Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?


PDA






inSight-NEO
November 8, 2008, 01:01 AM
All of this political speak has my head spinning. Everyone seems to have a different take on this matter. I know we all speak of the Second Ammendment and the like, but what is the reality? All I hear is Federal law supercedes this and that...etc, etc. But, exactly HOW can our right to bear arms be affected..particularly under the current/ratified administration? Hopefully, it will only be as before, ie. the usual ban on high capacity mags, assault weapons and the like. Who knows, maybe "gun control" isnt a major agenda this time around. I just wish the "powers that be" would actually educate themselves regarding weapons, instead of just assuming that all weapons are evil. I will always stand behind my belief that people kill people..period. Guns are nothing more than mindless mechanical items. Leave a loaded gun on a table for decades..nothing will happen. That is until someone comes along, picks it up and fires it at someone with malicious intent or simply fires the gun out of sheer negligence. Either way, its human intervention that is the cause..not the "loaded" gun. I just dont understand why politicians or gun-ban advocates cant see this. Ridiculous.....

If you enjoyed reading about "Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cbrgator
November 8, 2008, 01:05 AM
They can definitely restrict to a certain extent. As to how far they can go will end up being a decision of the Supreme Court. Over the next several years it will be case law that determines just exactly what can and can't be regulated.

inSight-NEO
November 8, 2008, 01:17 AM
Its interesting to note, unless my facts are misguided, that in states which contain strict handgun laws, shotguns are seemingly un-regulated...to a degree. Yet a shotgun is, for the most part, far more devastating than ANY handgun. I guess it just goes to show how some of these people think...and that they know NOTHING about weapons in general. To regulate or infringe upon the right(s) of law-abiding citizens to bear arms is narrow minded, to say the least. Certainly these "people" cant expect that this will actually inhibit crime in any shape or form! Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to procure weapons...thus leaving the potential defenders defenseless.

poor_richard
November 8, 2008, 01:20 AM
They can do whatever they want, and get a court to go along with it.

TT
November 8, 2008, 01:24 AM
The Second Amendment is nothing more than ink on paper- I'll let you extrapolate how much that means when push comes to shove.

inSight-NEO
November 8, 2008, 01:38 AM
Some dark responses, indeed. You guys certainly arent painting a very pretty picture! I guess all of those who sell guns just might need to acquire lucrative military/law enforcement/government contracts or simply go out of business. Seeing as how nobody will find the need nor be capable of buying effective weapons in the direst of futures. Too bad I just blew over 3k on weapons. :mad: I guess I will just have to dust off the old compound bow.

As far as the "ink on paper" comment...the pen is truly mightier than the sword or so they say. The Constitution is far more than you suggest. I can understand, though not necessarily agree, that state and Federal laws can be ratified to an extent. However, to essentially re-write or completely ignore the Constitution to fit one's needs would be an exercise in futility or if nothing else, a gross abuse of power.

mljdeckard
November 8, 2008, 02:34 AM
If they who wrote The Constitution believed the pen was mightier than the sword, they wouldn't have written the Second Amendment. The ideas and freedoms within the rest of the Bill of Rights may well indeed be more important, but without the means of force to preserve them, they are doomed.

I'm not a doomsayer. I don't think Obama will have the political capital to pass half of what he has promised, and guns are at the bottom of the list. I think a lot of gun dealers have had a really good month as a result of a lot of speculation. This doesn't mean we can afford to relax.

As for whether they can be banned, what you are going to see is a lot of hair splitting and grey area exploitation for the next 20 years. Don't forget, there are a couple of big gun laws still poised to fall in the momentum of Heller regardless of what Obama does in the next year.

MD_Willington
November 8, 2008, 03:01 AM
Your focus is mainly on firearms right...

As long as your blood is still pumping to your brain you will probably be able to think up a weapon...

Look at 3rd world countries as an example... In Ethiopia guns in large cities are banned/forbidden to the proles. Go outside the big cities and there is a lot of used Russian, American, E-German etcetera hardware around...

