Question re: Potential ban

Status
Not open for further replies.

DinoCrayon

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
12
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---

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?
 
Not much point in "what ifing: a new "ban". Vigilance and a willingness to take every legal step to prevent it is the important thing.
 
No one knows what the next ban is going to look like. Or if there ever will be a "next ban". It's probably pretty safe to say that any ban that passes will have a grandfather clause. No one wants to pay the tens (hundreds? more?) of millions that it would take to buy back the newly banned stuff. Taxpayers would never go for it and the politicians would be crucified. Just look at the reaction after the last ban, which was hardly a ban at all.

Dope
 
It is a realistic concern, given what has happened in the past. However, we have no idea what the next ban may hold (next AWB might not have a grandfather clause), in which case it's your call. If it's a concern to you, then get one; as for me, I'm not about to go out and buy 5-10 (or even 2) lowers as a precaution.
 
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?
Wow.
 
Basic tenent of US law: If you own it legally when the prohibition passes, they can't just outright confiscate it.

They may "grandfather" what was already owned. (The previous AWB left all pre-'94 "assault weapons" perfectly legal.)
They may "amnesty" what was already owned. (CA allowed all "assault weapons" so long as they were registered within 90 (?) days.)
They may "waive" licensing fees. (Categories newly brought under NFA control have the $200 tax waived for a while.)
 
Dino does have a point.

After the recent Heller decision I am less worried about a ban - at least at the national level. If one was passed and signed into law, court challenges would come at once.

What is more likely is "reasonable regulation," and that could be a trap. I would expect an effort to move more kinds of "dangerous guns" into the restrictions and regulations contained in the 1934 NFA. Also a sharp increase in the cost of various tax stamps.

For an example, you would be allowed to keep what you have, but registration would be required, along with a $500 to $1,000 tax stamp. Other conditions could also apply.

The best answer of couse it to fight this sort of thing before it happens, and those that propose that we do this are absolutely right.

One problem the gun-banners would have is that right now most of the evil stuff isn't registered - except on a dealer's #4473 forms - and that's something we shouldn't forget.

I well remember that Bill Clinton pushed gun control measurers, and the Democrats lost control of congress in the next election. More recently the ex-president has advised his party to lay off this issue, but apparantly they haven't learned. Maybe they will the hard way down the road. For the present we should make every possible effort to insure that they don't control the House, Senate and White House.
 
Here in CA special registrations were required which eventually led to required turn-ins or confiscation. We still operate under a state ban. So, buying something now may not mean you're grandfathered in forever.
 
While in high school I took a basic law course and what I remember distinctly was you can't go backward in time with a law.The way the teacher put it ,they could pass a law saying "no one can wear red suspenders" and laws usually have a date when they are enacted in which they are enforceable till then the law is moot. Besides one of the constitutional amendments states that you can't be deprived of your property without compensation,I'm just not sure which one it is 4th I think.
 
I want to plunk down $800 or so on a new AR, but isnt this a realistic concern?

Short optimistic answer:No.Go buy your gun.Life is way too short to worry about things that are almost certainly are not going to happen.
You will love your AR!:)
Perhaps I should elaborate a little.
1.McCain is going be the President.
2.In the very unlikely event that an AWB bill reaches his desk he will veto it.
He's hung up on the gun show "loophole ",but with the AWB his voting record is solidly against it.
 
I think the biggest problem we are going to face is "reasonable legislation" such as not being able to buy more than 50 rounds per month and to buy said ammo you must show ID and have passed back ground check. Micro stamping being mandatory on all new fire arms. All new fire arms must have certain safety features such as loaded chamber indicator and mag disconnect. Special licensing needed to reload more than 100 rounds per month. Pretty much what is trying to be passed here on California will be applied later by a dem controlled congress and presidency.
 
Last edited:
Shooting4life makes a good point. I believe that the regulation of ammunition will be the next pathway to disarmament chosen by those who would deny our rights.
 
I think the biggest problem we are going to face is "reasonable legislation" such as not being able to buy more than 50 rounds per month and to guy said ammo you must show ID and have passed back ground check. Micro stamping being mandatory on all new fire arms. All new fire arms must have certain safety features such as loaded chamber indicator and mag disconnect. Special licensing needed to reload more than 100 rounds per month. Pretty much what is trying to be passed here on California will be applied later by a dem controlled congress and presidency.

I think CA is not typical for the overall US. CA leans way left of center. Many republicans in CA would be considered Democrats in other states.

The fed legislature on the other hand has many dems who would be run out of office on a rail (based on very strong pro gun beliefs of their voters) if they tried something like that. Some Democrats have an A rating (earned over a many years) from NRA. There is very little political support among the rank and files to commit political suicide by trying anything like that.

The AWB killed the Democrats in 2000. Not only did Al Gore lose an election he should have won easily (based on exit polls among gun owners) but down ballet it costs dems seats in both houses.

