One thing I could never understand.....

[Hokkmike]

Let me start with the disclaimer and statement that I support the unfettered and absolute right of every American to buy, own, and use guns for any and all lawful purposes. I also support the right to carry open and/or concealed. I vote for candidates who agree with these positions. While it serves hunters the Second Amendment is broader in scope and an umbrella of protection for all gun owners. I myself have a LTCF (PA) and a federal Curios & Relic license. I frequent the range where I have been a 20 year plus member and have hunted for over 35 years. I just don't want any of you to misinterpret the point I am going to make. (underlined below)

I know locally in central Pennsylvania that many dealers I frequent have handguns, especially used cheaper ones, flying off their shelves. I can see it in the remaining available inventories and it is also what they tell me. The same is more and more true with military style semi-auto rifles. You literally cannot find any decent AK's locally in the mom & pop or larger chain stores.

So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have. It is my suspicion that the gov't could just as easily require that any future banned guns of these types be turned in, and/or registered or taxed more heavily, or jack up ammo prices. In other words they would make prior possession a crime or a great inconvienence.

Sure, I know that many people's guns will be "stolen", "lost", or that many pledge to defend their rights to the uttermost, but what would really happen? And beyond that, and my point for discsussion in this thread, is to question whether buying quantities (or hoarding) firearms that we fear will be regulated will be of any benefit.

I know a gentleman locally, and they'll never get it out of me, that has acquired a very nice collection of AR's and AK's.

One thing I could never understand is do people really thinks that buying a quantity of semi-auto pistols, for example, is any protection against the enactment of such laws?

Well, it is just a topic for discussion. What do you think?

 

[r1derbike]

Hard to qualify why people do what they do. Fear? I will say the "run" on sales certainly has given suppliers a needed lift going into the holiday season!

With all the past, present, and future sales, U.S. citizens are becoming a well-armed lot.

Perhaps they feel that government tyranny is lapping at their thresholds?

 

[EddieNFL]

I think if you don't have one when a ban is put in effect, it won't be any easier to get.

 

[Texan Scott]

From the 5th amendment :

... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive. That's the practical basis for legal grandfathering.

 

[Hokkmike]

Texan Scott I hope you are right sir!

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

It is easier to keep something you already have than to get something that is considered contraband.

 

[Warp]

So, here is my point. Are most people assuming that prior ownership will prevent the gov't fom passing laws that will not only prevent future purchases of some of these types of guns but at the same time allow lawful owners to keep those they do have.

Yes, most people are assuming that.

Laws making such common and legal items illegal would be insanely difficult to pass and ridiculously unpopular.

A federal law making, say, an AR15 pattern rifle illegal is so unlikely to happen it is barely even worth my time to respond to somebody worried about that.

 

[Apachedriver]

I hope Texan Scott is right as well. But there have been many governments throughout history that just run right over the people when they get push back on their "rule".

It's easy to explain the buying due to panic. The more powerless you feel, the more apt you are to blindly do anything just as long as it feels like something. A drowning person will still thrash and flail even though, in their right mind, they know it does no good. It's panic.

You suddenly believe, whether true or not, that you are out of options and the thrashing(panic buying) starts. It even affects those that know better once they see the things they want or need start to go up in price or disappear from shelves. That's self-preservation on their part.

The best thing to do is not buy for yourself alone, but convince others, that are not currently owners, to exercise their rights thru purchases. The more responsible citizens that become gun owners, the more people there are to push back against legislators when anti-gun issues come down the pike.

If you stand to lose something, I feel bad for you. If I stand to lose something too, now it's an all out crisis.

 

[r1derbike]

The best thing to do is not buy for yourself alone, but convince others, that are not currently owners, to exercise their rights thru purchases. The more responsible citizens that become gun owners, the more people there are to push back against legislators when anti-gun issues come down the pike.

Outstanding!

 

[Hardtarget]

Well, so far, the currant regieme has thummed its nose at the Constitution several times and done a good job of by-passing congress to make "czars" to run "government bureaus" that make rules that run roughshot over many of our rights.

just sayin'...

a couple of "reasonable new gun laws" wouldn't be a stretch.

Mark

 

[msb45]

I bought another AR before the election. In the past the AWB and the GCA of '34 allowed for either keeping or grandfathering the registration of guns. Of course the UK and Australia did confiscations.

I'm thinking of buying a single shot 12Ga and a double barrel so I can have guns that may be ban friendly. Along with revolvers they may have a better chance of banning.

