Question about possible future bans...


PDA






CalamityJane
January 1, 2007, 12:43 AM
Hey guys,

This is probably a really dumb question but I have been wondering about it for a while now, and so I'll just ask. If, in the future, some lawmakers decide to "ban" certain guns, or certain magazines, or certain ammo, or what-not---what happens if you already own the now-banned stuff?

During the previous AWB, did folks have to turn stuff in, or could you just not buy it anymore? How exactly did that work?

'Course, I know that any future laws could be worded any way they want, but for now, how did the previous one work?

If you enjoyed reading about "Question about possible future bans..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kaylee
January 1, 2007, 12:47 AM
During the '94 to '04 ban, new production of weapons with "evil features" was outlawed, but old weapons were grandfathered in. They were legal to own, and legal to transfer. Naturally, prices soared, although not to the extent select-fire weapons have, as there were many more of them and a goodly number of people were counting on the ban to end in '04.. which thankfully, it did.

This time around.. who knows? I suspect the next attempt would grandfather ownership (since "turn 'em all in" would invite a bloodbath) -- but also to take a page from CA law and outlaw transfer, thus drying up civilian legal semi arms within a couple generations.

I don't expect such a law to pass, and if it were to pass I expect record low compliance - at least on the order of Canadian resistance to registration, and likely much more. That said, I've been buying receivers and magazines like crazy lately in case I'm wrong. I want a "major longarms of the US and her enemies" display when I'm 65. :D

-K

PS -- glad you made it out west!

Baba Louie
January 1, 2007, 01:10 AM
...how did the previous one work?1. After a certain trigger date some things were verboten to purchase from FFL's.

2. Not very well from one point of view actually. Loopholes (?) complying with the letter of the law were worked around when possible, some features removed, prices of some magazines were inflated, smaller CCW styles were developed, Capitalism thrived, the danger to the public remained the same... nill.

3. Follow Kaylee's lead. Buy certain things now, avoid the rush and inflated prices.

4. Just for fun keep some things off paper and off site... where legal.

5. Start a dialogue with your elected officials now. Research what Feinstein, Laudenberg (?sp?), Boxer, Schumer, .30-30 Teddy, McCarthy, etc have proposed in the recent past. Prepare for the fight.

Not much one can do about Executive Orders tho'...

Huddog
January 1, 2007, 01:30 AM
I agree that a firearms registration or confiscation or whatever they want to call it would be a bad idea politically. Dispite any losses this year I don't think the democrats want to cause a reversal of their current power shift by doing something that would wake up the gunowners. The NRA does still exist and is still a very powerful lobby in Washington. If anything it will be something along the lines of the last "ban" and would be just as ineffective. I personally believe the 2nd Amendment means that the issue of restraint on firearms ownership or possession is not a Federal issue making it one reserved for the State's. Under that belief any Federal law is unconstitutional but the law of the Supreme Court so far does not support that belief. Then again I believe the Supreme Court to be wrong about more than one issue.

CU74
January 1, 2007, 01:33 AM
Kaylee and Baba Louie pretty well covered the answers. Like Kaylee, I don't think any draconian laws are likely in the near term, but I'm buying anyway just in case. If you do the research Baba Louie suggests, you will probably be alarmed, to say the least.

"Off paper" and legal isn't difficult, but also isn't cheap. Sources include estate auctions, but in my experience the testosterone levels around the firearms table is extremely high. That typically leads to bidding contests that quickly drive the prices up way past reasonable value - I recently saw a Winchester 88 "worth" about $400-$500 go for $1,375:what: .

RNB65
January 1, 2007, 01:36 AM
I seriously doubt that a gun ban law without a grandfather provision would pass. There would be such a loud outcry from gunowners that enough moderates would vote against it and kill it. But you just never know what a Democrat controlled congress might slip in at midnight when no one's looking.

Geronimo45
January 1, 2007, 01:36 AM
"I don't think the democrats want to cause a reversal of their current power shift by doing something that would wake up the gunowners"
The Dems want to do something popular - I don't think gun control is one of their most popular issues, even among their base. Iraq is probably more important to 'em, minimum wage, free meds, social security, maybe immigration.

GreenFurniture
January 1, 2007, 01:36 AM
It's coming.

It will happen in '07.

