1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Someone Want To Explain How A Weapons Ban Works?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Treo, Apr 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Treo

    Treo member

    Nov 30, 2007
    Co. Springs
    My question is about the possible renewal of the Assault Wespons Ban but, I'd rather this thread didn't end up in Rifle Country.

    So let's say that hypothetically all weapons chambered in .45 ACP are banned. That means no 1911s no M-3 Greaseguns, no Thompsons. Nothing that shoots .45 ACP, they're all banned.

    Does this now mean that the government can come & take my 1911 that I bought legally before all .45 ACPs were banned?

    Does that mean that when they come to get it I'm just out the 400.00$ I paid for it ? Can they legally do that?
  2. 209

    209 Member

    Jun 16, 2007
    Northeastern US
    Is it a ban with no "grandfather" clause or a “no sale of any 45s” ban from the time the ban is passed?

    The former would mean you have to turn them in. Any restitution would be worked into the ban if they thought there should be any.

    The other would mean you keep what you currently have; you just couldn't sell it or buy another. I’d assume that what happens to the 45 when you pass on would be included in the language. It may allow you to pass it on to a family member; it may not.

    The legal aspects to either one would have to be answered by a lawyer.
  3. wideym

    wideym Member

    May 30, 2007
    Any outright ban without a grandfather clause would mean you would have to turn said weapon in to a collection point. Personally I would not turn in any gun, but I would not be taking it to the local range where a local LEO could see it.
  4. PTK

    PTK Member

    Mar 25, 2007
    They don't. However, it would greatly depend on what the ban said in full text. It could be anything from "can't buy any more" to "can't buy/use" to "turn in for $100" to "turn it in"
  5. Mp7

    Mp7 Member

    Feb 28, 2008
    ...i think in the Uk

    The ban on gun possession meant, that every registered gun
    had to be turned in.

    I live in a country with rather complicated and restrictive weapon laws.

    You have to pass a rather expensive hunting-class to qualify
    for the possession of longguns - and get the right to own
    so called "Fangschuss-waffen" - meaning 2 Pistols to follow the
    wounded deer and kill it.

    As a non-hunter you have to basically join a club of coomplete nerds,
    ...unfortunately german clubs of any kind are always a pool of
    people with no friends and ... well "The average Fritz".

    Believe it or not - even though i´m a weapons nut and would
    defintely love to collect useless rifles and other guns,
    i´m quite happy that not ALL my fellow countrymen
    do own guns.

    AND if u ask me it would be a good idea to take it away
    from the nerds, too.

    ... i guess almost none of you have a feeling for how it´s to
    live in a society, where Shootings only occur in family tragedies
    and heavy gangster-crime.

    in the countryside guns make practical sense,
    in the big city they just create problems and an
    atmosphere of fear.

    just a rant :)
    trying to give u the idea that giving up some "Play"
    for some "Peace" might not be a bad idea.

    cheers from germany,
  6. rantingredneck

    rantingredneck Member

    Feb 21, 2007
    North Carolina
  7. CBS220

    CBS220 Member

    Aug 6, 2007
    No random acts of violence? No muggings? No sociopaths on the rampage?

    Methinks you should let up on the koolaid, or perhaps try a different newspaper...
  8. evan price

    evan price Member

    Dec 7, 2005
    http://www.ohioccw.org/ Ohio's best CCW resour
    A "Ban" could mean:

    You can't buy or make any more after a certain date (Oh, but be sure the military, the LEOs and the FedGov will allow themselves to still acquire them).

    It could also mean that:
    The item is no longer legal to sell or transfer. That means when you die it gets collected by the local PD.

    It could also mean that:
    Nobody is allowed to own them anymore.
    They may offer to pay for them. They may just declare that after such-and-such date they are contraband. Usually the law will spell out the criminal charge to be filed for being caught with the item. Probably, for a gun, it will be a lengthly stay in Club Fed.