 

[medalguy]

Yes but the UK DOES NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTION. Not sure about Australia. Hopefully that might make a difference here. Plus the UK has been subject to severe firearms regulations since back before WW II. They were used to severe laws, and when the time came to take their guns away, the sheeple went along.

 

[Wanderling]

How many panic-induced buying sprees that caused an increase in sales and pricing of guns and ammo was there in the last decade(s) ?

The very recurring nature of it makes my inner cynic suspicious. Surely if I was selling the product, I wouldn't be below spreading some rumors when there's such an impact on my bottom line. It's smart marketing. Just saying...

 

[FROGO207]

If such a law (restrictions) was forced on us with respect to handguns they would be in the same boat as NFA/destructive devices I would bet. Anything else would not fly with anyone presently.

 

[Davek1977]

The federal govt of the US has never tried to implement an outright ownership ban, because frankly, with the number of guns out there, the lack of central registrations, etc, it would be all but impossible to enforce. There are millions of guns out there, and the govt only has an inkling of whats where, with no real solid information. Enforcing such a ban, realistically, would mean a search of the entire US, which is unfathomable, unless it was done on a "volunteer" basis. How many die-hard gun rights supporters do you suppose would turn in thousands of dollars worth of now contraband merely because someone asked them to do so nicely? The sheer magnitude of the proposition make it all but impossible to enact, let alone enforce, and honestly, while attempts may be made, I don't actually see a ban passing in this political climate. A law has to have some teeth, and enforcement of this one would be a disaster as far as Constitutional arguments go. We have issues involving the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments certainly, and perhaps others. Our Constitution protects us from arbitrary searches and seizures, and from unlawful taking of property. Our rights would have to be eroded significantly before such laws would ever be enacted let alone enforced.

 

[Hokkmike]

There are millions of guns out there, and the govt only has an inkling of whats where, with no real solid information. Enforcing such a ban, realistically, would mean a search of the entire US, which is unfathomable, unless it was done on a "volunteer" basis. How many die-hard gun rights supporters do you suppose would turn in thousands of dollars worth of now contraband merely because someone asked them to do so nicely?...Davek1977

What you say is true. But what good are they of you have to hide them and can't shoot, use, trade, sell, or buy them?

 

[JohnBT]

"do people really thinks that buying a quantity of semi-auto pistols,"

...is a superior investment to buying a one-year CD that pays 1/10th of one percent? Yes.

Heck, SunTrust tried to sell me a 5-year CD that paid 1.24%. (Since my father died last year I'm in charge of mom's money (mostly in CDs) because she's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's. This rollover CD would have been for $175k and they wouldn't budge on the rate. I asked for a check and left.)

I thought about buying more guns.

John

 

[JustinJ]

Well, so far, the currant regieme has thummed its nose at the Constitution several times and done a good job of by-passing congress to make "czars" to run "government bureaus" that make rules that run roughshot over many of our rights.

My god, "the current regime...". Were u living under a rock until 2008?

 

[Drail]

Regarding confiscation or requiring owners to "turn in" their guns- years ago when I was an NRA instructor someone came up with a document that we all carried around with us everywhere we went and it essentially asked law enforcement persons if they were ordered to do gun confiscations "would you do it?" You could see them thinking about their answer. Every single one said they would resign before they would participate. It would be suicide to even try. Passing a law is easy. Enforcing it is entirely another matter. America faced this exact problem a couple hundred years ago and the fact that we were well armed was the only thing that put a stop to it.

 

[Tommygunn]

The US govmnt would immediately face the objection that they can't simply seize valuable property that was legal when purchased.... and compensation that we would accept is prohibitively expensive.

Since when has "prohibitively expensive" ever dissuaded our noble government from doing anything to us?

 

[oneounceload]

A federal law making, say, an AR15 pattern rifle illegal is so unlikely to happen it is barely even worth my time to respond to somebody worried about that.

They won't do that, however, they could make reloading too expensive with exorbitant taxes on components and do the same with ammo or magazines, leaving most with very expensive paper weights. Just look at what Cook County did regarding ammo and guns - the ammo part failed, but the gun tax was passed. All the feds have to do is enact the ammo tax. When .223 ammo costs you $5-$10 per shot, how much are you going to spend or shoot?

 

[Midwest]

In the remote, very remote chance they managed to pass some registration legislation or 'confiscation'. The U.S. doesn't have financial resources to implement such a radical gun control scheme, and no resources to go the proverbial "door to door" for 'enforcement'...

Look what happened in Canada, there are less people in that country, and they have lower gun ownership as well and they could not manage it.