Get ready.

meinbruder
January 1, 2007, 02:05 AM
“I seriously doubt that a gun ban law without a grandfather provision would pass. There would be such a loud outcry from gunowners that enough moderates would vote against it and kill it. But you just never know what a Democrat controlled congress might slip in at midnight when no one's looking.” – RNB65

I agree. A “Bill of Attainder” is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Prohibiting transfer or crippling the ammo supply is more likely a threat. Don’t forget that some of the freshman class of ’07 is on record as pro-firearms rights; they may be enough to make a difference in the party vote.
}:)>

Zen21Tao
January 1, 2007, 02:38 AM
"I don't think the democrats want to cause a reversal of their current power shift by doing something that would wake up the gunowners"

Sadly not all gun owners believe that the 2nd should be as "hands off" as most of us gun enthusists do. Many gun owners just don't care for the political, historical, philosophical and legal aspects of gun ownership, they just want to see their particular guns protected. I can't count the number of hunters and "sportsmen" that I have encountered that, not even knowing or caring about the difference between a full auto and a military style semi-auto, say there are "some guns that people just don't need to own."

I think that any type of future bans will be directed towards a very small portion of guns (like **********'s .50 ban) or ammo as not to wake up too many gun owners. They will try to wittle away at our rights little by little until they have the leverage to go for larger scale bans.

IMHO, the only way for us to defeat this plan is to take a proactive appoach at educating others.

blackhawk2000
January 1, 2007, 03:00 AM
Education won't help us. In MI we recently had a bill fail that would allow mourning dove hunting. It got shot down big time. I know people that worked tables at Cabela's, and they had shoppers getting almost violent with them. Yes people shopping at a hunting store, yelled at volunteers trying to educate people on the issue. This is just for a hunting matter. Throw in the gun owners who could give a crap less, about high caps, and EBR's, and we are very much alone.

Buy what you can afford now, while you can still get it.

Zen21Tao
January 1, 2007, 03:40 AM
Buy what you can afford now, while you can still get it.

The more I think about future gun bans, the more parts kits and receivers sound like wise invetsments.

CalamityJane
January 1, 2007, 10:21 AM
Thanks for all the replies. Sounds like good advice from Kaylee and others. Appreciate it.

Otherguy Overby
January 1, 2007, 01:09 PM
Considering the tenuous grasp of reality the current crop of leftist moonbats have and their socialist agenda, I'll take "Gun Control" for $1000.

Leftists only listen to each other.
Leftist debate is shouting down/over any differing viewpoint.
Opposing viewpoints are stupid, ignorant or misguided.

Leftist facts are based on:
"Popular demand"
"The people have spoken"
"Studies have shown"
"Expert opinion"
"It's for the 'children'"
"If it saves one life"

Advisers will advise "moderation" but the moonbats will soon start another chorus of "Kumbaya" and then not listen to reasoned advice. Don't forget that the Democratic Party is mostly under the control of One World socialists from the most liberal coastal parts of the country.

Prince Yamato
January 1, 2007, 01:10 PM
If there's a new bill, it's going to be a repeat of the last one with a couple more guns "listed expressly by name". It'll stop at the SKS, because any more features than that and you'll start encroaching on hunter's rifles. National registration, no way, too expensive. The only other thing I can see is they might make AWs class 3 and require a $200 tax. Though, I suspect they're going after 50cals first and that they're going to pull a "streetsweeper" move with them- that is, they'll classify them as Destructive devices, requiring a $200 tax, then ban them from production in an AW bill.

DarthBubba
January 1, 2007, 02:07 PM
In answer to your question.
I have always found that the one thing that you can really rely on in life is the stupidity of the sheepeople. Meaning that if the lingo for the ban is couched in the proper terminology as Otherguy Overby was kind enough to point out "Popular demand, The people have spoken, Studies have shown, Expert opinion, It's for the children, and the ever popular If it saves one life” then the Sheepeople will bleat submissively and the bill will pass without challenge.
Knowing that plan accordingly but do not make panic purchases I urge calm out there if we all rush to get something the prices will rapidly become horrifically high over night.