Bottom line, those without a firearm usually have a machete.

I recommend a good machete or a tomahawk for backup...

Docgmt
November 8, 2008, 08:16 AM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

I do not consent.

scarysuperd
November 8, 2008, 08:51 AM
If we don't give them up, then it's impossible.


You can't police so many people.

4thPointOfContact
November 8, 2008, 08:55 AM
Whole classes of weapons can be banned at the stroke of a pen. The Anti-'s want micro-stamping on bullets and cartridges so they can be traced. Shotguns don't leave rifling marks on buckshot, nor on slugs; perfect for the average thug or assassin. They are also firearms of over .50 caliber, which would make them destructive devices unless the BATFE says otherwise.

All that has to be done is to declare that they have "no sporting purpose", same as was done with the StreetSweeper and voilà; a banned class of weapons. We all know that the Second Amendment is there to protect only "sporting weapons", right?

moooose102
November 8, 2008, 09:04 AM
well, unfortunatly, we will find out in the next few years. obama and his chronies will do everything in their power to make it good for the criminals again. i dont have a problem with people not liking guns. it is just like motorcycles, or burbon whiskey, it is not for everyone. but just because you dont like it shouldnt mean that i cant enjoy it. that is supposed to be one of the greatest part of american life. FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

gyp_c2
November 8, 2008, 12:41 PM
Hopefully, it will only be as before, ie. the usual ban on high capacity mags, assault weapons and the like.
I beg your pardon!?
What the hell are you advocating here!
This the The High Road!
You must have stumbled on the wrong site to advocate any gun ban...especially here...
Care to rethink this before/ while removing yer' foot...?
http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif

JImbothefiveth
November 8, 2008, 01:06 PM
They can't be banned with the current supreme court, and the conservative judges probably won't retire for at least 4 years.

Care to rethink this before/ while removing yer' foot...?
I think he was saying hopefully that's all he will ban

onebigelf
November 8, 2008, 01:24 PM
They cannot remove your right, only deprive you of it. That said, Obama stated during the campaign that he though we needed a civilian defense force, as well equipped as the army, to protect the United States. Hopefully you all didn't think that he meant to defend us from outside threats, and what did you think he meant when he told all the inner city brothers that he was going to make thing right for them and get them jobs?

John

JImbothefiveth
November 8, 2008, 01:38 PM
I'm not sure if that's true or just an internet rumor, but if it's true, don't you find Obama equiping everyone with full-autos just a bit ironic?

catfish101
November 8, 2008, 02:12 PM
There can be bans on everything but black powder guns and still be with-in the guidelines of the 2nd. I don't see it going that far. Things will change. The one item that will change, and will bet that it happens, is the gun show loop hole. That is one that I don't think we can stop but we can work to make sure this happens. If that is law then there should be a way to do the background check there and in a timely manor at the shows. Also to make sure it doesn't effect trades or sales between to friends. That may be impossible to pull off but that is a battle we will have to fight.

Look at it this way, the 2nd says "arms". That means will can have at least two.;)

We do have history on our side also. There has been no killing field because of CCW's and after the original ban expired.

Smithiac
November 8, 2008, 02:34 PM
I'm Prety sure it was Thomas Jefferson that said "you won't need the 2nd Amendment until they try to take it from you"

MGshaggy
November 8, 2008, 02:46 PM
All that has to be done is to declare that they have "no sporting purpose", same as was done with the StreetSweeper and voilà; a banned class of weapons.

They weren't banned - they were reclassified by the Sec. of the Treasury as DD's just as the NFA allows, and current owners were given about 2 years to come into compliance. An amnesty on the tax was also provided to current owners who registered pursuant to the NFA. Have you ever bothered to read the federal statutes controlling DD's under which that reclassification was made in '94? Can you show me an analogous statute pertaining to semis, under which they could be reclassified by agency action alone?

inSight-NEO - To answer your question, you need to consider what you mean by "ban". A confiscatory ban is possible in theory, but there are very serious legal impediments to actually carrying it out, so much so that in reality a confiscatory ban has about as much probability of actually occurring as hitting the Powerball jackpot twice in a single week.

