Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will ever rule in favor of our "Assault Rifles"?

[rpenmanparker]

CA confiscated rifles (90s) by use of thier registration.

One aspect of that registration was to protect the legal gun owner and thier now legal gun.

However, the registration was used to confiscate the protected gun from the protected owner.


So while it wasn't one of the occasions you mentioned, it has happened in fairly recent history.

On what basis were the rifles taken away?

 

[Tommygunn]

Would you have said that in 1934, when the NFA was first enacted? Or in 1968, with the MG amnesty? There hasn't been confiscation yet of the items registered on those occasions. In fact the registration has given them an additional layer of legal protection.

I'm not in favor of registration. However, if it happens, it's not the end of the world. (My MG's are already registered at both the federal and state levels. I'm honestly not expecting a knock on the door with the authorities coming to take them.)

It isn't always the fedgov. that's the danger. In the 1960s New York City debated and passed a law requiring some types of guns to be registered. This same argument broke out: registration leads to confiscation. The city said it was for law & order purposes and promised it would not lead to confiscation. Fast forward 30 years under Mayor Dinkins. A confiscation law WAS passed, and that now generation old list was used to confirm that people turned them in. N. Y. P. D. ESU (SWAT) units were used in cases where the residents on the list had refused to turn them in, leading to more than one incident where the gun owners had moved out of state and innocent non gun owners got their front doors busted down and wound up able to count the number of rifling in a MP-5 submachinegun.
California forced registration via the Roberti-Roos law, then later were told to turn in the covered guns.

DO NOT THINK IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE---- IT ALREADY HAS!!!!!!!!
Consider also we have modern politicians like Rep. Eric Swalwell who has openly stated he wants our guns and is willing to kill us.

The NFA and amnesty are history.

 

[gbw]

No. If enough cretins use ARs or AKs to kill enough innocent people often enough, we'll lose them. I speculate we are almost there. In some state we are there. If they then use other semi-autos to keep going we'll lose all semi-autos. And if that doesn't do it, we'll lose it all.

Our rights are what the SC says they are. It's that simple.

The SC justices will decide how they want to rule based on their own feelings, prejudices, wants, etc., then use whatever logic they can dream up to justify their rulings, same as they always have.

 

[AlexanderA]

State and local confiscations have no teeth because the items can simply be moved to another jurisdiction. That's why what happens on the federal level is so important. That, or if the vast majority of the states decide to coordinate their antigun actions. That's the time to start thinking about civil disobedience. Anyway, by that time, I will be too old to care (assuming I'm still alive).

 

[AlexanderA]

No. If enough cretins use ARs or AKs to kill enough innocent people often enough, we'll lose them. I speculate we are almost there. If they then use other semi-autos to keep going we'll lose all semi-autos. And if that doesn't do it, we'll lose it all.

That is why we, as gun owners, should self-police. We have been remiss in this. The attitude among the gun community is that everyone should have a gun -- the more, the merrier. Well, no. There are lots of people that should not have guns. It is up to us to make sure they don't get them. (I mentioned in an earlier post about the non-use of the voluntary State Police background check system at gun shows in Virginia. That's an example of what I'm talking about.)

 

[Tommygunn]

State and local confiscations have no teeth because the items can simply be moved to another jurisdiction. That's why what happens on the federal level is so important. That, or if the vast majority of the states decide to coordinate their antigun actions. That's the time to start thinking about civil disobedience. Anyway, by that time, I will be too old to care (assuming I'm still alive).

Local confiscations absolutly have teeth for locals --- enjoy having a right destroyed piecemeal?
They can't be moved if the gestapo busts in your door, unless you've ALREADY MOVED.
So ... I take it, you're OK if local governments confiscate guns?

If/when the feds start it ....don't expect those who've already disarmed to join any resistance. Having been disarmed, their options will be limited.

 

[CoalTrain49]

That is why we, as gun owners, should self-police. We have been remiss in this. The attitude among the gun community is that everyone should have a gun -- the more, the merrier. Well, no. There are lots of people that should not have guns. It is up to us to make sure they don't get them. (I mentioned in an earlier post about the non-use of the voluntary State Police background check system at gun shows in Virginia. That's an example of what I'm talking about.)

The Instant background check isn't. We have to do a BC on every transfer in this state (legally). If I do a BC I get delayed, usually for 2-3 days. If I had no CPL it would be a straight 10 days. If for some reason I'm denied the police will be knocking on my door. That's a new law that was passed last year. I'm not sure why someone would want a BC or a carry permit if they didn't have to legally have one.

 

[SilentStalker]

No. If enough cretins use ARs or AKs to kill enough innocent people often enough, we'll lose them. I speculate we are almost there. In some state we are there. If they then use other semi-autos to keep going we'll lose all semi-autos. And if that doesn't do it, we'll lose it all.

Our rights are what the SC says they are. It's that simple.

The SC justices will decide how they want to rule based on their own feelings, prejudices, wants, etc., then use whatever logic they can dream up to justify their rulings, same as they always have.

