The CA mag “surrender” was defeated in Fed court - have all states grandfathered mags?

The Liberal said:

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

Your statement makes no sense. It’s contradictory. Believing in robust gun control is completely the opposite of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Second Amendment HAS NO LIMITS! Read it...then read it again without your political blinders on. There are no limits within the Second Amendment except those imposed on the government by the Second Amendment, which the Federal, And many state and local governments violate the Second Amendment under the guise of “reasonable limits”.

The Liberal, I would recommend that you do some research on the Second Amendment and why the Founding Fathers felt that it was so important to put in the Bill of Rights and why it is second only to the First Amendment.

I am not talking about Wikipedia research or politically motivated modern writings from either side of the political spectrum, but the actual writings of James Madison and the other authors of our Constitution and why they wrote it as they did. I would highly recommend reading The Federalist Papers. The essays written by the Founding Fathers in regards to the formation of the Constitution.
Here is a link: https://books.google.com/books/abou...AAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

I have seen a few of your posts regarding your desire to buy a 30-30 and your love of the .243 cartridge. I don’t believe you to be a troll, but it does seem to me that you may derive some enjoyment by spinning people up with your views.

The one thing that I have seen in this country and the world is that allowing the encroachment of government into one’s rights over time can lead to negative results and those that allow it to happen because it doesn’t directly affect them may learn some hard lessons later on.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

by Martin Niemöller

JohnBiltz said:

An interesting thing about NJ they are required to turn magazines into the state police, as of last week they have not had a single magazine turned in. Since the ban extends to off duty police. It seems that there are a fair number of police that are not complying as well as citizens.

Click to expand...

lol

The Liberal said:

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

What is the "Reasonable Limit" of "Shall Not Be Infringed"...?

Explain.




GR

lol, typical anti, talks about "reasonable limits" and would write "robust" anti gun laws. Just like our anti politicians like Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Waters...

There is no such thing as "reasonable gun control". It is a term manufactured by the antis to lull the public into voting for, or voting for politicians who will vote for, legislation they think will make them safer, yet will not.

Click to expand...

You forgot “common sense” another term they like to throw around when they don’t even want to recognize the facts much less make sound judgments based upon them. Typical knee jerk reactions without any real thought, just blather on talking points.

The Liberal said:

If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. Some still may be- the Vegas shooter had money and a clear record and outwardly looked and acted just like some members of this forum- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

Click to expand...

I’m probably going to get slammed but I find your nonsense VERY OFFENSIVE.

you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Guess what? I’ve survived TWO campus shootings

Yes TWO

Virginia Tech and New River Community college

So unlike you, I know what it’s like to have someone shooting up the place. I know what it’s like to have people shot where I studied and where I taught.

Mag limits don’t work the kid that shot up New River Community College used a shot gun. I heard him reloading outside my classroom while waiting for the police. Had I been armed he would have been dead.

Instead one of my students died because I couldn’t confront him because of STUPID gun free zone laws.

And I heard the kid fumbling with the ammo.

What stopped him was that I didn’t cower under a desk like the “experts” say to do. Instead I started him as he tried to get in my classroom and a security guard was able to grab him.

So excuse me if I call you on your uninformed stupidity. You’ve picked “solutions” based on emotion not facts.

I’ve trued to share my experience but have had the AG on VA tie me up in law suits even though I’ve won multiple times.
NRCC ended my contract because I knew what happened and because I didn’t die there and instead ruined their claim to fame. The shooting was the day before the Boston Bombing so it got buried in the news. And because the victim died months later.

So if I’ve offended anyone, I say tough..

Seeing your BS and what’s going on here by Mark Herring, and Ralph Northam and the rest of the antis who want to make me more volurnable annoys me.

Go stand up to an ANTIFA mob and tell me how many rounds you need.

Go drive into DC at night and go to a drug infested neighborhood and tell me how many rounds you need.

There’s a reason that the M&P 9 Compact and the Glock 19 are so popular. 15 rounds and the ability to use 17 round are perfect. Carry 15 plus one plus two 17 round mags and you at least have a fighting chance against a mob until the police arrive.

You probably also believe in Duty to Flee. Or as I call it the give criminals free reign to do as they like laws.