The only other thing that can be done is to start a National effort to remove all of the elected in perpetuity types in Washington. The fact that the Political Clowns ever get reelected often enough to be in office for 20 years is an outrage that makes them view our opinions as insignificant. :cuss: Never reelect anyone and we will be able to take back control of our Country, allow the Status Quo and all you will get is more graft and corruption. The reaction I get when I tell most people this is usually, “Well The guy I vote for is not like that it is the other guy that is the problem.”:scrutiny: Well I have some news for you folks the problem is all of them and I mean all of them, in this day and age of outsourcing and labor by contract only none of us have any job security so why in the hell should they? :fire: :fire:
Only when Government fears it's constituency are they more likely to truly represent our best interests and not there own.

A Message from the Boot The Clowns Campaign.:D :D

DarthBubba:evil:

Prince Yamato
January 1, 2007, 03:06 PM
A huge difference between now and 10+ years ago though, is that the number of AW owners has increased exponentially. I am young man in my mid twenties and most of my gun owning peers buy AWs exclusively. I think that is the trend amongst younger people. AWs are just practical, especially AKs. They're cheap plinkers and can serve as a hunting rifle if we urbanites decide we want to venture into the rural jungle and get meat the ol' fashioned way. I also think the first ban sparked the curiousity of many gun owners who didn't think they wanted AWs, but then after trying one out, thought, "hey, these are pretty cool, I'll buy one." What it will take if a ban comes up, is a spokesperson, who doesn't fit a gun owning stereotype (ie, no camo, no southern accent, no miltia members) to speak about why AWs aren't the tools of terrorists and why they're not "cop-killer" guns, etc. Also, they should flash the picture of Chuck Schummer firing the Tec-9, with the smile on his face. See, AWs are fun. As retoric, I say whenever the liberals bleet about AWs in crime, we fight them with one of their own phrases. "That's not the issue here". The gun control issue isn't about crime-control, it's about politicians who want resume filler to make them look good. Then, let's pull up the crime stats in NYC, LA, etc... I think we could put a nail in the gun control coffin, if we really brought out the stats. The argument for a more restrictive ban falls flat, no need to try it out, they already did in CA, guess what? Didn't work.

Kaylee
January 1, 2007, 04:00 PM
Well said, Prince.

In addition -- this time around we have the internet for organizing and the national media outlets are more diverse in their biases -- both factors were largely absent in 1994.

I do think they'll bring some kind of AWB back to the floor again for a vote, but they'll have to fight a heck of a lot harder to get it passed this time around.

Hope/work for the best, plan for the worst as they say.

sinistr
January 1, 2007, 08:32 PM
i have been collecting evil rifles for about fifteen years so i have been keeping an eye out to the antigun politics throughout that period.back in 94 there was a very hostile climate to 2a due in part to school shootings and hysteria about militias. there was also, a massive ,concerted effort. by the antis to drum up support for the ban.it didn't pass by a large margin,and since it was a complete failure by all accounts,i have little concern for a repeat performance. politicly longterm, it's a loser.they just told too many lies and and besides aw's are way more popular now then 94.maybe fiftys ,maybe five sevens by exec order.

Stevie-Ray
January 1, 2007, 09:00 PM
Yes people shopping at a hunting store, yelled at volunteers trying to educate people on the issue. This is just for a hunting matter. Throw in the gun owners who could give a crap less, about high caps, and EBR's, and we are very much alone.

Buy what you can afford now, while you can still get it.Well said. It's also the way I see things here.

scout26
January 1, 2007, 09:09 PM
I seriously doubt that the grabbers will make the same mistakes they did with the last one.

There will not be a grandfather clause.

There will not be a sunset provision.

They will be able to "update" the list of banned guns at any time with the stroke of a pen.

Check out post#18 of this thread for what the grabbers have in mind for Illinois.....90 days after enactment to turn them in or face felony charges and the ISP knows what you've bought.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=238909&highlight=HB2414

thexrayboy
January 1, 2007, 09:24 PM
Will future weapons bans be sought by the liberals in power? Count on it.
The leopard cannot change his spots and the gun grabbing penchant of people like schumer, feinstein, pelosi, clinton etc. etc ad infinitum ad nauseaum will not change either. The people who brought us the AWB of 1994 will continue to introduce legislation to ban, restrict, register, control, confiscate and tax any and every aspect of firearms that they can. Nothing is off limit, no law too egregious, no violation of the Bill of Rights too sweeping.
It will happen, count on it, bet on it, bank on it. The question is not whether they will try to pass countless anti gun laws. The question is will we be able to defeat them. The death of a thousand cuts is the political credo of gun grabbers. They just keep chipping away year after year at gun rights by constantly introducing new unconstitutional laws. They are only successful perhaps 1% of the time but that 1% is choking the life out of freedom.