A ban on new manufacture of certain guns (.50's, AWs, etc.) and high-capacity mags, along with a grandfathering of those already legally possessed is possible and far easier to accomplish and thus somewhat more likely. Still, there is a fair chance nothing will happen. Obama and/or the demcocrats in Congress and the Senate may avoid the issue if they see it as too politically risky, and there are good reasons why this may be so. They certainly remember the 1994 elections and the political damage a couple million upset gun owners can do at the polls, but OTOH they also think they've been given a mandate to do as they wish by this election. There's two competing viewpoints and we'll eventually see which one wins out. As for other gun issues; a national ban on CCW, for example, is also possible as is closing the "gun show loophole" and private FTF sales.

Zoogster
November 8, 2008, 03:14 PM
Everyone seems to have a different take on this matter. I know we all speak of the Second Ammendment and the like, but what is the reality?
Reality is ultimately what the people believe it is.
If the people believe in the legal validity of a ban, then they can be banned.
If they believe it violates an absolute, then they have no legal validity.

Based on the opinions of those choosing to speak here, the legal validity of a ban exists because while nobody here would agree with one, most seem to believe it can be done. That makes it legaly valid if you assume this is a sample of the least likely to support such legislation.
So such a ban can still be politicly defeated, but they can be banned.

What is legal is what people think is legal.
Not what they want, but what they believe has legitimate legal basis that does not conflict with previous legal precedent.

That is why interpretations of previous decisions matter so much. Lawyers interprete things differently, and some build arguments in favor of one line of logic based on past court decisions, Constitutional rights etc
Others create different interpretations and arguments using logic built from other perspectives based on precedent, and the different sides 'prove' which one has validity in court.
The new logic proven in court, then has new groups of lawyers attempt to stretch it further with all different interpretations, building new logic to encompass more within the court's previous decision, until some sort of counter logic limits the scope of the decision.

That is a serious simplification, but in the end that is what it boils down to.
What people believe can be done, is what can be done.
What the people that work in law believe is what the LEO come to understand as law and enforce.
In the end it really is all just opinions.


They weren't banned - they were reclassified by the Sec. of the Treasury.....
You have been blinded. Almost no country on Earth has banned firearms. They have just reclassified them. Some places only police can usualy qualify for certain classifications, in others some classes can be purchased with differing levels of scrutiny.
That is how guns are banned in the world at large. Every society and government has a need for firearms held by at least some people, so they are not really "banned" just heavily restricted.
So a gun "ban" will almost always be just a reclassification, not a "ban".
Even though Australia banned most types of firearms, they are just technicaly reclassified, and everything including machineguns just requires a certain category license.
So by your interpretation, they never really banned anything.
So if you are looking for the "ban" you will never see it when it happens.

Wildfire
November 8, 2008, 03:27 PM
Hey there.
I really don't like these kinds of threads. But will put in something to think about.
#1 Lets say they do bann all guns. How are they going to get them away from you and me ?
If there are 80 million gun owners and even a very small % say no to them it would take them many many years to round them all up.
#2 who would do this for them ????? The police ? They are so out numbered. Our millitary ? They would have to change another law for that too. And they are still out numbered.
An outside force ????? Now that may be somthing to think about...
But again they would still be out numbered and it would take an invaisive army to get any where with it. That could get very messy .
# 4 This would also turn brother against brother etc. We have been there and done that. I am not so sure we would really want to go there agaiin.
We are not a third world country. We have the people and the tools in private hands that could make just about any thing needed to replace the guns that were taken from us. This means that all tools such as Lathes , Mills and raw steel would all have to be banned too. Along with your brains.

I do not like what I see today but also refuse to live by fear.