So please take your lies and ignorance and get a clue because unlike you, I got informed and I’ve seen what the laws you want do.

The Liberal said:

If you make high capacity firearms and assault weapons less available, less of them will be used in crime and shootings. Some still may be- the Vegas shooter had money and a clear record and outwardly looked and acted just like some members of this forum- but fewer teenagers and other opportunists will have access.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

Click to expand...

Wow! There is a whole lot of ignorance floating in this thread. So much so that I’m not even going to remotely address it. Besides, many have already given a pretty nice rebuttal to your nonsense.

In regards to your quote above, you can’t make your so call assault weapons and high capacity weapons any less available and you certainly can’t make them go away. Even if the gov somehow made them illegal and rounded them all up there would be a pretty ludicrous underground industry capitalizing on building illegal firearms. Do you have any idea how many people know how to build such things in this country from scratch? Any clue as to how many machine shops there are across the US? Better yet, I can take you to places in the ME and Asia where kids literally build/assemble the very weapons you describe in the streets. The only way for any guns you describe to go away completely would be to get into a time machine and make sure they never existed in the first place.

To demand a turn-in of our firearms would be a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, would it not? In eminent domain cases, one can demand a jury trial to determine the value of the property to be taken. Trials involve court costs to the government as well as to the owner of the property.

If every owner of an "assault weapon' demanded a trial?

I've no idea of the exact tax-dollar cost, but given case-load numbers and budget allocations, the cost of a legislated turn-in would cost many millions and take decades.

Art Eatman said:

To demand a turn-in of our firearms would be a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, would it not? In eminent domain cases, one can demand a jury trial to determine the value of the property to be taken. Trials involve court costs to the government as well as to the owner of the property.

If every owner of an "assault weapon' demanded a trial?

I've no idea of the exact tax-dollar cost, but given case-load numbers and budget allocations, the cost of a legislated turn-in would cost many millions and take decades.

Click to expand...

Art,

It may not necessarily be true that requiring he surrender of firearms and/or magazines is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. I know that has been the classical view of the Fifth Amendment, but that's not what the Amendment actually says. The Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when property is taken "for public use." The Gun Control advocates have seized upon this point, and have actually been supported by a couple of key court decisions. Probably the most concise and easy of these to understand is Akins v United States. It's a trial court case so it doesn't carry value as precedent, but it cites to a number of published cases, and I use it because it's easy to understand.

Akins produced a device to enhance the cyclic rate of semi-auto weapons. He submitted the device to the ATF and secured an opinion that his device was not a NFA weapon. He subsequently marketed the device. Three years later the BATF reversed themselves and decided that the device was a NFA item and demanded Akins to surrender all remaining devices to the BATF. Akins sued for compensation, alleging that his property was "taken" under the Fifth Amendment. The court noted the difference between property that was taken for public use and property that was taken under the government's police powers. It noted the distinction that property taken for public use required compensation, but property taken under police power did not.

Remember that Akins is not a published case and doesn't establish a precedent, but it does illustrate a change in legal landscape, and we're seeing it gain some traction.

The Liberal said:

I’m here because I believe in robust gun control and I’ll not be bullied out of the RKBA by zealots. The 2A has always had reasonable limits.

Click to expand...

You are part of the left and this is nothing more than a leftist tactic outlined by lovers of Alinsky and his ilk. Yes, there are already substantial restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. For example, I cannot buy or build a nuclear bomb and keep it on my family farm. That's just one example. I also cannot own or possess a fully functional military tank or military jet or military helicopter, or a military boat large or small. I'm not allowed to own or possess or use any of these types of weapons. Only government entities are allowed to build, own, use and possess these weapons.

Your "robust gun control" is nothing more than an excuse to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. We are not zealots, we are realists. We know that the 1st Amendment is already under severe attack from the left and along with that, the 2nd Amendment is another stumbling block for the left.

Art Eatman said:

To demand a turn-in of our firearms would be a "taking" under the 5th Amendment, would it not? In eminent domain cases, one can demand a jury trial to determine the value of the property to be taken. Trials involve court costs to the government as well as to the owner of the property.

If every owner of an "assault weapon' demanded a trial?

