What do you think the chances are for no grandfather clause?

[TheOtherOne]

I know some states (like California) have had a "turn it in" law but has that ever happened with a federal ban?

The only thing close was the 1934 machine gun ban, right? People didn't have to turn them in but didn't your gun suddenly become illegal if you didn't register it?

Anyways, what do you think the chances are that the new AWB we are bound to get in the next year or two will not have a grandfather clause?

 

[Don Gwinn]

I don't accept your premise, Pollyanna.

 

[Cortland]

The NFA was not a ban, it was (and is) a tax and registration.

Regarding the AWB: Delay isn't going anywhere, neither is the pro-gun majority in the House, GWB isn't willing to push for it, JF'nK pushing for it would likely only create stronger opposition in the House, Ronald Reagan is dead, it will sunset in September, and thereafter the anti-gunners' impending doom message will be descredited.

Keep in mind that the AWB renewal explicitly banned more firearms, banned firearms based on a one feature rather than two feature test, and banned firearms whose receivers were very similar to an explicitly banned firearm, AND it didn't sunset. That didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and they kept toning the AWB farther and farther down until now they're trying to pass a straight renewal with no new wording. Clearly the support just isn't there. The AWB in 1994 had a big political impact on the House, and I don't think thats a lesson they're soon to forget. The Framers made their terms only 2 years for a reason.

 

[TheOtherOne]

The NFA was not a ban, it was (and is) a tax and registration.

Technically, but from what I understand they meant for it to be a ban. What happened to those that owned machine guns pre-34? Did they all get "taxed"?


Anyways, since I'm always the pessimist I really don't think a new ban is that unrealistic. Given the way they paint them as bad and the fact the your average voter thinks banning bad guns is a good thing, I think it's very likely. I doubt they'll try and go after those who already own the guns though. Then again, there was no armed resistance or huge uproar when California confiscated evil rifles... so maybe it's not so unlikely.

 

[Cortland]

What happened to those that owned machine guns pre-34? Did they all get "taxed"?

The tax is a transfer tax, which requires someone to pay a tax when transferring the firearm, and to get permission (registration) before doing so. I believe this would exempt pre-1934 owners from any action (but not subsequent owners of the pre-1934 weapons). There was one 30 day NFA amnesty in 1968.

Given the way they paint them as bad and the fact the your average voter thinks banning bad guns is a good thing, I think it's very likely.

Say 80% of people favor an AWB (unlikely). Of those 80%, likely no more than 5% are really worked up about it. The rest favor it in a very tepid way -- they'll likely have forgotten about it when they next vote for their representatives. The 20% who oppose the AWB are more active, and more likely to hold their representatives accountable. Basically, even if 80% of the populace favors an AWB, by and large they're not willing to get up of their asses to do anything about it. This is why a Republic is a good thing.

I doubt they'll try and go after those who already own the guns though.

The political will for any kind of confiscation just isn't there. Almost none of the anti-gun groups even claim to support confiscation because its such an unpopular notion. If it makes you feel any better, they'd be more likely to confiscate NFA weapons first, right? So that'd give you some warning.

Then again, there was no armed resistance or huge uproar when California confiscated evil rifles...

There was no armed resistance because non-compliance is so much easier.

so maybe it's not so unlikely.

Not impossible, but far from likely. My advice: stay aware, but find something else to worry about.

The California confiscation (I assume you're talking about "detatchable" mag SKSs with grenade launchers) speaks more to an ex post facto judicial and executive malfeasance issue than a strictly gun control issue. It was not the intent of the California law to enact a confiscation.

 

[hillbilly]

I get so steamed when I read or hear gun owners predicting nothing but gloom and doom.


Buck up!

Quit worrying about "grandfather clauses" in dying laws that may never be renewed again.

Instead of worrying about "grandfather clauses" in future bans that may or may not ever happen, how about making plans to and thinking about how to increase the victory for our side?


In my opinion, spreading gloom and doom and pessismism and defeatism in our own ranks in not very productive at all.

hillbilly

 

[Zrex]

Feinstein quote:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate...for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it!"



This is not doom and gloom, just a reminder into the true mindset of our "enemy". I have yet to hear an elected Republican who is as passionately PRO gun as Feinstein is ANTI... with the exception of maybe Ron Paul.

I want to see someone stand up and talk about repealing the GCA and NFA and abolishing the F in BATFE. Instead, what we are fed as "pro gun" is nothing more than lack of action. The AWB will go away and all that has to happen is NOT passing any new law. That is not PRO, it is just ANTI-ANTI.

 

[hillbilly]

Okay Zrex, here's some things to think about.

The "assault weapons ban" was passed in 1994.