Grump
November 8, 2008, 03:31 PM
All that has to be done is to declare that they have "no sporting purpose", same as was done with the StreetSweeper and voilà; a banned class of weapons. We all know that the Second Amendment is there to protect only "sporting weapons", right?

Heller was most decisively NOT based on any "sporting purpose", but correctly (in every honest logical sense) decided in light of what was reasonably connected to "militia" service.

"Sporting purposes" applies only to imported guns under Congress's plenary power over stuff like imports. There is some small possibility that things like GCA '68's "points" system and King George Bush the First's "import ban" could eventually be struck down.

Even the strained and oft-ridiculous dissent in Heller "reasoned" from the initial premise that the 2ndA protects an "individual" right.

Logical and moral reality: some rights cannot be rightfully taken away without due process of law (break the law = lose liberty and/or life, whether you're okay with it or not). When a person has broken no law of offense (not some stupid mere "possession" or failure to register to exercise a right, which in 1stA jurisprudence is usually an impermissible infringement), rights cannot rightfully be taken away.

Practical reality: Governments almost invariably attempt to aggregate power and monopolize power. They wrongfully do that all the time, and on the state/city level have done that with firearms rights for almost a century AFIK (some attempts in the post-civil war era were struck down).

I do not trust Obama or his dishonest radical-thinking cronies to respect either the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, nor even the Heller decision. My prediction is that they will seize on the half-fabricated dissent's objections about "how far does that right extend?" to justify all sorts of new laws which restrict military-style firearms, or limit their ownership to "approved" people who are physically fit enough to serve in the military, or some other "logical" excuse to exclude the right from as many peasants as possible.

Third or fourth year of the first term.

I *hope* that he is enough of a clone of the last "savior", with initials J.C., who swept into the White House on a wave of dissatisfaction with a Republican president, to be easily swept out after one term. I also sincerely hope for the sake of our Republic that O.B. manages to do as "little" damage to the country as Jimmy Carter did. Perhaps less? Based on his expensive promises, more economic damage is almost certain.

With the SCOTUS decisions on interstate commerce issues and federalism over the last 30 years, I see no hope of any national ban on CCW. It would require reversing too much existing caselaw unrelated to "nasty guns" that even the activist pukes signed off on.

Grump
November 8, 2008, 03:43 PM
Another point--the most likely means to effect the SEVERE restriction of 2ndA rights to mere commoners is through adoption of some UN-backed "treaty" or "convention" flowing from the dictator countries' current obsession with the "illicit trade of small arms".

CURRENT UN-backed nutjobs have been holding meetings all over the world, and issuing cooked-books reports, on this subject for what?? 10 years or more? They're really big on consulting with "NGOs", non-governmental organizations, as a way to bypass democratic input into their little studies and reports and recommendations. Guess what NGOs they consult on small arms matters in the US?

The problem for the interests of liberty is that treaties, as signed by the POTUS and ratified by the Senate (two branches under that pesky old separation of powers doctrine) become not just the supreme law of the land, but right up there WITH the Constitution in the hierarchy. When two Constitutional provisions conflict, the last one passed in time controls, under the logic that the people adopting the later one were fully aware of the earlier one and any inconsistencies are intended to be over-ruled by the later enactment.

Thus arises my distrust of internationalism and UN "initiatives". Look how much the "International Year of the Child" did to stop child labor, drafting even pre-teens into government AND insurgent armies, child prostitution, and genocide in the 30 years or so since the UN "declared" that little feel-good excuse for stupid intellectuals to attend international conferences.

J23
November 8, 2008, 04:07 PM
Simple answer... ask any gun owning Brit or Aussie. Theyll fill you in.

meef
November 8, 2008, 04:29 PM
J23 nailed it.

:mad:

MGshaggy
November 8, 2008, 04:30 PM
almost no country on Earth has banned firearms. They have just reclassified them.

So by your interpretation, they never really banned anything.



Interesting logic you have there Zoogster, but if you equate the word "ban" with any sort of government created impediment to owning a gun, you've misapplied the term.