I've no idea of the exact tax-dollar cost, but given case-load numbers and budget allocations, the cost of a legislated turn-in would cost many millions and take decades.

Click to expand...

I think the courts would have other things to worry about if it came to that.

If you’re getting shot at, would you rather the shooter have a manually-actioned weapon or a semiautomatic with double-digit round count?

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the most important point. How would making it illegal for everyone in the USA to own a “semiautomatic with double-digit round count” help in this situation? All that would mean is that all I would have to defend myself is a manual actioned firearm.

If laws were all it took there wouldn’t be any illegals drugs here the term illegal alien wouldn’t even exist, no one would speed, etc.

To your point, forcing auto manufacturers to not build vehicles that could exceed 20 mph would save more lives and prevent more laws from being broken than any gun laws you could dream up.

...and everyone who responded to the tripe that the Troll is spewing (especially in an emotional fashion) has made it very happy.

Just sayin' ...

GBExpat said:

...and everyone who responded to the tripe that the Troll is spewing (especially in an emotional fashion) has made it very happy.

Just sayin' ...

Click to expand...

I thought we'd scared it off ......

RickD427 said:

Art,

It may not necessarily be true that requiring he surrender of firearms and/or magazines is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. I know that has been the classical view of the Fifth Amendment, but that's not what the Amendment actually says. The Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when property is taken "for public use." The Gun Control advocates have seized upon this point, and have actually been supported by a couple of key court decisions. Probably the most concise and easy of these to understand is Akins v United States. It's a trial court case so it doesn't carry value as precedent, but it cites to a number of published cases, and I use it because it's easy to understand.

Akins produced a device to enhance the cyclic rate of semi-auto weapons. He submitted the device to the ATF and secured an opinion that his device was not a NFA weapon. He subsequently marketed the device. Three years later the BATF reversed themselves and decided that the device was a NFA item and demanded Akins to surrender all remaining devices to the BATF. Akins sued for compensation, alleging that his property was "taken" under the Fifth Amendment. The court noted the difference between property that was taken for public use and property that was taken under the government's police powers. It noted the distinction that property taken for public use required compensation, but property taken under police power did not.

Remember that Akins is not a published case and doesn't establish a precedent, but it does illustrate a change in legal landscape, and we're seeing it gain some traction.

Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure I could make a compelling argument that the rounding up of all weapons for the greater good of society would automatically fall under the public use/service classification. I mean after all they would be taking up the arms for the public’s safety, right? And when all else fails, I’m betting that the people won’t be waiting on the courts to decide this outcome.

RickD427 said:

It may not necessarily be true that requiring the surrender of firearms and/or magazines is a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. I know that has been the classical view of the Fifth Amendment, but that's not what the Amendment actually says. The Fifth Amendment only requires compensation when property is taken "for public use."

Click to expand...

I think that whether making something illegal, that was previously legal, is a constitutional "taking" is (at best) an open question. The antis will try to get around the whole question by focusing on the act of possession, and not on the object itself. It would be a crime to possess the banned item after x date. Just as in the bump stock ban, people would not be required to turn the item in to the government. They could satisfy the law by simply not having the item any more -- either by throwing the item away, destroying it, or turning it in to the government. Prosecutors would have to present proof of continued possession in order to get a conviction. This is what I would call a "passive" ban, as opposed to an "active" ban, which would indeed involve door-to-door confiscations. Such an "active" ban would be more likely to trigger a 5th Amendment "taking" case.

GBExpat said:

...and everyone who responded to the tripe that the Troll is spewing (especially in an emotional fashion) has made it very happy.

Just sayin' ...

Click to expand...

I think he or she has been fed the lies and is just repeating what they have been told, more gun control = less crime and gun violence.

The only problem is the argument can’t be backed up with facts or qualitative data, the contrary. Areas with the most restrictive gun laws are also the areas with the most problems, that’s a fact that can be proven.

When arguments can’t be backed up by facts they just switch the argument from factual to emotional and/or even theoretical. You know, “we have to do something...” FWIW that’s how we burned people alive we said were witches... or “If there were no guns....” yeah and if people didn’t have any hands...