    Fight bans at all cost.
  9. shc1

    shc1 Member

    Jan 2, 2007
    Weapons ban = feel good politics.
    A lot like saying If the storm gets bad go to the Super Dome, everything will be fine .:scrutiny:
  10. Babarsac

    Babarsac Member

    Sep 12, 2006
    Banning guns will probably be just as effective as banning drugs. And we all know how well that worked out. :rolleyes:
  11. Andy W

    Andy W Member

    Mar 20, 2008
    LaGrange, KY
    In the event of a ban, unregistered guns will highly desirable. That's one reason I like face to face trades, no paperwork.
  12. p2000sk

    p2000sk Member

    Feb 24, 2007
    A weapons ban is an inanimate object, it does not work.
    A weapons ban is a tool, for use by a tyrannical government.
  13. Eric F

    Eric F Member

    Jul 23, 2007
    good thing mine is a 38 super

    Its all on wording every assault weapon and high cap mag I ever bought was during the assault weapons ban. Worked like a charm!
  14. Treo

    Treo member

    Nov 30, 2007
    Co. Springs
    QUOTE: " Personally I would not turn in any gun, but I would not be taking it to the local range where a local LEO could see it."

    QUOTE: " In the event of a ban, unregistered guns will highly desirable. "

    The only weapon I have that is listed in the AWB they are trying to do now is a Mini-14 , that I bought private sale.

    So does the above mean that (Assuming a ban) wether I turn it in or not, I've lost it because I can now never take it out of the safe?
  15. GeezerwithGuns

    GeezerwithGuns Member

    Nov 24, 2006
    How does a weapons ban work?

    Well, it provides a false sense of security for the people who fear firearms. It gives the antis one more card in their hands toward their goal of a "gun free" society. It also greatly benefits the criminals who no longer have to fear return fire.

    In short, it works just about as well as banning stupidity.:p
  16. buck00

    buck00 Member

    May 10, 2005
    Lower Silesia, PA
    There are a lot of "what-ifs?" with your question. But I'll try to address one part of it.

    There is a big obsession about the government (ATF, local police, national guard, UN, etc) descending on every town in America one morning at 6 am and seizing all our guns. Is this picture scary? Absolutely, which is why many people whisper and fret about it.

    However, is this scenario likely? Absolutely not. The only time a President would announce he is deploying the national guard for door-to-door seizures in the entire U.S.A, is in a comic book or bad B movie. So... do we all breath a sigh of relief? Absolutely not.

    * The more likely "ban" we must dread and watch for is a resurrection of the 94 ban, or a ban on certain ammos, or a huge tax on ammo- making shooting an impossible luxury. :uhoh:
  17. CountGlockula

    CountGlockula Member

    Oct 1, 2006
    In a Los Angeles coffin.
    No, your 1911 (once the ban has been passed) will be labeled as a pre-ban handgun and you won't be able to sell it to anyone else. So you don't have to turn it in to the man.

    That's through my experience here in CA.

    For now, buy as much as you can as if there's no tomorrow.
  18. fearless leader

    fearless leader Member

    Jun 12, 2006
    Satsuma, FL
    Gun Bans are UNNECESSARY

    Just ban crime. Perhaps they should ban Murder. Oh...wait.. they did!:neener:

    Tell me ONE law, just one, that would have stopped (enter the senseless shooting of your choice). I don't know any that would keep them from happening altogether, but I know one that could have minimized the death toll:
    Allow CCW of qualified students.

    Here, allow me to demonstrate.

    Picture yourself in a college classroom. Now picture someone opening the door and shooting indiscriminately into the room.

    Would you:

    A) prefer not to have a gun?

    B) have a gun?

    C) ask him why he's violating the murdering students on campus rule?

    D) reason with him?
  19. blkbrd666

    blkbrd666 Member

    Apr 1, 2008
    A ban that might work...

    This is a Hitlary quote..."We have to do more to stand up to those who refuse to believe the reality that guns do kill and that common-sense gun measures can make a difference."

    So, what if we just ban all the guns that kill without human intervention...you know, like the ones that wait until after you turn out the light, then they quietly get up off the nightstand, tippy-toe across your pillow, then shoot you in the head just as you are about to go to sleep.

