republic, which opted for gun registration. Law-abiding persons complied with the law, but the Communists and Nazis committing acts of political violence did not. 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. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo. This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack. That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues. SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released. The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty. No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills. As in Weimar Germany, some well-meaning people today advocate severe restrictions, including bans and registration, on gun ownership by law-abiding persons. Such proponents are in no sense “Nazis,” any more than were the Weimar officials who promoted similar restrictions. And it would be a travesty to compare today’s situation to the horrors of Nazi Germany. Still, as history teaches, the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Due to JB/YT's censorship, there are several missing comments here about gun registration/confiscation in: Australia New Zealand United Kingdom China Canada Japan Nazi Germany USA! USA! Just go look up: "Gun Confiscation Around The World: Playbook & Results" (Pew Pew Tactical website, by Paul Yes, Esq., updated December 26, 2019. "How the Nazis Used Gun Control" (National Review website, by Stephen P. Halbrook, December 2, 2013).

"and the FAA wont do anything because the first amendment" Ha ha. Good luck with that.