Wow! What a defeatist attitude. This is precisely why gun owners have lost so much. Man can’t take away a God given natural right to all that are born unless you allow it. Sounds like you’ve already given up with that attitude. The SC can’t make law!!!!!!! They can interpret but then it has to be enforced. They’ve already given their stance on the 2A. But if you keep that defeatist attitude you might as well just give yours up while you can and get some money for them.

 

[GEM]

Civil disobedience and moving the guns are all nice internet postings but as I pointed out repeatedly such laws make the guns useless except for burying them and stewing about it. As far as Man can't take away a god given right - that's nice. However, man or woman can take away your gun and put your God Given Right proclaiming tushy in jail.

The point that moral panic due to rampages with military style semi automatic weapons (the now useful term to describe such guns) can drive state and federal legislation as well as court actions is well taken. Without a strong argument for the ownership of such, such laws and court actions are likely.

Simply saying God Given Rights isn't a strategy to oppose actual legal actions. God Given Rights didn't give people their civil rights during the government tyranny of the Jim Crow laws after the Civil War. They may have had those rights in theory but not in practice.

As far as the SCOTUS stance, what is it? They have turned down cases based on lower courts supporting state bans. Heller is ambiguous despite the Scalia fan club.

 

[AlexanderA]

I'm not sure why someone would want a BC or a carry permit if they didn't have to legally have one.

As a seller, I believe it's your moral obligation to vet the buyer. After all, we are talking about a dangerous object here, not just a commodity like a loaf of bread. A background check system, hopefully voluntary, just facilitates that.

This is an example of enlightened self-interest. If we can reduce the number of crimes with guns -- particularly mass shootings -- by screening who gets guns, then the pressure to legislate against guns is lessened. In the long run we benefit.

 

[rpenmanparker]

No. If enough cretins use ARs or AKs to kill enough innocent people often enough, we'll lose them. I speculate we are almost there. In some state we are there. If they then use other semi-autos to keep going we'll lose all semi-autos. And if that doesn't do it, we'll lose it all.

Our rights are what the SC says they are. It's that simple.

The SC justices will decide how they want to rule based on their own feelings, prejudices, wants, etc., then use whatever logic they can dream up to justify their rulings, same as they always have.

You got it exactly right. Why is this so hard to understand.

 

[gbw]

As a seller, I believe it's your moral obligation to vet the buyer. After all, we are talking about a dangerous object here, not just a commodity like a loaf of bread. A background check system, hopefully voluntary, just facilitates that.

Your intent is laudable, but any voluntary background check system is no use, same as any background system without universal registration. They cannot work.

Universal registration isn't anything to fear. If it comes to the point where it would be used to confiscate arms then we've already lost, and registration wouldn't matter.

 

[gbw]

Wow! What a defeatist attitude. This is precisely why gun owners have lost so much. Man can’t take away a God given natural right to all that are born unless you allow it. Sounds like you’ve already given up with that attitude. The SC can’t make law!!!!!!! They can interpret but then it has to be enforced. They’ve already given their stance on the 2A. But if you keep that defeatist attitude you might as well just give yours up while you can and get some money for them.

It's a fact, not an attitude. The SC routinely makes law, through interpretation if you wish, but they do it none the less. Also, recall that the 2A individual right was affirmed by one vote. One. If you think a strong majority in the other direction won't overturn that right you're kidding yourself.

I point these things out because we can fight more effectively if we start by understanding reality. Few people are willing to die to defend your right to a 30rd. AR mag.

 

[SilentStalker]

It's a fact, not an attitude. The SC routinely makes law, through interpretation if you wish, but they do it none the less. Also, recall that the 2A individual right was affirmed by one vote. One. If you think a strong majority in the other direction won't overturn that right you're kidding yourself.

I point these things out because we can fight more effectively if we start by understanding reality. Few people are willing to die to defend your right to a 30rd. AR mag.

I get what you are saying but we are of differing opinions. And, your 2A rights are from just a 30 round AR mag. You are fooling yourself if you think it stops with that.

 

[danez71]

On what basis were the rifles taken away?

See answer below.

California forced registration via the Roberti-Roos law, then later were told to turn in the covered guns.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Please study the history of many conservatives who have supported gun bans and anti-gun views of the 2nd Amend. and even that the Second is stupid. Now, you blithely can categorize them as gun haters but you are being politically naive.

Only politically naive if you don't check on a candidate's thoughts on subjects, or voting record if applicable, and simply color in D or R without without due diligence. Besides, being pro-gun does not control my vote, being conservative does. None of that takes away from the FACT that the majority of liberals are anti-gun, and the majority of conservatives are pro-gun, and each base is getting larger all the time. In 2015, according to Pew Research 82% of Republicans and Republican-leaning Independents think the NRA has enough or too little control on gun-control policies. 68% of Democrats and Democrat-leaners think the NRA has too much control. Anyone that doesn't think this is going to get even more polarizing over the next year, with the Democrats already touting gun-control, and the neo-socialist movement getting far more attention than it should, is the one that is naive. I've had a congressman that was one of the worst liberals in congress, though he constantly got an A+ rating from the NRA. His kind are going the way of the Dodo.

 

[CoalTrain49]

As a seller, I believe it's your moral obligation to vet the buyer. After all, we are talking about a dangerous object here, not just a commodity like a loaf of bread. A background check system, hopefully voluntary, just facilitates that.