Ban (from Webster's Dict.) (v) to prohibit especially by legal means <ban discrimination> ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a book> <ban a pesticide>

There was no "ban" on those shotguns. If you think there was, I challenge you to cite me an appropriate section of the US Code to prove it. I can still legally buy or make a DD, including one of the reclassified shotguns (SPAS , USAS), just as can anyone who is not prohibited for some reason such as a felony conviction, insanity, or underage. IOW, you're using the word "ban" to mean placing any sort of restriction whatsoever on your ability to purchase or possess. I suppose by your definition the government has already banned all guns as there is an 11% federal excise tax on every completed firearm, and a 4473 must be completed by the initial non-licensee purchaser.

4thPointOfContact
November 8, 2008, 04:33 PM
MGshaggy, you are entirely correct; they were not technically banned, they were merely reclassified as Destructive Devices. I presume this has little or nothing to do with the current availability of said firearms at retail today?

Allow me to re-state. Any class of weapons can be regulated if the regulation is written properly. Any 12-gauge shotgun is only the stroke of a pen away from being classified as a Destructive Device, which would make any shotgun instantly $200 more expensive and that would only be the beginning. The Government may not have banned Street Sweepers, but I haven't seen any being manufactured in the last few weeks or months.

inSight-NEO
November 8, 2008, 04:55 PM
I appreciate the opinions regarding this thread. Most of you seem well educated regarding this matter. I guess my use of the word "ban" was premature. I should have substituted the word "regulate". I dont think that weapons in general will be banned, per se. I am mainly, at this point, concerned about ridiculous regulations being placed on the procurement and/or ownership of firearms and their accessories. Perhaps all of this worrying is needless. Im just not sure at this point. Yes, I have far greater concerns, such as the economy. However, gun rights or the lack thereof, always seems to rear its ugly head. Its just a shame that this has to be an issue regardless of the circumstances. Anyway, thanks to you all for the informative responses!

MGshaggy
November 8, 2008, 04:55 PM
Any 12-gauge shotgun is only the stroke of a pen away from being classified as a Destructive Device, which would make any shotgun instantly $200 more expensive and that would only be the beginning.

I wouldn't exactly say any 12ga. can be validly reclassified. Under the NFA, the Sec. of Treas. has authority to reclassify based upon an assessment of applicability to a sporting purpose, but if they go too far such a reclassification can easily be challenged and beaten based upon the usual standard for challenging agency action under the APA.

The Government may not have banned Street Sweepers, but I haven't seen any being manufactured in the last few weeks or months.

True, but I think that has less to do with the fact its a DD than the fact there is relatively little market for them because of the relatively high cost as compared to other shotguns (even allowing for the $200 increase due to the tax). Those shotguns, not including the transfer tax, were about $2000 the last time I checked. For a fraction of that, one can get a Mossberg and attach a Knox sidewinder drum. Certainly the $200 tax on top doesn't help, but they were already priced too high. Consider the fact that every year many people pay that tax to get a SBR or SBS where the cost of the host weapon is more in line with the market.

Art Eatman
November 9, 2008, 12:00 PM
Let's get away from political/philosophical and get to legal.

Laws can be passed which ban future manufacture and sales. It's another matter entirely to pass laws which can be confiscatory. IOW, things which can no longer be manufactured can still be possessed; "grandfathered", as with the so-called "assault weapons".

Within our legal system, confiscation would be a "taking" and therefore would require payment for the item. Within our legal system, there is the right to a jury trial to establish the value of the item.

It seems to me that a long-standing problem in trying to use the Constitution in fighting unconstitutional laws is that of money and personal risk. It's expensive to take a case all the way to SCOTUS. In order to have standing to sue, the problem is that it is only the one who is accused of a crime who is eligible. Break a law to test constitutionality, and risk a lengthy jail term. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption.) Note that Heller was a civil rights issue, not a criminal-charge issue.

