What happens when a ban is imposed...

[Colt]

What happens if a ban is put in place on something you already own?

Say, for instance, you own an AR which is later banned by new AWB-type legislation. Do you have to turn in your AR? Are you compensated monetarily?

Is it the same for regular capacity mags, etc?

I'm seeing allot of "buy your AR and mags now" thinking, but what happens when they're banned?

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

With the AWB, they were all grandfathered. That's why the word pre-ban was so important.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Impossible to say because it depends entirely on how the legislation is written. Some of the current bans proposed by the Brady Bunch outlaw the transfer of currently owned firearms and restrict any new sales from happening after the enactment date. So you could keep what you already own but couldn't sell it or give it to your heirs.

 

[progunner1957]

So you could keep what you already own

Not necessairily.

Brady II which was written back in 1994 is the model the leftist/socialist antigun forces will use for future legislation they want to enact. In Brady II, there were no grandfather provisions.

Without grandfather provisions, what you will have is gun confiscation. There's no way around that.

 

[springmom]

Mags????? What mags?????

AR-15?????? Don't know what you're talking about.....

Springmom

 

[A. Patriot]

It will be like the Clinton administration all over again.

Large diameter PVC pipe will be in great demand. The screw-on end caps will become scarce.

But look on the bright side. Patriotic citizens will now arm or re-arm and buy large quantities of guns and ammo. This is a good thing.

I haven't bought a whole case of 7.62 X 39 since the late 1990's.

 

[Zundfolge]

Without grandfather provisions, what you will have is gun confiscation. There's no way around that.

Lets hope that our new Democrat masters aren't so full of hubris that they don't realize that such a thing would cause widespread violence.

I ain't holding my breath.


I hope you GOP bashers and NRA bashers are happy with yourselves.

 

[AndyC]

Question - I bought an FAL-receiver which is being stored at my local FFL until my permanent-residence is approved. Does that count as owning it in the sense of being "pre-ban", or only once the receiver hits my hot little hands?

 

[buzz_knox]

If they declare the item in question to be a nuisance or make possession criminal, you either turn it in or go to jail.

 

[outofbattery]

A couple stores in MA keep their current stock of used guns listed online.I'm watching to see how many EBR's are still for sale at the end of the week.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Brady II which was written back in 1994 is the model the leftist/socialist antigun forces will use for future legislation they want to enact. In Brady II, there were no grandfather provisions.

Considering the massive political and judicial headaches that would be caused by a taking on that level, I am extremely skeptical that they would try it. You can be as anti-gun as you like; but you aren't going to want to bite into that apple.

Question - I bought an FAL-receiver which is being stored at my local FFL until my permanent-residence is approved. Does that count as owning it in the sense of being "pre-ban", or only once the receiver hits my hot little hands?

This would depend on the legislation or on the ATF. The last 1994 ban left that decision up to the ATF. The ATF interpreted it to mean that unless you had a full functioning firearm complete with banned features as of the date of enactment, the receiver would not be counted as "pre-ban." Also, the 1994 legislation was written so that the burden of proof that a rifle was pre-ban was on the owner - meaning you have to be able to prove it.

I would guess that any future ban would be likely to use a definition that is at least that strict.

 

[armedpolak]

you go into the local woods with all your goodies. dig a "grave", burry it, and never tell anyone about it. and when the times are right, you dig it out and start shooting the communists and hippies.

read this: http://www.bradycampaign.org/
they have an update there.

 

[DKSuddeth]

screw burying weapons. come and get them.

confiscation means going out with a bang.

 

[AndyC]

This would depend on the legislation or on the ATF. The last 1994 ban left that decision up to the ATF. The ATF interpreted it to mean that unless you had a full functioning firearm complete with banned features as of the date of enactment, the receiver would not be counted as "pre-ban." Also, the 1994 legislation was written so that the burden of proof that a rifle was pre-ban was on the owner - meaning you have to be able to prove it.

I would guess that any future ban would be likely to use a definition that is at least that strict.

Thanks, Bartholomew - I guess I'll have to wait and see

 

[buzz_knox]

Considering the massive political and judicial headaches that would be caused by a taking on that level, I am extremely skeptical that they would try it.

