Postulating Future Ban...

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shattered00

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
200
Assuming that an "assault weapons" ban is to come into play in 2008 or so, what would happen to all the guns that one currently owns which are forbidden by the law? For instance, if a Romanian AK-47 is completely banned, what would come of mine? Would it be grandfathered? What about guns that have certain features that are banned, such as folding stocks or high-cap mags? Could you just change out the features and still be able to retain the weapon? I ask this hypothetically, so that I may take every precaution available aside from voting for non-antis. I know that no one knows what would happen for sure, but what do yall think is most likely to happen? Might it be left up to each state? Sorry for the paranoia and the posting of a thread that will be strictly conjecture and speculation.
 
Not 10 seconds after this post did I realize that it needs to be in political/legal. Apologies for the moderators who have to deal with people like me.
 
Obviously I stated that no one knows or can know. I merely wanted to see what others' opinions were on the possibilities. I was looking more for replies that might reference past scenarios (for instance, what happened to the weapons people owned which were put on the '94 ban list).
 
We all learn from our mistakes.

So too will those who would ban some guns.

Mere speculation on my part.

Depending on the outcome of this November and the 2008 elections, perhaps declaring an open WAR on Assault Weapons (or WAW in Baba Wawa speak) with a new, broader definition including ALL semi-auto rifles/carbines w/ pistol grip, detachable magazine, evil flash hiders or muzzle breaks, chambered for military favored rounds. No grandfather clause, a 12 month turn-in amnesty, then (federal) felony possession.

Only terrorists would need or want such weapons of mass destruction, neh?

Perhaps including "high powered sniper rifles" and "steet sweeper" semi-auto shotguns knowing the outrage that will cause, knowing full well that they'll be "willing" to compromise on that issue (for now) if only we can get those awful "Assault Weapons" off the streets immediately.

It may be through Presidential Executive Order, it might be via bill(s) passed by a newly elected Democratic Congress and signed to law by a newly elected Democratic President, with full UN and world-wide approval.

Mere speculation on my part.

Bring America's Citizens to their knees or become criminals. We know how to deal with criminals, don't we?
 
The possibilities are endless and there's no need to get your shorts in a wad and form an opinion of something that may happen. It's a waste of good shooting time.
 
I think Charlton Heston summed this one up very nicely with his well know 14 word statement. My theory is, I have no intentions of buying anything illegal, but if they ban something I legaly bought originaly, thats tough ****. Cold dead fingers indeed. Or, more than likely, anything that turns illegal of mine other than the pistols I registered will sit in hiding for generations. Much like the millions and millions of unregistered full autos that are out there.
 
For those of you who practice in litigation, would people be reimbursed for the weapons, if said weapons were to be made illegal? In other words, is it possible for the government to take something from someone if they purchased it during a period of time when it was legal but has now become illegal all WITHOUT reimbursing the consumer?
 
is it possible for the government to take something from someone if they purchased it during a period of time when it was legal but has now become illegal all WITHOUT reimbursing the consumer?
Click to expand...

Yes, the goobermint can do anything. I think they'd likely offer some compensation though, but to add insult to the injury it would be taxpayer money, so the government would be stealing from them to pay you less than the value.
Plus it isn't really a valid "sale." "selling" involves a mutually agreed upon transaction at a mutually agreed upon price.
Confiscating guns is just plain theft.
In other words, it's sorta like one of us peons robs a bank of $10,000 and agrees to give $5,500 back and say, "hey, no problemo, sorry 'bout that," and just trot off scott free.
Only a politician would believe he ought to be able to get away with that!!!:evil:
 
Send me a rod of plutonium or a 1.21 jigawatt bolt of lightning, and i'll let you know
Click to expand...


What, you didn't get the Mr. Fusion upgrade? :neener:

Seriously, anything we'd say @ this point is pure conjecture. If the forces of organized gun bigotry get access to the levers through their usual champions, the Dems, all bets are off.

Personally, I'd like to see the forces of organized gun bigotry politically homeless, without credibility, and treated as the fringe whackjobs they are.
 
Please explain...

I ask this hypothetically, so that I may take every precaution available aside from voting for non-antis.
Click to expand...

Exactly what does that mean, Shattered00? Do you intend to vote for those who would ban and confiscate our semiautos, over 95% of whom happen to be Democrats? Is that what you are saying?
 
I know the Democrats are stupid, but I actually don't think they'd walk off this cliff. They'd LIKE to, no doubt, but they've been hearing from people like Howard Dean, James Carville, etc., that the gun issue is just a stone loser for them politically--it get's them no new votes, and loses a LOT of potential ones (the old "Reagan Democrats").

.50--yep. A reinstatment of the 1994 law--possible. But what is being speculated here, I doubt.
 
Progunner1957: I apologize for my outdated use of the English language. I was using "aside" as a preposition for "beyond." It has been a while since I have taken an English course, and my grammar becomes wayyyy too rusty. This is an archaic and obsolete use of hte word and for that I apologize. I am libertarian btw. Any party who swings anti-gun, be it Republican or Democrat, will not get my vote.
 
Any party who swings anti-gun, be it Republican or Democrat, will not get my vote.
Click to expand...
Glad to hear it, Shattered! That's my approach - I refuse to vote for an antigun bigot, period.

My biggest pet peeve in all of politics is so-called gun owners who vote for antigun bigots, using the "there are other issues to consider" excuse to justify it.
 
The feds have, historically, grandfathered existing "bad things". That way, they avoid having to buy guns at "fair market value" as a taking under the 5th Amendment. It's not just the cost of some individual EBR; it's the court costs on a case by case basis.