Harve Curry
November 9, 2008, 12:20 PM
I think the antis will have their work cut out for them because of the defintion of the words contained in the 2nd Amendment. Other countries don't have those words. Heller went by the defintions of words and it came out in our favor.
"shall not be infringed" is a good word for our cause.

meef
November 9, 2008, 12:40 PM
Heller went by the defintions of words and it came out in our favor.Only because the majority of the judges are not currently liberals.

With a different ratio of judges, it would have gone the other way.

Count on it.

:cool:

4thPointOfContact
November 9, 2008, 12:49 PM
Art Eatman: In regards to your statement that items which can no longer be manufactured can still be possessed; "grandfathered," as with the so-called "assault weapons".

I was up in my attic just this morning and came across my grandfather's perfectly preserved 1921 Thompson sub machinegun, complete with the Bill of Sale from a hardware store in Poughkeepsie, NY, dated June of 1922. Since this item was legally possessed before the NFA, that means I can now go to the BATFE and get it registered, correct?

If I can't register it with the BATFE, does that mean I get a jury trial to establish the value of my grandfather's Tommygun on today's open market and get the US Government to pay me that amount before they take it away?

meef
November 9, 2008, 01:11 PM
4thPointOfContact:

You've really whetted my curiosity.

How much does the bill of sale say your grandfather paid for that piece?

Gunnerpalace
November 9, 2008, 01:17 PM
4th if you still have the weapon I would a Mod delete your post.

Phydeaux642
November 9, 2008, 01:39 PM
4th if you still have the weapon I would a Mod delete your post.

+1 for that suggestion.

I was in a gun shop recently and we were talking about full auto weapons and how expensive they have become. The guy behind the counter then told me that he had had a customer come in to the shop years ago and was asking what he could do about some full auto M16s and AKs that he had buried in the backyard of a house he owned in Florida many years ago. The guy at the gunshop asked him if he had ever had them registered and the fellow told him no. He was then instructed to forget where the guns were buried and go about his life as if he had never had them.

4thPointOfContact
November 9, 2008, 09:21 PM
Sorry to disappoint, there is no spoon, errr...Thompson SMG. The point was to get Mr Eatman's opinion on possession of the mythical 'grandfathered' smg. From my reading of the BATFE's FAQ I have my doubts about the accuracy of his advice.

MachIVshooter
November 9, 2008, 09:47 PM
Sorry to disappoint, there is no spoon, errr...Thompson SMG. The point was to get Mr Eatman's opinion on possession of the mythical 'grandfathered' smg. From my reading of the BATFE's FAQ I have my doubts about the accuracy of his advice.

Machine guns weren't grandfathered; they were given amnesty. If they were not registered under the amnesty, they are illegal to possess as a civilian. Ever.

Harve Curry
November 9, 2008, 10:06 PM
Quote:
Heller went by the defintions of words and it came out in our favor.

Only because the majority of the judges are not currently liberals.

With a different ratio of judges, it would have gone the other way.

Count on it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sure that's obvious.
The judges are still in place.
The decision is precedent setting.
So a question:
Will Obam be appointing any Supreme Court Justices in the next 4 years??

MaterDei
November 9, 2008, 10:20 PM
Bottom line ... yes.

Join the NRA or another pro-gun organization. Heck, join all of them!

GRIZ22
November 9, 2008, 11:20 PM
They can definitely restrict to a certain extent. As to how far they can go will end up being a decision of the Supreme Court. Over the next several years it will be case law that determines just exactly what can and can't be regulated.

This is probably true. The SCOTUS did recognize there can be reasonable restrictions. Bringing a reasonablr restriction case to SCOTUS would at best being a 50/50 chance with the present justices.

CentralTexas
November 10, 2008, 12:25 AM
Say they want to ban cars but the Constitution says they are allowed.
SO they require expensive micro-stamiping of every piece that makes them more expensive.
So they put a 500% tax on gas
So they help with trial lawyers efforts to sue the manufacturers out of existence "for the children"
So they make the industry make them childproof and add expensive electronics so only the registered owner can start them
SO they mandate top speed not to exceed 5 miles an hour
so they require you to lock them unassembled every night in a steel garage
so they require them to only be able to seat one person
Get the picture?