Declare something as criminal to possess, and it is no longer a taking. Simply offer an amnesty for turn ins, and then prosecute those you catch later. That's what happened when drug laws were passed, and with the NFA of 1934.

The 5th Amendment doesn't cover items declared illegal to possess.

 

[ArmedBear]

Some of the current bans proposed by the Brady Bunch outlaw the transfer of currently owned firearms and restrict any new sales from happening after the enactment date. So you could keep what you already own but couldn't sell it or give it to your heirs.

That's how it is right now in California, and in addition, any currently-owned firearms must be registered with the state, so they can take them whenever they change their minds about what's OK to own. And there are additional restrictions on transportation and use -- you can't use that registered AR for hunting, for example.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Declare something as criminal to possess, and it is no longer a taking.

I think a good argument could be made the other way. How is declaring legally owned private property with substantial value any different from any other regulatory taking?

However, back to the relevant point - there are practical, political, and all kinds of other barriers to passing such legislation that non even the most strident anti-gun advocate wants to face right now.

 

[ArmedBear]

How is declaring legally owned private property with substantial value any different from any other regulatory taking?

It's not what common sense says, it's what the Senile Court of the US declares.

 

[buzz_knox]

How is declaring legally owned private property with substantial value any different from any other regulatory taking?

Because property whose possession is declared criminal is no longer legally owned.

 

[MachIVshooter]

If they declare the item in question to be a nuisance or make possession criminal, you either turn it in or go to jail.

There is a third option, however unappealing.

I very seriously doubt we'll see any type of legislation that would require full on registration or confiscation in the near future.

What we will see are such "common sense" barf: ) gun laws as "one-gun-a-month".

They'll start with the ones that don't appear to violate 2A to the general pubilc. It is fairly easy for them to make the argument that no one needs dozens of guns or thousands of rounds.

I smell a new AWB on the horizon, but it's not gonna happen right away. I suspect they'l wait until '08 on the hard-core stuff. They remember 1994 and know that a frontal assault on the 2nd is costly.

However, I suspect that if they smell loosing in '08, they will push hard.

We just need to keep an eye on pending legislation and really work hard at making sure the left doesn't get their wet dream in '08. Having dem's control both Congress and the White House in '08 would be tragic for gun owners.

 

[scout26]

Here in Illinois HB2414 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/94/HB/PDF/09400HB2414lv.pdf is our version of the Feinstein "Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in" bill.

Outlaws possession, requires them either to be destroyed or turned in.

Fun read. I never knew there was a nexus between International Drug Cartels, Religious Cults and Outlaw Biker Gangs when it came to the .50 BMG. (See page 2 of the above bill for a several laughs.)

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Well lets see.....

Grandfather clause: Part of what made AWB I such a failure (in the Bradys' eyes). Anything that is owned is safe, they may try and restrict selling to other people though. If the Bradyites get their way, AWB II will have no grandfather clause (or a very limited one).

Compensation: The Gov will pay (much less than market value) for evey gun confiscated. Even with reduced prices, it will cost the Gov Billions so it is not really an option.

Confiscation: The Gov declares guns illegal and goes around and gathers them up. This is what the Bradyites want, but is probably the least likely. Apart from the trouble all the gun owners will cause, most Americans (while having no problem banning "Assualt Weapons") will have a BIG PROBLEM with the Gov taking legally owned property w/o compensation. This would be recipe for a civil war.


If there is another AWB it will most likely have a Grandfather Clause because it would be too expensive to buy all the guns, and to dangerous to confiscate them.

The strategy is to reduce gun owners to such a small % of the population that they can afford to buy back the gun, or that the rest of the country doesn't care about them.

 

[Deanimator]

And the planning for defeat continues unabated...

 

[buzz_knox]

Apart from the trouble all the gun owners will cause, most Americans (while having no problem banning "Assualt Weapons") will have a BIG PROBLEM with the Gov taking legally owned property w/o compensation. This would be recipe for a civil war.

Yup, just like the war raging in California where legally owned weapons were declared illegal, and are being rounded up.

 

[GEM]

So you all think that;

1. Bush will sign any antigun legislation that gets to him.
2. There is not a veto proof majority in the Senate, so you all think that the remaining GOP senators will go along with a new set of antigun bills to override any veto.

Rather hysterical, aren't we today!!