This is an example of enlightened self-interest. If we can reduce the number of crimes with guns -- particularly mass shootings -- by screening who gets guns, then the pressure to legislate against guns is lessened. In the long run we benefit.

I don't totally disagree with that but the system has to be in place where a person can look at another person's DL, go online, enter that DL #, and come away with an answer, prohibited or not. That should take less than 5 minutes. That system doesn't exist in any state that I know of. If that system were in place I would use it, but it isn't and probably never will be. The way it's set up now only a dealer or LE official can run the check. That takes a lot of time and adds costs for seller and purchaser. If people are so concerned about background checks for firearms why don't they make those checks available to anyone with a computer who can go online? They do that for lots of other people like contractors, engineers, doctors and attorneys. No personal information needs to be made public, a simple yes or no will do.

 

[SilentStalker]

I don't totally disagree with that but the system has to be in place where a person can look at another person's DL, go online, enter that DL #, and come away with an answer, prohibited or not. That should take less than 5 minutes. That system doesn't exist in any state that I know of. If that system were in place I would use it, but it isn't and probably never will be. The way it's set up now only a dealer or LE official can run the check. That takes a lot of time and adds costs for seller and purchaser. If people are so concerned about background checks for firearms why don't they make those checks available to anyone with a computer who can go online? They do that for lots of other people like contractors, engineers, doctors and attorneys. No personal information needs to be made public, a simple yes or no will do.

They will come after any and all guns before that system was ever put in place. For what it’s worth, I only sell to people I know and would never sell to anyone I got a weird vibe from. My gut never lies. Also, when I do sell I usually get a copy of their drivers license number and write it down on a bill of sale of sorts.

 

[CoalTrain49]

They will come after any and all guns before that system was ever put in place. For what it’s worth, I only sell to people I know and would never sell to anyone I got a weird vibe from. My gut never lies. Also, when I do sell I usually get a copy of their drivers license number and write it down on a bill of sale of sorts.

I think you're right. There is no incentive to build a good BC system. The AG groups would rather spend the millions on restricting firearms instead of people. In the end they will fail for the reasons previously stated. Even If they succeed in restricting all firearms there will always be contraband just like illegal drugs. The war on drugs also failed.

 

[Deanimator]

On what basis were the rifles taken away?

They were "reclassified".

 

[AlexanderA]

I've had a congressman that was one of the worst liberals in congress, though he constantly got an A+ rating from the NRA.

Dingell, right? He was on the NRA Board of Directors for many years.

I'm old enough to remember when guns were not a right-left issue, and the parties were a lot more diverse ideologically than they are now. Growing up in Texas, we had, for all practical purposes, three parties -- the conservative Democrats, the liberal Democrats, and the Republicans. Of these, the conservative Democrats were the ones most likely to get elected. The polarization that we have now is a relatively recent thing. I'm obviously having trouble getting used to it.

 

[rpenmanparker]

Dingell, right? He was on the NRA Board of Directors for many years.

I'm old enough to remember when guns were not a right-left issue, and the parties were a lot more diverse ideologically than they are now. Growing up in Texas, we had, for all practical purposes, three parties -- the conservative Democrats, the liberal Democrats, and the Republicans. Of these, the conservative Democrats were the ones most likely to get elected. The polarization that we have now is a relatively recent thing. I'm obviously having trouble getting used to it.

It all changed after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[danez71]

They were "reclassified".

Actually, if I remember right, a judge ruled the law was not valid so they used the registration list to confiscate.

 

[AlexanderA]

I don't totally disagree with that but the system has to be in place where a person can look at another person's DL, go online, enter that DL #, and come away with an answer, prohibited or not. That should take less than 5 minutes. That system doesn't exist in any state that I know of. If that system were in place I would use it, but it isn't and probably never will be. The way it's set up now only a dealer or LE official can run the check. That takes a lot of time and adds costs for seller and purchaser. If people are so concerned about background checks for firearms why don't they make those checks available to anyone with a computer who can go online? They do that for lots of other people like contractors, engineers, doctors and attorneys. No personal information needs to be made public, a simple yes or no will do.

I agree completely. Sen. Coburn proposed such a system after Sandy Hook, but it failed to gain any traction. The pro-gun side thought that it went too far, and the antigunners thought that it didn't go far enough. We are just talking past each other. The status quo remains in place, the mass shootings continue to pile up, and eventually there will be an antigun Armageddon. As a wise man once said, "Things must change in order that things may stay the same." That's the crux of enlightened conservatism.

 

[Deanimator]

I agree completely. Sen. Coburn proposed such a system after Sandy Hook, but it failed to gain any traction. The pro-gun side thought that it went too far, and the antigunners thought that it didn't go far enough. We are just talking past each other. The status quo remains in place, the mass shootings continue to pile up, and eventually there will be an antigun Armageddon. As a wise man once said, "Things must change in order that things may stay the same." That's the crux of enlightened conservatism.

Universal background checks require universal REGISTRATION which has no purpose beyond universal CONFISCATION.

NO, I REFUSE.