X-Rap
November 10, 2008, 09:56 AM
They will do what ever we let them do. I other words I believe we will see the envelope pushed harder in the comming years than at any time in history regarding the 2a.
It all may not become law but the landscape will be drasticly changed for gun owners in the near future.
As far as the constitution, we have a president elect that has already lamented on how the constitutin was not bent harder in relation to redistribution. Any honest scholar would have a number of blatant infractions to the constitution done by both sides over the years.

Tacbandit
November 10, 2008, 10:25 AM
Quote by meef:
"J23 nailed it."


+1, J23, meef..........Hey, you can speculate all day, and try to figure out what's gonna happen, and when...YOU DON'T KNOW...The prez elect is already trying to determine which of Bush's executive orders he'll overturn right away. It may not be right away, but you can bet that it's on his plate somewhere, and that there are many of his people (congressional libs) already at work on it. The one thing of which you can be certain, is that it (the battle) is coming sooner or later...don't fall asleep, 'cause I'll bet they'll try to sneak in a bill somewhere that will catch a lot of us off-guard...At some point, there's gonna be some garbage introduced...:uhoh:

Art Eatman
November 10, 2008, 10:41 AM
4th, you're misinterpreting the meaning of "grandfathering" as implied by the wording in the legislation. The term only holds for those items which are now legally held but which may not be made nor acquired in the future.

So: If you already had the appropriate BATF paperwork from "way back when", ownership and possession after September, 1986, would have continued to be legal.

There was a brief amnesty period around the time of GCA 1968 where "attic guns" could be registered and made to be legally possessed.

kurtmax
November 10, 2008, 02:32 PM
The problem for the interests of liberty is that treaties, as signed by the POTUS and ratified by the Senate (two branches under that pesky old separation of powers doctrine) become not just the supreme law of the land, but right up there WITH the Constitution in the hierarchy. When two Constitutional provisions conflict, the last one passed in time controls, under the logic that the people adopting the later one were fully aware of the earlier one and any inconsistencies are intended to be over-ruled by the later enactment.

That may be right for constitutional amendments, but treaties cannot override constitutional amendments. I'd love to see what SCOTUS would say if they tried that.

RP88
November 10, 2008, 02:35 PM
yes they can. Look at the rest of the vast majority of the 'civilized world'. However, we can also stop it.

Mike OTDP
November 10, 2008, 02:43 PM
After Heller, I would say not. There might be a majority of judges willing to overturn, but the political and legal ramifications would be tremendous. The whole doctrine of stare decis (the idea that once SCOTUS rules, the decision stands) would be knocked into a cocked hat. Which would turn SCOTUS into a massive game of getting your people into vacancies...and creating vacancies. No Justice's life would be worth two cents - not with the political stakes so high.

Now, that does not mean that Very Bad Things can be done to us. Heller, at present, applies to the Federal Government...the cases that will apply it to state and local governments are pending. And Heller does permit "reasonable" regulation of firearms...which means still more litigation to draw the boundaries of "reasonable". Not to mention a whole slew of back-door harassments on environmental grounds.

Harve Curry
November 12, 2008, 07:17 AM
I think Mike OTDP's statement above is an accurate summary.

ConstitutionCowboy
November 12, 2008, 09:38 AM
Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?

Not without consequence.

Woody

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 12:16 PM
I don't think SCOTUS decision reversals are unpresidented and don't rest easy with the appointer of judges in the near future.

Audrey
November 12, 2008, 12:55 PM
Short answer: circumstances can be created, yes created, in which you would choose, yes choose, to not "own" a weapon, i.e., be in their system as the "legal owner."

