Question re: Potential ban

Basic tenent of US law: If you own it legally when the prohibition passes, they can't just outright confiscate it.

Click to expand...

Maybe yes and maybe no, but there's no such safeguard under leftist extremist so-called "reasonable restriction" so-called "law." If American citizens twenty years from now are lucky, they'll be compensated for confiscated firearms; I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel on that, either.

If this has been posted before, please pardon me and go on with your lives. If not, it is pretty interesting. I got it from some gun forum within the last week or so. I just don't remember which one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/8/122221/2900/784/564662

I second the notion that ammunition will be the next avenue to "gun control". ... Imagine a $.25 each tax on primers, that are only available to Class 7 ammunition manufacturers. A hunter might have to pay an extra $2.50 on a box of shells (maybe $7.50 per hunting season including sight in). I would have paid an additional $250 last month- not including the additional cost of having to buy factory ammo.

Click to expand...

While it is possible I don't see it likely at least not on federal level.

Anything that is seen as infringing goes right back to Heller. What is the purpose of a 100%+ tax? Only possible purpose is infringement. If someone is looking to kill someone and spends $300 on a handgun, then another $20 on ammo, does anyone think another $10 in taxes is going to stop someone? $320 is good price for murder but $330 is too steep?

What is the purpose of 50 round a month limit? Only possible purpose is infringement. What would 50 round limit do. Limit someone to ONLY 50 attempted murders per month. Wow that should cut down on crime.

Anything that can be seen as infringement will be open to attack by lawsuit.

No the antis are "smarter". It will come in slow and subtle. Stuff like, declare all libraries gun free zones (extension of schools). Attempt to undermine CCW and Open Carry legislation. Attempt to allow firearm manufacturers to be sued for "negligence" when guns are used in crime. Attempt gunshops for "gun trafficking" when guns are used in out of state crimes.

Bans will get attacked and only make RKBA stronger.
Stupid 100% taxes could bring down the entire fee structure and allow SCOTUS to find NFA fees, CCW fees, registration fees, excise taxes to be all unconstitutional.

Actually it could be the best of both worlds if they try being stupid.
1) Gets struck down.
2) Case is now precedent
3) Liberals are punished in next election.

All of your arguments assume that ANY gun law makes logical sense.

By definition, law abiding people obey laws. Criminals do not. Therefore the only people impacted by gun laws are law abiding people.

Each and every one of those possible senarios might happen and have to be struck down in court.

All of your arguments assume that ANY gun law makes logical sense.

By definition, law abiding people obey laws. Criminals do not. Therefore the only people impacted by gun laws are law abiding people.

Each and every one of those possible senarios might happen and have to be struck down in court.

Click to expand...

100% Agreed. I guess I could have said it clearer but yes that is my belief is that it would allow a lawsuit based on infringement.

It could happen. I am not worried. If it does we still have ability to fight it in court per Heller.

I'm not saying we should quit worrying about bans, but we should quit living in fear of them. You know what? They want to try and ban certain things, fine. Let them try. Then, let them fail. We sit here so damn afraid of these people when they are so clearly in the wrong. Happiness is a Warm Gun has it right. What good would any of those restrictions do? And 444 is right, we cannot assume these people have logic.

So you know what those two posters have proved? That when whatever case goes before a court, we present to the media and everyone else that these laws 1) don't work and that 2) there's not a shred of common sense behind them.

If they want to argue this stuff before the courts, I say, fine, bring it on. We're in a good position now, let's have it out. I'm done with playing the, "What should I buy before it's banned law". I mean, holy crap folks, we're budgeting and spending with the mindset that, "I better buy that gun because it has a little piece of metal on it that might get banned" (bayonet lug). Does anybody see how INSANE this is? Let's up the ante on the antis. Let's see how THEY like it.

To reference the above, look up Brady II from 1994, and then look up HR1022 from 2006 which is still in committee. With the Heller decision being what it is, odds of HR1022 ever seeing the light of day again are slim to zippo however we are talking about the liberal antis aren't we?

When England banned guns, were the British subjects compensated for the guns they were forced to relinquish to the smelters?

No Logic

And 444 is right, we cannot assume these people have logic.

Click to expand...

All you have to do is read thru the entire diary link that 444 posted to see the lack of logic that many anti-gun folks spout.

When England banned guns, were the British subjects compensated for the guns they were forced to relinquish to the smelters?

Click to expand...

When England banned guns, did they have the 5th Amendment?

Congress can regulate guns, but as soon as such a regulation deprives a current owner of all economically viable use of the thing in question, it becomes a taking under the 5th amendment, requiring just compensation.

MGshaggy said:

When England banned guns, did they have the 5th Amendment?

Congress can regulate guns, but as soon as such a regulation deprives a current owner of all economically viable use of the thing in question, it becomes a taking under the 5th amendment, requiring just compensation.

Click to expand...

Right.

But who defines "just compensation"?

