These are the gun owners who believe, that, as it has already happened in California, the required records for universal background checks will inevitably become the basis for de facto gun registration and, ultimately, confiscation--as thousands of weapons have already been confiscated (and mostly destroyed) in that state:
Other states may lack confiscation programs because they don’t track purchases as closely as California, which requires most weapons sales go through a licensed dealer and be reported.(Oops, that does sound a bit like HB 35, doesn't it?)
What happens if they simply ignore the impending Delaware law requiring universal background checks for private arms transactions?
Some of them, for sure, will be cited and charged, even if they commit no other overtly illegal act. The police or other government agents will eventually "discover" a weapon that was acquired without benefit of a background check, and the hammer will fall pretty hard. But, curiously enough, I seriously doubt that will lead to an onrush of people turning in their now-"illegal" weapons.
For example, as J. D. Tuccille documents, that hasn't happened in Europe, where "illegal" firearms continue to exist by the millions. Not even in the UK.
Instead, the folks tried and even jailed on these charges will eventually be seen by a significant percentage of Americans as victims rather than criminals.
So here we have the essential conundrum: irresistible force and immovable object.
Irresistible force: the State, determined to track virtually all firearms.
Immovable object: citizens unwilling to comply with the law.
The old joke about not paying your taxes and going to jail also points out that if everybody in a State stopped pay their taxes, nobody would be going to jail.
If, as I suspect, a significant percentage of gun owners will refuse to comply with such laws, one then wonders how to characterize them.
To proponents of de facto registration, it is easy to suspect, they will be gun nuts, criminals, domestic terrorists, or seditious traitors. I've seen most of those terms applied to gun owners over the past few months.
To opponents, they will be patriots exercising their constitutional rights via civil disobedience.
And this will all be academic until the first time that there is an attempt to confiscate such a gun that ends up--regardless of whose bad judgment leads to it--in bloodshed.
It's what comes after that which worries me.