If ending crime was their intention, they would be for the death penalty, mandatory sentencing, supporting existing laws and such. We can go through them one by one and prove that this is not the intent, just something that sounds good so people will give up their rights. The target is people that are already and would continue to abide by existing and future laws. We know this because criminals won’t follow the laws, actually that is the definition of such a person. You can’t be fooled otherwise.

But my idea will meet the public-use test: The guns would be melted down and sold for scrap, with the money going to the US Treasury.

The Liberal said:

An assault weapon is a hand-held, braced or shoulder-fired semiautomatic firearm with a designed or aftermarket detachable magazine capacity in excess of eight projectiles. That’s my definition.

Of course, an actual firearms historian will tell you that the concept of an assault weapon was born during the First World War and came to fruition in the Second, and that it differs from the prior philosophy of “battle rifles” by emphasizing ergonomic factors and ammunition capacity over power and range.

Click to expand...

Then actually your definition is idiotic. You just described many 22lr long guns.

The Liberal said:

A wise choice that makes accessing uniquely deadly tools more difficult.

Click to expand...

And like every other state and many countries, it will be widely ignored.

silicosys4 said:

Yes you will, and you already have. You have been bullied so effectively that you have joined the bullies.


Lol, you are delusional, buddy.
.

Click to expand...

That's actually giving him or her credit. Exactly WHO is going to force these changes? the local police? Don't hold your breath. Even it they knew the location it would take the entire force of more cities months or years. I can see the judge issuing the search warrants by the thousands.

Like so many other states, it will be ignored and the states will turn a blind eye. Of course the gangs and dealerswill be libing up.

This logic is what was used for the drug problem. Of course the 58 thousand deaths a year from over doses must be a myth as the drugs have been illegial for decades.

GRIZ22 said:

That is just one option. You can move them out of state or permanently modify them to no more than 10 rds or destroy them.

Click to expand...

And no doubt that's what's been happening. Murphy might like to think so. Realility, they are all exactly where they were before the law went into effect. During the first AWB in NJ no one turned in anything either.

Saying the law will be ignored as a reason they will be useless really doesn't understand the purpose of such laws. Why?

1. It sets a standard of owning them being socially unacceptable behavior that will influence new possible entries into the gun culture. Most new people aren't 't going to purchase forbidden items. So old toots will have them and maybe move them among themselves. New folks probably won't.
2. This affects general attitudes towards gun culture.
3. If you do have them and don't turn them in:
a. You cannot hunt with them.
b. You cannot compete with them
c. If you use them in self-defense, you will be hurt in court and perhaps charged as a separate crime from whatever is happening in yourself defense incident.
d. If the items are discovered as in a burglary, fire, you are in a traffic stop while transporting, your ex turns you in, your kid babbles in school or the like, you are sunk. While the sheriff might not charge you, an antigun city or state cop will.

So it is just virtue signaling to say that you won't turn them in. Announcing that on the Internet may give zealous law enforcement a reason to come to your house.

As an example, why in IDPA matches do we limit mags to 10 rounds - guess. Going to be the first guy in NJ to shoot a match with a 17 round mag and stick your tongue out to the law? No, your mag sits in your secret place. Whoopee! Why do NY folks use Ruger 9mm and Mini-14 long arms. Because you can't have new ARs without them being mutilated?

Gun folks continually don't understand that there is tremendous surface validity to the gun bans. The main driving force is people fear violence. It is not the horsepoop of fighting the 'socialist wave'. Saying you won't obey the law is not a convincing argument. It, in fact, it will be an argument for a stronger law as you have defined gun owners as probable law breakers.

What the gun world needs is messaging that indicates why such privately held weapons are a positive for society. Saying you will not comply is a very weak argument for the integrity of gun owners.

Art Eatman said:

But my idea will meet the public-use test: The guns would be melted down and sold for scrap, with the money going to the US Treasury.

Click to expand...

You and I both know that “poll tax” has long been eliminated but I would fully support a one firearm “surrendered per vote “tax”. Get rid of one firearm per vote. If you have none your not a real citizen anyway, just let the guy turn in a hunk of pipe and a tac hammer and vote for you. Heck, we could just forfeit a hunk of plastic and get a machine gun credit...

The people that don’t know any better, well, they just don’t know any better.