Do you really think that the government is going to justly compensate you for your $1000+ pistol or $2000+ rifle that you then dropped another grand or two on for customization? Not to mention all those expensive accessories that will now be useless without that rifle or pistol?

Google "eminent domain abuse" and see just how much the government can be trusted to give "just compensation" when seizing private property.

Look at the illegal Katrina gun seizers and the battle these folks are STILL fighting to regain their firearms OR receive "just compensation".

"Just compensation"? I seriously doubt it.

My humble 1/50th of $1...

As I see it, ammuniton regulations/taxes/fees/ are the next "Gun Control" venue. How many times have some places tried to pass "nickle-a-bullet" or "dime-a-bullet" tax/fee? (Can you say "California State Senator Don Perata"?). Or even tax/fee/surcharge components such as primers, brass, powder, bullets?

"Ammuntion Control" is a likely suspect to be next.

Is it the general consensus that weapons and ammo bought before any ban are going to be legal AFTER they get banned? What if some day you need a $300 tax stamp per year on every 'bad' weapon you have on their list? If you cant pay or sell your weapon to someone willing to pay for the stamp you're going to have to melt it down right?

Click to expand...

I guess if the Senate and Congress became so full of criminals that this actually happened, then I guess our only choice would be to put these "bad" weapons to good use.

But who defines "just compensation"?

Click to expand...

The government. But realistically it would never come to that. First of all, once a determination of "just compensation" is made, then you can go to court to challenge the government's assessment of value. Try to buyback 300,000,000 guns from some 60,000,000 gun owners at too far below fair value and you risk clogging up every federal court for decades. Moreover, what is the government going to buyback all those guns with - wooden nickles? The appropriations bill to fund such a buyback would never pass due to constant infighting in Congress over the amount to fund, and the appropriatness of funding something like that when the government is essentially broke. Even at minimal rates of compensation, we're talking tens of billions of dollars at a time when the government is broke and looking to shore up multi-billion dollar losses in the financial sector, contain a serious liquidity crisis, deal with the possible implosion of Freddie and Fannie (which could cost us several trillion dollars to fix), and figure out how its going to pay for a few trillion dollars of other unfunded mandates. A massive, federally funded gun-buyback program? Not going to happen.

Government seizure of contraband does not give rise to any colorable claim of "just compensation" under the 5th Amendment.

The issue is seizure pursuant to police power over the property/owner, not seizure for the purpose of public use or benefit from the property. Those shopkeepers with stocked booze on the eve of prohibition were SOL the next morning. Same with all who had pot stashed away when the first drug laws were passed.

Is it the general consensus that weapons and ammo bought before any ban are going to be legal AFTER they get banned?

Click to expand...

They'll do whatever they think they can get away with.

MCshaggy said:

A massive, federally funded gun-buyback program? Not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Confiscation is my concern, not a buyback.

MCShaggy, I appreciate your optimism, but before Katrina I wouldn't have dreamed that a fairly large scale illegal gun confiscation could occur in the USA during a disaster in the 21st century. But since we see and hear of arrests and/or detention of citizens who have committed no crime all the time on TV and the internet (oops, you’re allowed to go now, but no apology), not to mention illegal gun confiscations from law abiding citizens by local, state and federal law enforcement, (yes, I know that many, but not all get them back, but only after protracted court fights and often only because the muscle of the NRA is applied), I’m just not capable of being as optimistic about government behavior as you are. I know, that probably makes me more than just a bit paranoid, but remember, just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean I’m wrong. So I continue to try to be prepared for any type disaster, local or otherwise that might come my way.

When England banned guns, were the British subjects compensated for the guns they were forced to relinquish to the smelters?

Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, they were.
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/9899225.htm

Doesn't mean some folks didn't believe they were taking it in the shorts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/147948.stm

Or that Australia didn't raid their Medicare system to fund their scheme.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1997-98/98bd048.htm

Of course, certain of our pro-gun groups insist on calling what happened "confiscations" pretty much ignoring the dictionary definition which usually involves "uncompensated seizures".

Nothing fun about what happened over there and we should stay vigilant to make sure it doesn't happen here (and keep the pressure up in NOLA) but I question the advisability of implying the compensation schemes were seizures.

I suppose the NRA is concerned that if the membership overall believed that a turn-in would be compensated that it might result in complacency. They may even be right but it denies us some really spiffy arguments when the antis bring it up.

One of these is simply extrapolating the UK handgun unit cost - trying it here would run 100 billion dollars without adjusting for inflation or infrastructure. A trillion dollars isn't unreasonable. Gee, one could almost finance single payer universal health care for that amount.

I have great fun torturing antis with the dollar costs but I wouldn't be able to do it if I insisted on misrepresenting the UK and Oz programs. Acknowledging facts needn't imply complacency.

If we ever lose the big one it will be my personal conjecture that one of our biggest contributing blunders was trying to convince the average member that the UK and Oz programs were outright seizures. It has however been a successful confabulation - I seldom see a thread on the topic where someone doesn't believe they were completely uncompensated.

Facts are our friends - they're plenty grim enough without "gilding the lily" as it were.