I want you to go back and do research starting in 1994....



How many states in 1994 had CCW laws? How many do today?

How many states in 1994 that already had CCW laws have passed additional laws to liberalize CCW?

I'm in Arkansas.

Arkansas didn't have CCW in 1994. Not only does Arkansas now have CCW, it's also passed laws expanding where you can carry as of last year.

How many state governments were controlled by anti-gunners in 1994?

How many of those are no longer by anti-gunners?

How many anti-gun Congresscritters have lost their legislative jobs since 1994?


In my opinion, too many gun owners are either unrealistically pessimistic or unrealistically impatient.

Zrex, you didn't lose some of your firearms freedoms overnight.

So why do you think you will get them back overnight?

I submit to you, that if you actually do a little historical research, you will find an improvement in the gun rights situation in the last 10 years.

However, it will take more than 10 years to get the NFA or GCA repealed.

But of course, instead of admitting and realizing the progress of the last 10 years, it's much easier to either be a complete pessimist, or just throw up your hands and yell "They haven't done ENOUGH for me in the last two weeks, so to Hell with them all."


hillbilly

 

[Zrex]

Hillbilly:


I was thinking on a purely national level. But if you want to go to the states, I would argue, that with the exception of concealed carry, the states have become as a whole, more anti-gun. Look at all the statewide mag cap and "assault weapon" type bans. Look at the gun lock nonsense. If you want to include concealed carry, then one could argue that if you have to ask the state permission to keep or bear arms, then it is not a RIGHT but a privilege. So the CCW states have affirmed that bearing arms is NOT a right?

I am not expecting a sudden repeal of all gun laws. As a matter of fact, I even talked in another post (that I expect no one to remember) about the merits of incrementally taking back what has been lost over the years.

It would be nice on a national level to see our "pro gun" politicians vote on and pass a repeal of some anti-gun legislation somewhere. Too much lip service has been paid to "We need to enforce our existing laws and not make new ones." All that statement says to me is that they approve of what is on the books.

And quite frankly, it does not matter how many pro gun legislators there are if they are not willing to even try to repeal something. How many years do we have to wait? There are more gun laws on the books now than 5 years ago or 10 years ago or 15 years ago.


But... I could be wrong.

 

[Thumper]

Zrex, respectfully, you're wrong.

I would be willing to bet you joined the fight since '94. Late eighties and early nineties were rough on us.

We're winning. In fact, we're winning big. Pat yourself on the back and keep working.

 

[Sam Adams]

Cortland

The political will for any kind of confiscation just isn't there. Almost none of the anti-gun groups even claim to support confiscation because its such an unpopular notion.

Almost none of the anti-gun groups even claim to support confiscation because:

a) it won't work (you are correct); and

b) none of the leaders of those groups wish to see any gun owners personally turn up at their homes ready to turn in their guns, bullets first.

 

[Zrex]

Thumper:

I hope you are right about us winning.

I was a member of the NRA from 1989 to 1994 and wrote letters and saw how much good all of that did. Then I got married and other things occupied my mind until last year when I joined GOA and started being active again.

I surely would have thought that something could have been repealed in those 10 years. For example - how about changing that wording in the 1968 GCA from "sporting purposes" to "lawful purposes"? That doesnt seem that hard. Or how about removing the provision from 1986 about new civilian machine gun registrations?

Instead we have had EO's by our Presidents banning imports, Rulings by the ATF on DD's, and laws passed by congress so I cant get a pistol or rifle based on how it looks AND I have that brady law nonsense. If there is something I am missing here, please point me to it. And I am not being a smart ass, when I say that. I am mostly working off memory here and may have missed something good!

 

[flatrock]

I don't think we'll be seeing a new AWB in the next few years, it's going to be a long fight to prevent more bad gun laws like the AWB and to attempt to remove other laws currently in place. However, the tide has turned in much of the country, and people are currently paying more attention to the gun laws and learning what they are about.

If we can get people to stop and think about the issue of gun control rather than reacting emotionally with fear, then I think we'll be able to continue to weaken the restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I get so steamed when I read or hear gun owners predicting nothing but gloom and doom.

I can't help it! From my understanding the sunsetting of the AWB will be the first time we've ever really had any gun rights restored on the federal level. There was the 86 gun owners protection act that gave us back mail order ammo, but we had to give up registered new machine guns to get it.

I just want to feel reasonably assured that I'll be able to keep any rifles I acquire with evil features.

I believe this would exempt pre-1934 owners from any action (but not subsequent owners of the pre-1934 weapons).

