who had the say as to who was an "undersireable" or "non-person"? seems to me that those are very loose terms that could be applied to "anyone". maybe even people who didnt share the same views as the party, at least thats how i interpreted it. perhaps im wrong on the specifics but the main point i was trying to get across is when the state has unrealistic,unrestricted power to decide who can own weapons, it spells trouble. no hard feelings though as i'm always open to learn more.