The smart money is to play politics as hard as you possibly can, to prevent such a thing from happening, and to undo such things as have happened. Planning for the bad thing to happen while working hard for the good thing to happen is called having a backup plan. Planning for the bad thing to happen while doing nothing else would be sad.

Here's some info on a bill presently in the PA legislature. Most fell it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Iran if passing, but it's the sort of thing you can expect to see in other states and even at the federal level. I contains, in part,:

To keep your “assault weapon” you MUST register it with the state police every year, pay a registration fee every year and undergo a complete background check every year. You will be required to safely and securely store “assault weapons” pursuant to regulations. You will be legally permitted to use the “assault weapon” only on your property or duly licensed firing range.

Click to expand...

More info at:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/pennsylvania-10/23697-fyi-senate-judiciary-committee-hearing-hb1845.html

Confiscation is my concern, not a buyback.

Click to expand...

if confiscation is your worry, stop worrying. First of all, there's the little matter of the 5th Amendment to deal with. And Kelo notwithstanding, there's been a lot more development of the law surrounding the Takings Clause since the 1920's and prohibition. We are a far more litigious society today and what may have gone unquestioned in the 1920's or 1930's would be litigated ad naseum today. If it comes to the government flatly ignoring the 5th amendment, then my guess is that things are so far gone, there really won't be much of a "government" left.

Additionally, even accepting your premise of a general confiscation somehow becomming the law of the land, there's no way it could be enforced and carried out without causing massive civil unrest and straining the law enforcement authorities well past the breaking point. And thats assuming they all comply and help enforce the law, which IMHO, is highly doubtful if not outright laughable. Most politicians and policy analysts know this. Rather, the end of the RKBA will be accomplished slowly by incrementalism. Confiscation? Not going to happen, but rather it will be by slowly choking the life out of gun companies by starving them of new customers through legislation. New bans, which grandfather existing weapons to get around the Takings issue, will probably be enacted. You'll be able to keep what you have, but further transfers may be restricted, and new manufacture can be curtailed without causing nearly as much legal and logistical challenges. Its the frog in the pot scenario - drop him in a pot of hot water and he'll immediately jump out, but drop him a pot of cool water and slowly heat it and you'll eventually cook him.

Lots of people are stocking up on weapons and ammo that might not be easily acquired in 5 years or so right? Im considering doing so but Im a bit confused---

Click to expand...

5 post newbie? Do a lot of research on line instead of what can be setup Questions. Many are quislings IMHO

I don't think that we will see any instance of a "ban" that will place our current guns and ammo at risk. I suspect that if a "ban" is passed, it will affect future purchases, but will not affect much else. And if Senator Obama takes the West, he will listen to Governors like Schweitzer and Richardson and Napolitano before he steps on that third rail. What the guy (not a candidate for President) said in 1999 and 2000 has very little to do with what he might do today.

Every attempt in the future would not be to take firearms from the public but to make it harder and harder for the public to use said firearms. They will make it hard on the firearms industry by new taxes and regulations. Make firearms owners register all of their firearms and pass back ground checks every year and if they are not registered they must be forfeited. Only allow firearms to be used on licensed ranges and private property. Require "identification technology" so the gun can only be used by its owner. (I believe this was actually passed on California even though the technology does not exist yet). Micro stamping. People will only get upset ala 94 when guns are no longer allowed. People will not get upset with the government when they make it so difficult to produce guns that very few new guns come to the market.

We got lucky that the 94 ban had a sunset clause. If that bill did not have a sunset clause the dems would still have lost control of congress and the white house like they did. Then the dems would be back in control of congress like they are now and might become in control of the white house and the next legislation passed will not have a sunset clause. They will do what ever it takes to make it more difficult for us to own and use firearms. Every day I see the agenda they try and push, their agenda fly’s in my state. They will try and apply that agenda in other states and on the federal level. Some of their attempts will fail some will succeed. They then might get thrown out of power because of their agenda but the pieces of legislation that pass will not have a sunset clause and we and our children will pay that price.

gun buy back?

I don't think it would be so difficult or so expensive. Most of the existing guns in america are "invisible"...meaning big brother has no idea where they are or who owns them. There is no paper trail to track them down.

These "invisible" guns, for the most part, will never be offered willingly to big brother in a buy back. The people that own them will stash them away for a rainy day, so to speak.

Little by little, over the years, these guns will get confiscated as contraband and offenders will get jail time. Maybe occasionally, they will have "amnesty days", where your great grand kids will haul in crazy old grampa's stash, no questions asked.

Re: Potential ban

Federal ban is always possible given the right circumstance, such as a Democrat controlled congress and a anti-gun Democrat in the Oval office. It happened in 1994 under Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled congress. They passed legislation such as the Brady bill and a prohibition on military style auto-loaders or in the vernacular of the anti's: "assault weapons". They allowed a grandfather clause because of Republican pressure, but next time we not be so fortunate. Any vote that isn't for McCain is a vote that will ensure an Obama win.