Will this happen within the next couple years? Partially.

everallm
November 12, 2008, 04:00 PM
X-Rap

It's unprecedented not unpresidented

SC decisions do not get 180 degreed in times measured in less than long decades

The President cannot appoint SC justices all he can do is nominate, it has then to be submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and then voted on by the Senate.

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 04:31 PM
I will defer to your editorial prowness, now if we could just get as literal with the constitution we would be saved.
The internet is ful off os pour speelers sew u wil hav plenty of wurk sheif.

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 04:49 PM
Oh and you are correct in that the pres. does only nominate but this point is moot since he will likely have the least resistance in history aside from FDR possibly. Nominations for federal judges and legislation should come easy for Dear Leader for a few years at least, maybe more if they can twist and spin enough.

everallm
November 12, 2008, 05:35 PM
X-Rap,

Read the Constitution and relevant law and see how a SC justice is nominated and appointed.

Roosevelt threatened to stack the court in 1937 and that was blown out of the water.

Probability of the Circuit Judges Act (1869) being repealed and replaced to allow this, pretty minimal.

Unless the current administration has a 60% filibuster breaking majority in Senate and Congress I'm not aware about, it ain't happening.

Federal and circuit courts can and do make rulings that can affect constitutional law or serve to create case law and interpretation of the same. They do not however "own" constitutional law that is solely the within the remit of the SC who are VERY careful of their privileges.

Heller is a good example in which the SC has finally made a basis ruling on 2A but without a full clear cut set of cast in stone guidance.

For example, 2A was IMPLIED but not ruled as incorporated and in theory is only applicable to DC.

The current Chicago hand gun and the California Nordyke cases will be heard at the circuit level and will rule to act to incorporate, or otherwise, 2A.

I can almost guarantee that any incorporation or failure to agree to incorporation will immediately be appealed to the SC which will then have to make the call. The SC will either accept the appeal and make a ruling or say, in effect "We agree so we do not grant certiori."

So a lower court will have had input but cannot have final say, this is why I said, you have to now the rules to play the game.

For example if a the lower court try and leverage a pre-existing non constitutional basis law to override a constitutional guarantee it gets appealed, bounced to the SC and quashed.

I trust this answers your concerns

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 10:34 PM
I'll stand by my concerns as I'm sure so will you. The problem is at the end of this you can bring my statements back up and I'll look silly if you are right, if you are wrong the last thing on both of our minds will be who was right.
All this chatter and posturing about who's right and wrong, does anybody understand the stakes? Or is this simply some kind of academic exercise for those of you who could care less?
In the last 4 months we have seen things in this country that are unprecedented in our history, is the trillion dollar bank bailout constitutional? How about printing 2 trillion in cash and turning it over to an appointee?
We are headed for some strange times and one should be cautious about believing things will happen as they have.
As each day passes we come nearer to that 60% mark and I wouldn't be suprised to see it passed.

Fleetwood_Captain
November 12, 2008, 10:46 PM
I tend to agree with George Carlin when it comes to political matters.

Rights are conceptual matters, none of which are truly genuine.

In George Carlin's own words:

"if you think you do have rights, next time your at the computer... search for Japanese Americans 1942 and you'll find out all about your precious ****in' rights, ok... The only right they had, 'right this way' into these internment camps. Just when American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took em' away. And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. Their privileges, and that's all we've ever had in this country. a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter..."

Hell, the most violent and bloody war Americans have fought in over two hundred years is the civil war we fought with ourselves.


But of course you can trust the American government. Just ask any American Indian.

dub150
November 14, 2008, 10:31 AM
IMO it wouldn't be that difficult for big ears to ban any type of weapons, clinton and gore did with biden authoring the awb, it's all just slight of hand
(look over here,not over here) with the country in peril as it now is, it's not hard to get the kiddies to focus their attn. in one direction (economy,housing,healthcare ect.) while they rob us of our rights in the other direction

information is power, obtain it and use it

Guns and more
November 14, 2008, 11:23 AM
Need I list the countries where guns were banned?

Can it happen here? Of course!

If you enjoyed reading about "Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!