The Latest BS from Brady

[Regolith]

Not at all. They can be made illegal tomorrow, all it means if you can't be punished for having them before it became illegal.

I'm pretty sure they'd have to pay you for the guns, though, as per the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause.

Then again, they'd be ignoring the Second Amendment to ban the guns in the first place, so why not violate another one while they're at it...

 

[armoredman]

 

[v35]

^^^ Brilliant. Speaks volumes.

 

[Onmilo]

I believe Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii are the four states that still don't allow private citizens to carry firearms for personal protection.

Too bad there wasn't anybody nearby, armed and willing, who may have stopped this disturbed individual before he killed so many and I am also including him.

More than once these individuals cease and desist when confronted with an antagonist who is more capable than they are.

I have heard several times that the rifle was an SKS and good old Fox News was using the picture of a selective fire Chinese Type 56 AKM.
So far, the Omaha cops aren't saying.

 

[Liko81]

I believe Nebraska, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii are the four states that still don't allow private citizens to carry firearms for personal protection.

The article above says Nebraska allows concealed carry, but has an "opt-out" option for landowners to ban handguns. That would be similar to Texas' statutes; you can post a Section 30.06 sign and a CHL who carries on your property risks loss of license.

Now, open carry may be regulated; even in Texas, one of the more gun-liberal states, open display of a weapon in a public area is specifically defined as disorderly conduct. I haven't seen a map of open carry states but I would assume open carry is illegal in Nebraska as well.

Of course, this may be rather moot; Imagine a local mall, packed with Christmas shoppers, and someone goes postal. Remember Rule 3: Always be sure of your target and what is around and behind it. Even if you're a crack shot with your CCW, you'll have a lot of people scrambling around in front of, around, and behind the gunman trying to get out of the way, virtually guaranteeing you will not get a clean shot at the assailant from more than arm's length until said assailant has had the opportunity to fire a lot of bullets into a lot of people. Wouldn't the Brady Bunch have a field day with the small detail that a bullet fired by a CHL holder while taking down the assailant missed or overpenetrated and struck a bystander? The bullet wouldn't even have to draw blood; it could graze, or overpenetrate and bounce off, and the newspapers could imply serious injury by simply mentioning "a bystander was hit by a bullet fired in taking down the gunman", and the Brady Bunch would tell anybody who listens that it proves their point; "amateurs" wielding guns are just as dangerous as the criminals.

And you would have to admit, if it were anyone but a CHL, who is required to qualify with the type (and often caliber) of weapon they carry, the Brady bunch would have a point; a gun in the hands of someone who is not proficient with it is indeed just as dangerous as a criminal gunman firing randomly.

 

[mike101]

Actually, NJ allows it, on paper at least. The problem is you can't get the permit, unless your the Governor's brother-in-law.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Not at all. They can be made illegal tomorrow, all it means if you can't be punished for having them before it became illegal.

I'm pretty sure they'd have to pay you for the guns, though, as per the Fifth Amendment and the due process clause.

Right! They could also prevent them from being passed down after the death of the owner, but they can't just take them, and our decentralized registration system, with the exception of a few states that already have their own registration systems, they would be quite difficult to track, and the sheer numbers would make it a nearly impossible undertaking. So the risk for not complying with the unconstitutional on several levels law would be extremely low. What the perpetrators of this knid of law would hope for is both cooperation of citizens who naturally follow the law, and intimidation of the rest. Even in California, most citizens simply ignore the law. The few who registered their "assault weapons" in obedience to California's first AWB shouldn't have been surprised when Governor Gray Davis recinded the promised "grandfathering" earned by the registering. Hopefully, most of those people moved their guns out of state rather than turn them in.

My overall point isn't to tell everyone that everything's all right in the US, but to educate gun owners on the issues related to this. After the so-called Washington Snipers" were caught, the State of Maryland and the federal government got together and used the "tips" (from the Washington Sniper hotline, from neighbors calling in about possible suspects or people with guns) as an excuse to seize guns from as many people as possible. Naturally, it was an abuse of power, with the two suspects already in custody. Gun owners in Maryland, and unfamiliar with their rights, let the task force in their homes and had their guns taken, for the most part permanantly.

 

[Pete409]

It is wrong to think that just because you legally own a gun today that the Government can't pass a law and take it away from you tomorrow. They can't prosecute for owning the gun while it was legal, but if you CONTINUE to own it after the deadline, it is just as illegal as if you bought it after the deadline. They may agree to give you some small reimbursement for the gun that you legally owned and turned in before the deadline, but don't expect to receive a fair market price.

That being said, sometimes the Government does grandfather certain things that a person already legally owns, but they don't HAVE to grandfather things.

 

[the pistolero]

Ok, just for grins, suppose the Bradys got their wish and the AWB was reinstated. This would not make all these "military style weapons" (sic) or the "clips" (sic) for them just magically disappear. Every last one of them would be out there, just as they were before. Which, of course, leaves the possibility of another Omaha-type shooting on the table, just the same as it was before. What do you think the next step would be? (I have a feeling it might start with "con" and end with "fiscation"...) For teh childrenses, of course. And do you think the Bradys would say one word in opposition to that?