The AWB was a joke and it still sunk the democratic party. Other than magazine cap limits it really didn't do anything. Within 6 months you could buy almost the exact same rifle but w/ cosmetic changes that was now AWB legal.

If Pelosi pushes many Democrats will break ranks. They will tell her in closed door meetings, we CAN'T support this or we will lose re-election.

Why are gun owners always SOOOOOOOOOOOOO afraid.
We just won Heller. 4 Major things will happen in next year or so

1) Heller lawyer is requesting $$$ from DC because it is CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. Does anyone realize how powerful of a precedent that is. Lawyers all over the country will be able to work "pro bono" and stick 6 figure bills to the government on a variety of issues realted to RKBA.

2) In Heller 2 the argument is that a "right can not be taxed". They are requesting the registration in DC be at NO COST to the owner. There is ample precedent. Voting costs states millions yet nobody pays a vote tax anymore. Not everyone votes yet non-voters pay taxes to support the right to vote. Imagine NFA w/ no stamp tax, no CHP fees, no registration fees anywhere. Federal Excise tax on ammo & guns found unconstitutional.

3) Someone will file a suit alleging the 2nd is incorporated. That makes banning a class of weapon in "common use" illegal everywhere both a federal level, and state, local laws too.

4) Lastly someone will seek to extend Heller to the right to BEAR arms (i.e CCW and Open Carry). 70% of crime occurs outside the home. Why should SD be limited to people "lucky" enough to be attack in their home.

Stop worrying (so much), buy guns, support your local pro-gun groups. The fight has been and always will be won at the local level.
 
As has been said already, they are probably going to go after the ammunition in some way, either as hazmat or as a licensed and restricted component. Learning to cast bullets and reloading may become a must-do later on.
 
Old Fuff Says:
I well remember that Bill Clinton pushed gun control measures, and the Democrats lost control of congress in the next election. More recently the ex-president has advised his party to lay off this issue, but apparently they haven't learned. Maybe they will the hard way down the road. For the present we should make every possible effort to insure that they don't control the House, Senate and White House.

A big +1 on this one. The house and senate are where laws are made. We reminded them who was boss once before and we can do it again.
 
The problem I see is that without confiscation, Joe Average will just suck it up with a new ban, registration, and/or new and further reaching restrictions with grandfather provisions.

That said, Happiness Is A Warm Gun has spouted fact and logic that should quell most fears.

I do like your optimism, Happiness, and I will continue to buy guns and ammo -
and [size=+2]Practice![/size] [size=+3]Practice![/size][size=+4] Practice!!![/size]

Woody
 
While in high school I took a basic law course and what I remember distinctly was you can't go backward in time with a law.The way the teacher put it ,they could pass a law saying "no one can wear red suspenders" and laws usually have a date when they are enacted in which they are enforceable till then the law is moot. Besides one of the constitutional amendments states that you can't be deprived of your property without compensation,I'm just not sure which one it is 4th I think

The legal term for it what you describe is an ex post facto law (Latin for "After The Fact"). This is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed from before the law was passed.

I believe this law deals with acts, and not possessions. There are many items that were either not addressed at all by law, or specifically legal, that later became illegal.

Look at alcohol before, during and after prohibition. Alcohol was legal, then not, then it was. But even during the prohibition they couldn't charge someone for having prevoiusly possessing alcohol - even if they had some proof of it.
 
Don't forget the Lautenberg amendment which disqualifies anyone with a domestic violence conviction (misdemeanor)from legally owning guns......talk about an ex post facto law.....but it has stuck so far!!
 
If you really want to worry, worry more about ammo availability than the guns themselves.

Ammo is what's worrying me lately.
 
If you own it legally when the prohibition passes, they can't just outright confiscate it.

Oh yes they can. They never give newly-illegal drugs a grandfather clause. At most it would be deemed a taking and you'd get some compensation, but even that isn't guaranteed.
 
I'm more worried about what they are going to do to manufacturers than what they are going to do to owners. They've already tried to go after the owners. They aren't getting much headway.

I really think their next tack will be to restrict supply by going after manufacturers and dealers. Taxes. Licenses. Fees. Lawsuits. Import/export restrictions. Increasingly oppressive BATF.

They're going to do this via the back door this time. defacto bans, not "in your face" bans. Stock up on ammo. That's my advise.
 
Confiscation is always a possibility, but past practice has shown that a ban on future sales is more palatable to the populace- and easier to enforce. I second the notion that ammunition will be the next avenue to "gun control". Buy a reloader and components now, and keep stocking up as sales appear. What good is that AR-4000 without any ammunition? They could readily ban sales of primers to civilians (they are considered explosives after all) and then slap a tax on them for the manufacturers. 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.:banghead:
 
If the .gov has the audacity to come and collect their EBR tax, or confiscate otherwise legal firearms, I'd like to see them come and get them. The 2A exists for a reason, you know. It's not just a dead letter. You won't need to use it unless they come to take it away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top