    If we banned "those" guns, it could make a difference. I personally despise a gun with a mind of its own...they're just too dang unpredictable.
  20. natjan

    natjan Member

    Apr 22, 2007
    Errm, you're aware who implemented the private citizen gun ban in Germany?
    A clue, he was born in Austria & held the rank of corporal.
    Well who decides who is a nerd?
  21. Beagle-zebub

    Beagle-zebub Member

    Dec 18, 2006
    Moscow, Russia
    Gangster-crime is something that I only read about in the paper. The only family tragedies involving anyone I've ever known were automobile accidents and a suicide. (By what means, I know not.) Practically speaking, I'm about as close to the society of which you speak as you are. According to WISQARS, I'm far more likely to die in an automobile accident than from "gun crime," and a head-count of my family, friends, and acquantances would seem to confirm that. For a white, non-Hispanic male age 20 (that'd be me), the annual firearms homicide victimization-rate is 3.96 per 100,000; for the same group, the death-rate as occupant (this excludes motorcyclists) in an unintentional motor-vehicle collision is 20.51 per 100,000, while pedestrians are another 1.96 deaths per 100,000--overall unintentional transportation deaths are 48.78 per 100,000. Fatal unintentional poisoning is 13.99 per 100,000, drowning is 2.86 per 100,000. Suffice it to say, homicide is not something that I'm too terribly afraid of.

    But don't take my word for it: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

    As to weirdos owning guns, I would have been somewhat unnerved before I started shooting skeet, at which point I observed some weird people out there with shotguns who nonetheless weren't shooting me or anyone else, and were able to be out there given their non-incarcerated status. Hell, people may very well think that I am a crank, given my tendency to speak polemically; that has no place in the legal realm however, though, what with presumption of innocence. I could easily see how the presumption that one is a crank because they own guns would lead people to be cranks--after all, if you're going to suffer the consequences, it's a dead-weight loss not to do the crime!
  22. Bang Gunley

    Bang Gunley Member

    Jul 25, 2007
    Pensacola, Florida
    A ban without a so-called 'grandfather clause' would be an Ex Post Facto law and, probably unenforceable. But, never underestimate the power of the liberals to ignore our Constitution, traditions and pervert our time honored mores.

    Have a day. Bang Gunley
  23. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Jan 9, 2003
    Cumming GA
    There is no peace without the tools to enforce it.
    Arbitrary limits on tools does nothing to help.
    Evil triumphs when good men can do nothing.
    While a government may "keep the peace" by coming down hard on criminals, the victims have already suffered, having been denied the tools to defend themselves.

    I find your handle ironic: can you own an MP7 in Germany?

    Is that society violence-free? or have the criminals merely turned to other weapons?
    Cain killed Abel with a rock.
  24. MiddleAgedKen

    MiddleAgedKen Member

    Nov 1, 2007
    Fairview Park, OH
    With all due respect: In the words of Judge Alex Kozinski, that's a mistake a free people only get to make once.
  25. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Oct 27, 2006
    There is no set rules for a weapon ban. Those are layed out in the ban.

    Generaly antis will try to divide and conquer as much as possible. If they split you into groups they can always come clean up the one they "befriended" at a later date after they get the other where they want them.
    Those groups can be various grandfathered groups, hunters, various shooting sports, assault weapon owners, handgun owners, semi auto handgun owners, high powered rifle owners, shooting down plane .50 owners etc The catagories are endless and antis can create new ones to further target only a fraction of people at once so they have the least resistance one fight at a time, rather than a united opposition.

    So if antis threatened to ban all of a type of weapon, many owners would be very forceful in thier opposition and make such opposition a priority. That would stall the progress of any legislation.

    However if they add a grandfather clause, they can in essence remove being a priority of many of those owners and pass the legislation easier. Essentialy adding a sub catagory to a catagory.
    They can then fix that at a later date, or adopt new legislation targeting the grandfathered group. As time goes on that grandfathered group is getting no larger, and any new laws made to restrict or apply to that segment are less important to gun owners not a part of it.
    That means they can then be attacked without the prioritized support of most other gun owners because that issue is simply not of primary concern to those who didn't benefit from the grandfathering, and that leaves them to fend for themselves.

    In CA for example those who registered various "assault weapons" had it treated like a non issue at the time, they were simply being grandfathered in, no big deal, they can keep what they have.
    Now most gun owners in CA could care less about fighting for the rights of those who that grandfathering applies to, because it does not involve most of them. So they are now an isolated group that can be legislated against at will.