Art
 
I predict no ban because it is fashionable for gun owners to vote these days.

I think the worst the dems can do is kill the tax cuts if they take power. Oh sure, they could do some sort of gun ban, but I dont think they want to go back to a 1994 situation at least not right away. The Dems have woken somewhat out of the old dream of controlling the media and being able to act with impunity. I think we are still a good way away from them actually becoming politically saavy again.

If an actual Democrat-aligned movement takes root in this country AND incorporates gun control into that platform, then I would worry. Right now a lot of the traditional Democrat core groups like unions are extremely pro-gun. The anti-gunners, as fashionable as they can be for NE Dems, are just not a large enough group to counter gun owners as long as we remain politically active.

Issues that help the Dems in solidly pro-Democrat states are not issues they want to campaign on. They need to start adopting issues that play well to southern and midwestern groups- I predict they choose economics rather than social issues like guns. Unfortunately as long as the "poor" have jobs and are doing well, socialism isnt going to really grab a lot of votes. But it does tell you why the mainstream media is contantly trying to piss on the economy and get people thinking things are bad.
 
What would happen to my banned guns? They'd get packed in grease, put in an airtight container with dessicant, and buried somewhere noone would ever find them :).

Actually, the only thing I have that could conceivably be banned (at least in the very near future) is a Mini-14 with a pistol grip/folding stock.
 
The feds have, historically, grandfathered existing "bad things". That way, they avoid having to buy guns at "fair market value" as a taking under the 5th Amendment. It's not just the cost of some individual EBR; it's the court costs on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the political, tactical, and logistics challenges of sending the police/military door-to-door to round up the EBR's of those who don't want to give them up. That would be a political DISASTER for anyone who tried such a stunt. Look at the backlash over a handful of confiscations in New Orleans, and multiply that by, oh, 25 million or more. I am reasonably confident that that's NOT going to happen.

There might be politicians foolish enough to try (Dianne Feinstein strikes me as someone who would LOVE to send big guys with machine guns and black body armor door-to-door), but most politicians are smart enough to see that "an APC in every neighborhood" isn't a very good campaign slogan.

I think that's why prohibitionist legislators went with a grandfather clause and a 2-features criterion for "assault weapons" definition in 1994, to AVOID actually banning AR-15's, civvie AK lookalikes, and such. They hoped that would satisfy the gun-ban extremists without upsetting gun owners too much. (They were wrong on both counts, of course...)
 
What backlash?

Look at the backlash over a handful of confiscations in New Orleans, and multiply that by, oh, 25 million or more.
Click to expand...

Aside from the SAF lawsuit, there was no backlash from the NOLA confiscations, aside from one law passed in Louisiana. Even the SAF lawsuit was a bust in the long-term because the same city government was voted back in, and pledged to do everything the same next time.

The NRA's attempt at bringing up the issue with its "no confiscate" pledge drive seems to have fallen flat, to the delight of both "the intelligentsia" and law enforcement. I agreed with the SAF NOLA lawsuit, and am not happy to see the NRA campaign go south.

Exhibit A:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501792.html
New Gravity for the Political Center
By David Ignatius
Friday, June 16, 2006; A25

- - -
The fearsome NRA launched a nationwide campaign last month demanding that every mayor and police chief in America sign a pledge that they won't disarm "law-abiding citizens" in the event of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. The NRA is also proposing federal legislation that would make it a crime for cops to disarm lawfully gun-toting citizens during emergencies.

Even by NRA standards, this is a bad idea -- not just divisive but downright dangerous. Does the gun lobby really want to remake America in the image of Iraq? The proposal was apparently motivated by the lawlessness in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, but if there aren't enough cops to patrol the streets, then hire more cops. When individual citizens, even "law-abiding" ones, decide to go it alone, the result is anarchy.

Given the gun lobby's usual success in muscling special-interest provisions into law, you might expect to see politicians rushing to sign the America-as-Baghdad pledge. But no. The NRA's proposal is getting the cool reception it deserves, and mayors actually seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York, has organized a coalition to fight for tougher gun laws, and it now includes 50 other mayors. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the bill that would throw cops in jail if they tried to disarm NRA members after a terrorist attack is mercifully going nowhere.

Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, dismisses the pledge as "a thing to get attention for NRA issues." She explains: "It's really absurd. It asks us to sign a pledge to do something we do anyway -- uphold the Constitution."
- - -
Click to expand...
 
What would happen to my banned guns? They'd get packed in grease, put in an airtight container with dessicant, and buried somewhere noone would ever find them .

Actually, the only thing I have that could conceivably be banned (at least in the very near future) is a Mini-14 with a pistol grip/folding stock.
Click to expand...

What good are weapons if they are buried because you are too afraid to use them? What is the magic straw that would finally break the camel's back?
 
What is a GFW?

"Actually, the only thing I have that could conceivably be banned (at least in the very near future) is a Mini-14 with a pistol grip/folding stock." Why would they choose this weapon over all the others?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Future national assault weapon bans?
Replies
20
Views
1K
ElTacoGrande
E
B
  • Locked
IMHO "Assault Weapons" Ban Is Not Unconstitutional
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
4K
Charleo0192
C
Z
  • Locked
AWB sunsets, how to prove pre-ban configuration?
Replies
23
Views
1K
Poodleshooter
P
S
  • Locked
Assault weapon ban Thursday
Replies
23
Views
2K
breakingcontact
B
B
  • Locked
why "assault weapons" will be banned
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Swamprabbit
S
Back
Top