Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?

[MGshaggy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

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]

4thPointOfContact:

You've really whetted my curiosity.

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

 

[Gunnerpalace]

4th if you still have the weapon I would a Mod delete your post.

 

[Phydeaux642]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Bottom line ... yes.

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

 

[GRIZ22]

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]

Look at it this way

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]

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]

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...

 

[Art Eatman]

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]

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]

yes they can. Look at the rest of the vast majority of the 'civilized world'. However, we can also stop it.

 

[Mike OTDP]

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]

I think Mike OTDP's statement above is an accurate summary.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?

Not without consequence.

Woody