    For example assault weapons cannot be transfered to citizens in the state. If the owner dies, thier weapon essentialy dies with them, and really has little to no value to others in the state because it cannot be purchased.
    They can be restricted on where they can take it. Methods of transport acceptable for normal long arms are not enough for evil assault weapons.
    Most long guns can be transported casualy, stop and grab a bite to eat with them in the vehicle. Go to work before a trip to the range with it in the vehicle etc.
    Not so with assault weapons.
    They must be legaly taken only from point a to point b. Driving around with one in the vehicle is illegal unless it is being taken someplace for use.
    Long guns in CA generaly do not have to be locked up, and can be open carried in some places. Not so for assault weapons. They must always be in a locked container.
    So if a person for example had an assault weapon even in a locked container in thier car and went to work planning to visit the range after work, and for some reason that weapon was found they would have commited a crime. The same if they simply take it on a road trip with them with multiple destinations.
    They did not take it from point a to point b and so were illegaly transporting it.

    Quite frankly CA legislators could pass any law they wanted against those with a grandfather clause with little opposition, because those people are isolated. New people are not generaly added to thier ranks anymore, and as the population grows, thier percentage of representation dwindles.
    If they wanted to pass a law that those people had to take apart thier weapon into every single component while transporting or storing it, few CA residents would notice (until of course a new law inspired from that applied it to others.)
    So they have been cleaved from the rest of the community on thier rights for that issue by being divided and conquered from a grandfather clause. Since the laws they must work with don't apply to most others, those laws won't recieve much scrutiny.

    So a grandfather clause is a great tool from an anti position. It allows you to pass legislation with far less opposition, and then attack gun owners as seperate groups with different concerns and rights. At the same time one of the requirements for the grandfather clause can be documentation of possession, allowing the creation of a database of registered owners, entered in readily by those owners wishing to be subject to the grandfathering. So you get to not only register those with capable firearms, but they are willing to jump through hoops to become registered.

    Taking them all on at once is more challenging. When you tell a bunch of gun owners you plan to take away thier illegal guns that were made illegal by a pen stroke, they unite pretty quickly. When you tell them they can keep it, just new owners will be banned, you can move forward, and then deal with them on the side afterwards with new restrictions and other things that apply to those given exceptions or grandfathered outside the spotlight of most of the community. All while removing that right from future individuals.

    For that reason most bans do have a grandfather clause that makes it seem like nothing will change for those who already have what they want, reducing the level of opposition from current owners. The reality can often be quite differen though over time.
    So a new ban would probably have a grandfather clause even if they slowly modify the requirements for those subject to it later.

    That is however not a guarantee of a grandfather clause. Several bills have almost passed with none at state and federal levels. Usualy when the bill is called something that sounds like it has nothing to do with firearms, and the bill is amended in fine print with something outlawing "all actions designed for military use" or something similar. Since even most bolt action rifles, or even single shot muskets, nevermined most modern arms were originaly designed for military use, the legislating would be as encompassing as those given the task to interprete it wanted it to be.

    No government is not that foolish. They ban one type, yet give hope to those who wish to remain legal gun owners by allowing them to own something else. They can have blackpowder such and such, they just have to turn in ____. They can own single and double shotguns with a long list of hoops to jump through, but they have to turn in thier _____. If however they do not turn in _____ they become a prohibited person and cannot own anything. So you better turn in _____ so you can still legaly own your ____.

    Once someone hands in ____, a new ban targeting what they were told they could still retain can be imposed. At that point you don't really have to worry about them standing up for themselves because you already took away most of thier dangerous weapons that could pose a threat to tyrants :neener: (while at the same time the number of people who care about that right has been reduced).
    So you can ban handguns, but let them keep other things. Then ban certain high powered rifles, but let them keep other things. Then ban semi autos but let them keep other things. Then ban things in a cartridge that can penetrate body armor, but let them keep other things.
    Then ban...
    Look at Brazil's laws for a great example of that in progress. The calibers and types of weapons has been reduced from basicly anything that could be used to resist the military (while most criminals still have fully capable battle rifles they battle the police with.) Even rifles are restricted to handgun calibers.

    Other places have had a "buyback". Essentialy the government gives you what they decide your firearm is worth, and takes the firearm by force (if you don't turn it in). That was used in Australia.
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page