What happens when a ban is imposed...

[Thefabulousfink]

I don't think Bush will sign any anti-gun bill.

Like McCain said last night on Fox News ( I know what we all think of McCain ), this election has shown that America doesn't want the Neo Cons, if the Republicans are to survive in '08 then they need to get back to their conservative values. If we push the republican party to move more conservative then the party heads will tell bush to veto any anti-gun bills because it will hamstring any chances conservative Reps have in '08.

 

[Soybomb]

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.

Why do you think its either grandfather, pay, or door to door? The easiest way to do it is to just make them illegal and not do any of the above. You have 30 days to get rid of them. If you keep them and take them out in public you'll get caught. Thats the way it was written when proposed in IL.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

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

Yes, and that is pretty much law of the land when we are talking about exercise of police powers traditionally. I think you could see a different result when you start talking several million cases though.

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

1. That applies only to SKS rifles that were registered during the "extended" amnesty period that was later unextended due to a VPC lawsuit and change in government.

2. There is a big difference in scale between that example and what we are talking about and even that example has spurred its share of legal costs and problems.

And the planning for defeat continues unabated...

Recognizing a threat is the first step to avoiding defeat. People here are apparently under the delusional belief that there is no increased threat to their Second Amendment rights in the future.

1. Bush will sign any antigun legislation that gets to him.

Bush will not sign any anti-gun legislation that gets to him; but he has said he will sign a renewal of the AWB if it reaches his desk and he has not vetoed a single bill in six years. If we are counting on Bush vetoing legislation as our main line of defense, we are in a bad way (this applies to your second point as well).

I am not saying that all is lost so give up now. What I am saying is that we are going to see floor votes on anti-gun legislation next session and we should start preparing for that now. If you are thinking that the Democrats aren't going to pay any attention to this issue, then you haven't been paying attention to how badly the Dems have stacked the relevant committees and leadership with anti-gun Dems.

 

[Thefabulousfink]

And I am not saying that Pelosi wont be able to call a vote on any anti-gun bill in the house, but a new AWB made law by the end of 2007 is wishful think on the Brady's part.

There will be threats to gun ownership in the next few years, there allways are. However, gun owners are not defenseless in the House and Senate. I am not saying that we can relax out guard, but it's not time for chicken little to go yell "the sky is falling" just yet.

 

[GEM]

While paranoia is rampant, one might look to the Canadian example. After a tremendous amount of money was spent - their scheme was a failure.

A legislative move to register and/or confiscate guns across the whole country - not the unique weirdness of CA, MA or NY would costs zillions and probably flop due to passive resistance. The federal resources to enforce such a confiscatory set of laws don't exist.

Given the 50/50 nature of the country and given that this vote was really a Bush/Iraq stinko vote for the most part, some of you need to calm down.

Bush didn't push lots of progun stuff as his advisers just did enough to get the RKBA vote. Very ruthless. The same kind of calculus might keep Democratic leaders from unleashing a large progun vote by trying to pass truly confiscatory laws.

However, it is more fun to RANT AND PANIC!

 

[Colt]

Many thanks to those who provided lucid answers to my simple questions.

 

[Zedicus]

In direct answer to the topic title.

What happens when a ban is imposed...

A LOT of Shooting & dead idiots who try to enforce said ban by confinscations.
(At least by those who actualy value thier freedoms and are willing to fight to keep them)

 

[History Prof]

he has not vetoed a single bill in six years

Not quite true. I forget the issue, but he vetoed a bill a month or two ago. Since he hadn't until that time vetoed a single bill, it made big news.....

Unfortunately, I believe he will sign "reasonable" gun control legislation. More unfortunately, "reasonable" will be in the eyes of the Brady bunch, not in the eyes of gun owners.

ETA: It was a bill on stem cell research, July 19, 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071900524.html

 

[DonP]

In Illinois ...

The proposed Daley/Blago AWB is absolute.

No grandfathering of existing rifles, no compensation, just a mandatory "turn in" by a tbd legislated deadline. Les Baer, Springfield Armory, Model 1 Sales and all the rest of the gun manufacturers and assemblers will have to leave the state and take their jobs and tax revenues with them.

Now that our "as yet to be indicted" governor has been re-elected, and there is not a single Republican, Libertarian or Green in ANY state wide office, the rest of you can watch and see what happens to gun owners in a liberal Democrat run paradise...and wait your turn.

Our only hope is that some of the downstate Dems will step in and say no, but even they are outnumbered by their Chicago and suburban kindred.

 

[goalie]

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

Not really a good example, as the people in California had other (free) states that they could move to instead of dealing with California's BS.

They were not backed into a corner.

Even a mouse, knowing it cannot win, will bite at the cat when cornered and attacked.

 

[Bruce H]

Anybody elected who swears to preserve, protect, and defend that gets crossways of shall not be infringed deserves whatever happens to them.