So, the short answer to your question is....yes. More legislation to ban and control firearms will be introduced. The only question is when. I am betting it will happen sooner rather than later.

Kaylee
January 1, 2007, 09:27 PM
scout -- not gonna happen.
In Illinois or other ultra-blue Occupied Territories on a local basis, maybe.
After another generation or two of unanswered propoganda, maybe.

But on a national basis, now? No. Couldn't pass.
And even if it DID, the bloodshed that would inevitably follow any kind of "turn them all in" would make the legal point moot.

coyote_jr
January 1, 2007, 09:34 PM
Will future weapons bans be sought by the liberals in power? Count on it.
The leopard cannot change his spots and the gun grabbing penchant of people like schumer, feinstein, pelosi, clinton etc. etc ad infinitum ad nauseaum will not change either. The people who brought us the AWB of 1994 will continue to introduce legislation to ban, restrict, register, control, confiscate and tax any and every aspect of firearms that they can. Nothing is off limit, no law too egregious, no violation of the Bill of Rights too sweeping.
It will happen, count on it, bet on it, bank on it. The question is not whether they will try to pass countless anti gun laws. The question is will we be able to defeat them. The death of a thousand cuts is the political credo of gun grabbers. They just keep chipping away year after year at gun rights by constantly introducing new unconstitutional laws. They are only successful perhaps 1% of the time but that 1% is choking the life out of freedom.

So, the short answer to your question is....yes. More legislation to ban and control firearms will be introduced. The only question is when. I am betting it will happen sooner rather than later.

First time since joining that a post has actually pissed me off. Honestly buddy with this attitude why not just join up with em, since obviously you seem to believe we can't beat them.

thexrayboy
January 1, 2007, 10:21 PM
First time since joining that a post has actually pissed me off. Honestly buddy with this attitude why not just join up with em, since obviously you seem to believe we can't beat them.

You obviously misunderstand. I am saying that we can never rest or let our guard down. Many people here state " oh the dems have learned a lesson"
or "they won't go after guns after what happened in the 94 elections etc. They are wrong. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, and history shows us that the people currently in power in DC want to take guns away from citizens.

What I am saying is we must always assume our rights will be attacked. To date history proves me right. Thousands of individual gun laws have been passed that add up to an enormous assault on freedom. Our only notable victories against the gun grabbers in the last decade or more are two. First the AWB sunsetted. That really wasn't a victory for pro gun folks, it was more of a mistake on the part of the antis, we will never ever see a sunset provision in a gun control bill again. The only other true success we have had is the proliferation of right to carry. The spread of CCW through the state is a great thing but it will be meaningless if we are allowed to carry concealed but the antis manage to ban ownership of guns. It would be like the government allowing you to have a drivers license but outlawing the ownership of motorized vehicles. A hollow victory at best.

Until we find a way to remove from the books laws already in force we are fighting a retreat. A holding action. That type of fight is usually lost.
I am not a pessimist about gun control and the liberals, and I certainly have no wish to join them. I am a realist. And the reality is they are winning the war and we are losing. As long as they can even introduce bills that can become law our rights are in jeopardy, because once a law is on the books it is virtually impossible to get rid of it. Until the tide starts turning the other direction and they are fighting to keep their laws on the books instead of attempting to add to the existing ones the anti gun forces have the upper hand. That is the cold hard truth, the truth may by ugly but it is still the truth.

coyote_jr
January 1, 2007, 11:02 PM
Many people here state " oh the dems have learned a lesson" or "they won't go after guns after what happened in the 94 elections etc. They are wrong.


Actually both they and you are just predicting. The newly Dem controlled Congress has yet to do anything so those that say they won't (gun grab) and you saying they will is all conjecture at this point. Your assertions smack of "chicken little" and fatalism which I don't believe is very Highroad. Your entitled to your opinion of course.

Our only notable victories against the gun grabbers in the last decade or more are two.

I think most here would agree that there have been more than only two notable victories. How about the Vitter Amendment passing? The gun industry not having to face lawsuits? Castle Doctrine laws spreading from state to state? How about the recent victory for Ohio? I'm sure there are more but I'm also sure there are more than two.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question about possible future bans..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!