So that means if there are people who owned the gun prior to 1934 and they've kept it all this time, they are still legal w/o any taxes, registration, paperwork, etc. The proof is just in the fact that the gun and owner is old enough and says he had it pre-1934. I guess that would be a "grandfather clause", but then I guess the gun suddenly becomes an unregistered, illegal machine gun once the owner dies.

 

[hillbilly]

Did any of you guys see this thread?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92649


Now is not the time to get all pessimistic.

Our side has only begun to fight effectively..........

Now is the time to redouble our efforts.

Take courage! And fight the good fight!

hillbilly

 

[Double Maduro]

I believe the '34 law was a $200 tax on machine guns, silencers, sawed off shotguns etc. It had to be paid every time the object was sold. You also needed the tax stamp to take the object across state lines.

In '68 they passed another law that said all of these things and more had to be registered. No more machine guns could be made and many could no longer be imported. There was a grace period where you could register after that, even if you are willing to pay the tax you are not allowed to.

If I am mistaken in any of this, please tell me.

DM

 

[Sam Adams]

Double Maduro

I'm not a firearms lawyer or an expert in the '34 NFA, BUT...

The $200 tax applies to full auto guns and silencers. There's a $5 tax for short-barreled shotguns (and I believe that Serbu sells a bunch of these).

In '68 the gubmint got very concerned about guns (for our own good, don't ya know - they hadn't yet gotten to "its fer da chillun"). They gave amnesty to anyone who hadn't yet registered a gun or silencer under the '34 NFA, but didn't give people much time to comply. Further, there was GREAT suspicion about the government's motives, so relatively few guns were registered. Any guns not registered by that time are deemed to be illegal, so if someone who doesn't like you catches you with one, be prepared to spend a lot of money on a lawyer prior to going to jail - if, that is, the JBTs don't execute you at the same time as they're executing a no-knock warrant.

The '68 actions did NOT prohibit the manufacture of new machine guns; I don't even think that the importation of new guns was prohibited, since a range near me has a full-auto MP-5 that the guy acquired around 1982 (and he's NOT a Class 3 dealer). The '86 FOPA is what banned the registration (i.e. manufacture) of new full autos for the civilian market. Naturally, the armed forces and cops can get whatever they want - just us lowly citizens had our rights curtailed. You can still get any pre-'86 full auto you want, as long as you have a very fat bank account.

 

[armoredman]

Yeah, I remember MAC 10s for $300 or less, plus your $200 tax. Now, MACS are $1500 in sad shape....

 

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I know some states (like California) have had a "turn it in" law

- Actually we've never had a strict "turn it in" law. For the two main laws in the Cali PC are from ‘89 and '00. Both basically said the same thing; if you were the legal owner in possession of the firearm before the date the law went into effect and were a legal state resident before the law went into effect, you had to ‘register’ it with the state DOJ, but you could keep it.

The only real ‘turn it in’ law was when the DOJ re-classified the SKS with a detachable magazine as an ‘assault weapon’ under the ’89 Roberti-Roos bill. Those rifles had to be disposed of by turning in to the PD or disposed of out of state.

I’m pretty darn sure that’s correct.

 

[Cortland]

The '68 actions did NOT prohibit the manufacture of new machine guns; I don't even think that the importation of new guns was prohibited, since a range near me has a full-auto MP-5 that the guy acquired around 1982 (and he's NOT a Class 3 dealer).

Importation of all machine guns for civilian consumption was banned in 1968. The foreign made full-autos from 1968-1986 were imported as semi-autos and then coverted to full-auto domestically.

 

[Cortland]

There's a $5 tax for short-barreled shotguns (and I believe that Serbu sells a bunch of these).

The tax on short barreled shotguns is $200. However, a short barreled shotgun with a pistol grip is considered an AOW and charged a $5 transfer fee. If it had a stock it would be $200. Right?

 

[Don of Kalifornia]

The SKS's that were added to Roberti-Roos were bought back buy the state at about the same price they sold for. The SKS that was banned was both a 16'' barrel with a detachable mag, or detachable mag kit installed. Many people just changed their SKS back to fixed mags, and never sold them to the state.

Now the closest California came to a gun confiscation was in 1999 Bill Lock-u-up the AG was going to quietly go to Roberti-Roos registered weapons that the old AG had let people register after the final date of the Robert-Roos registraion (such as you moved in to Kalif. with a Roberti-Roos weapon, or found out about it late). HCI sued the state/AG for leetting the registration go on after the date in the Roberti-roos bill and won, in 1999, this set Lock-u-up with the idea to confiscate these weapons. Some of us got tipped about this from the people in the DOJ, and got the story out on some talk shows. A week or two after this Lock-u-up backed down on his gun confiscation scheme.