 

[SoCalShooter]

What AR? your silly I dont have an AR that is a paperwork mistake it should say donut.

They dont want to grandfather them we are getting closer to a police state, my stuff is um....gonna go poof.

BTW are any Texans willing to break off again, we could definetly be successful this time. Remember Texas still retains the right to be her own country.

 

[Stauffenberg]

This is all a little alarmist, but let's be careful about how much faith we put in Mr. Bush. He's beholden to a hostile congress to fund an expensive war in Iraq, which is a lot more important to him than assault weapons. Also, some would argue that those 5000 warrantless wiretaps constitute 5000 felony counts of violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Be a damn shame if the congress suddenly decided to look into that, eh?

Bush isn't licked, but he's not invincible either. And there's no way he'll go down in flames over our guns, gang.

The best thing we can do is make them fight for every inch. The Dems have a lot to lose by tussling with the 2nd amendment, and a lot to gain in 2008 by not alienating voters. Make it clear we won't give them any easy victories, and I doubt they'll push too hard.

 

[vmfrantz]

If the day comes when the confiscate rifles etc. I hope we all unite and give them muzzle first.

 

[vmfrantz]

If the great state of Texas breaks off, make way I'm com'n down

 

[Mulliga]

I'm really worried...

the next AWB (and you can bet there will be one, and it'll include .50BMG) won't have a 10 year sunset.

Is there any pro-gun Senator that would be willing to filibuster such a thing? Or would it even matter?

 

[lionking]

I see alot of venting going on ,was gonna stay away from posting but after reading so much doom & gloom assumptions I gotta say we should not go off the deep end yet.

So Im already reading the replies "from my cold hands they will take my gun" and "what gun sir?".....ugh,the one you posted in your favorite "post your favorite shtf rifle you own!" thread.

The Dems want power,its all about power.And yes the anti gun crowd are in their camp but its also a power losing cause for them.

I also doubt they will try to pass any ban any time soon...at least I hope.It would be political suicide for them to do so.And to pass a all out confiscation?That would be beyond political suicide...

 

[CypherNinja]

However, it is more fun to RANT AND PANIC!

How else am I supposed to lose weight?

 

[Hanzo581]

I am all for hiding weapons that are deemed to be confiscated, but really come on now, people are talking about killing the people that are sent to get their guns, talk like that makes people who are not normally anti turn that way

 

[MachIVshooter]

people are talking about killing the people that are sent to get their guns, talk like that makes people who are not normally anti turn that way

People who talk like that on an open public forum are fools. Think the fed's don't monitor gun boards? Make such intentions known, and they'll make sure you never get a shot off when the grabbing commences.

 

[thexrayboy]

There is a lot "from my cold dead hands" talk. The question is how much of it
is keyboard bravado. If they do come for your guns they won't drive up to the house, slam the car door and walk up to the door bell and ring it.
They will come at 4am in large numbers and overwhelming force. It will not likely be a standoff with each sides trading potshots and the media showing up to televise anyones side of the story. At best you will have 1-2 minutes of warning if you have hardened your abode against invasion. You will be facing heavily armed and armored persons who will assume you are armed.
If you are lucky you can take 1 or 2 of them down with you but down you will go.

I have no problem with that if thats the card fate deals. The real problem is
the media will not be given any facts that will lead other like minded individuals to act the same way. There will be no groundswell of support for
the citizen sacrifice against the jackbooted thugs siezing his weapons and violating his rights. No one will know because it will not be made public.

Bravado is one thing. Dying to inspire the masses to take up arms in revolt is
romantic. The reality is likely to be much more mundane and anonymous.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Ok, two things:

1) I think the next assault weapons ban would be a modified version of Canada's ban. All AW owners grandfathered and only able to trade with e/o, guns destroyed upon your death. I also think that the .50bmgs will go NFA which keeps them "legal" but out of blue states (well, pre-nov. 6 anyway- damn election results!).

2) Realistically, I don't think #1 will occur at all, because the gun companies would lose massive profits from civillian sales and risk going bankrupt. They could also say, "we're not producing for police anymore" alla Barrett Arms to California. That'd stick it to those NYC bastards. You'd have NY's finest running around with K98 Mausers and enfield revolvers.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I also think that the .50bmgs will go NFA which keeps them "legal" but out of blue states

Doubt it. Making a weapn a class III is a whole diffferent animal.

Realistically, I don't think #1 will occur at all, because the gun companies would lose massive profits from civillian sales and risk going bankrupt. They could also say, "we're not producing for police anymore" alla Barrett Arms to California.

The gunmakers have no say in the matter, and the anti's would absolutely love to bankrupt them. They'll find a company to make LE weapons. Companies like HK and Colt have openly stated that they'd rather sell to LE exclusively. If you believe that most gun companies are idealistic and principled like Barrett, you're going to be disappointed. They're about $$$. If they can make the same amount of money w/o civilian sales, they'll do it. Less liability.