Little Compliance

Canada spent a well over a billion dollars on their gun registration and even then there was very low compliance.


http://www.saf.org/journal/15/abilliondollarslater.pdf

"By mid-December, 2001, only 312,000 gun owners, less than 18% of the 1.76 million owners then licensed, had so far registered 1.9 million guns, including previously registered handguns."



The cost was astronomical

"It is quite possible by now that the grand-total of all-government costs of the Firearms Act may already even approach $2-3 billion."


A person from Manitoba went so far to protest the 'system' by successfully registering his soldering gun. They decided not to prosecute him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DkyC6qGRGVE



They discontinued the registration in Canada. It was unpopular, unworkable, costly and not many complied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry


The Rifles

The so called 'e-vile' "assault weapons" aka 'black rifles' have gone mainstream. Even Walmart sells them with 30 round magazines. The average Joe Six pack can buy them readily off the shelf. They are popular and good sellers. Talk of 'banning' popular rifles that the public now likes will create a lot of opposition...This isn't 1994 anymore...a lot of the public has woken up.


Many TV shows have helped popularize the rifles, "American Guns", "Cajun Pawn Stars" and of course "Sons of Guns" and others. None of these programs were on TV in 1994, in fact I don't recall any time in the past that showed these popular rifles in a good light and on a weekly basis as they are today.

I am not saying lets go to sleep and not be concerned about it, (always keep aware what 'they' are planning) I am saying that the tide turned awhile ago. The rifles have become mainstream and very popular.

An out of touch, clueless politician from California can't and will not change American opinion. Her rants has fallen on deaf ears across America. Her stance is out of step with the rest of America, her 15 minutes of fame faded in the early 90's and she seems to believe this is still the 1990's...it ain't...



What the State Of Georgia said...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

"Georgia: On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist."


.

 

[X-Rap]

Taxes, environmental fees could make shooting/hunting prohibitive. One doesn't have to go door to door to enforce confiscation or outright ban on possession. Look at some of the penalties assessed now for some violations (environmental comes to mind), they are ruinous to to those charged.
If the simple possession of a contraban weapon or ammo could cause you to lose your home, wealth or freedom how many examples would it take before you gave in.

 

[psyopspec]

Emotion > logic. For the same reason that 2008/2009 flushed investors from the stock market who stayed away out of fear until this most recent round of QE was announced pundits said it was safe to get back in the water (Hint - wrong on both counts).

 

[22-rimfire]

Laws can be changed. Our Constitution can be changed with new ammendments as it has been. I agree that there is no absolute protection of ownership just because you purchased said firearm prior to new legislation. In general, the US tends to grandfather the previous stuff affected and go from there. Attrition will gradually reduce the numbers involved over time.

I don't know what real authority the President has when it comes to Executive Orders, but it is significant. The US EPA was created by a presidential executive order. At the time, it combined departments, authority, and laws under one umbrella like was supposed to happen with Homeland Security.

The government could very easily make it cost prohibitive for normal people of means to own more than one or two firearms simply by implementing fees for purchase and registration. As we all have seen, much new legislation has revenue generation aspects built into it.

One could say that prior Supreme Court decisions would not allow that. But the times are changing.

A new law (if passed) could contain anything. Whether it is constitutional is another matter, but "Obama Care" was found to be constitutional as a tax. The law could outright ban "assault weapons" or move them under the NFA umbrella. How would you like to pay $1000 registration fee/tax per gun? The $200 tax was a significant impediment when the law was first passed for regular people. Inflation has caused the amount to be pretty much unconsequential at this time for full auto firearms or other restricted firearms when you consider people who own full auto weapons to be a small subset of the firearm owning community.

The enforcement issue would be nearly impossible. But everytime you took your "unregistered" firearm to a range, you could be arrested or the gun confiscated. Ranges would be forced to require only legal weapons on their premises or they would be put out of business eventually.

Like the illegal alien issue, guns are a tough enforcement issue.

There is the UN Small Arms Treaty issue, but as I understand it, the treaty if ratified would not over ride the US Constitution. But registration would probably not be considered an infringement on citizen rights unless there was a substantial "tax" involved to register.

What if you had to pay the tax per gun per year versus a one time deal?

People say they wouldn't comply. Do you really want to thumb your nose at the government by not complying? There are substantial risks.

Let's hope that our Congress will truly represent their constituents, but firearm owners are probably a minority. However, vocal minorities get a lot of attention. For the most part, the minorities define new law whether it be something that affects business, women's "rights", public assistance and so forth.