Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/25/2017 7:35:25 PM
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/3/2001 4:53:50 AM EDT
If you own an AR and they change the laws again (which I'm sure they will), can they take our ARs? Or would we be grandfathered? How did they do it in California? Thanks.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 4:58:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 4:57:30 AM EDT by hg112]
then a post ban would be a pre-ban, a pre ban would be a pre-post-ban, and new ARs (if there are any) would be post-post-ban
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:04:49 AM EDT
hg- you must work for the gov with that kind of speak
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:05:22 AM EDT
I think the first step will be registration like in CA. Then they will decide when to outlaw private ownership alltogether, require them to be turned in or face heavy penalties. Then if a good citizen finds out you still have one, they turn you in. Then the jackboots and goons come to your house and collect them.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:07:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:08:54 AM EDT
Would we be paid for our guns?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:11:36 AM EDT
this is years away... they still have tons of brain-dead legislation to beat us down with before that day comes.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:17:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 5:16:23 AM EDT by shaggy]
Geoff - Its all about the Takings Clause. If a statute said you must turn them in, yes, you'd have to be paid, and you could contest it in federal court if you didn't like what they were offering. That however only applies if you can only turn them in, and there's no wayto keep or sell them on your own. If you can keep them by some sort of registration, even in another state, or sell them to another state's residents, they don't have to pay. On the state level, states like CA get away with their ban because (as I understand it) they allow you to keep them if you properly registered them in time, or keep them in an out of (CA) state location. Thus you are not deprived of all use and interest in your property.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:19:43 AM EDT
It is not a matter of "letting" them take them. If the goons show up they will get them. They will come if far greater numbers than you may think. If the time comes, many will exchange shots with them. But remember, there will be an armed gang with automatic weapons, and surplus APC's with reinforcemnts available to no end that show up. Some will cave and give up their weapons, some will die and be called "subversive" gun nuts by the media. The public will support the goonsquads fully. The country is a majority of idiots that belive their government has their best interest in mind. Make no mistake, they will get them if they want to if they find out who has them.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:25:23 AM EDT
It always seemed to me that if they're going to confiscate any class of weapon, they'll first go for the registered Class III firearms. Aren't these the most scary? I mean, who really needs a full-auto 50 cal machine gun? Besides me.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:27:21 AM EDT
For Kalifornians that registered their evil AR-15s, they NO LONGER OWN THE WEAPONS. They are allowed to use them until they die, then the STATE takes possession. Okay, they sort of own them since they can take them out of state or sell them out of state right now, but since they can't leave them in their estate, I'd say that Kali owns the weapon.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:27:31 AM EDT
There is no law in Mass requiring the turning in of inoperable guns, so there is no way of proving that my guns weren't ruined in a flood and destroyed and disposed of by me.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:37:16 AM EDT
For Kalifornians that registered their evil AR-15s, they NO LONGER OWN THE WEAPONS. They are allowed to use them until they die, then the STATE takes possession. Okay, they sort of own them since they can take them out of state or sell them out of state right now, but since they can't leave them in their estate, I'd say that Kali owns the weapon.
View Quote
I haven't read the CA law, but I doubt thats correct. The guns would probably go to the estate of the decedent (the dead guy), but the estate could not then transfer them to an heir who was a CA resident. The estate could however, transfer them out of state. Thus an heir in CA could have the guns, albeit out of state, or have the estate sell the guns outside of CA so the heir could take the value of the guns gained by the sale. Of course, if the heir wasn't a CA resident, the estate could simply transfer them out of state to the heir.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:46:02 AM EDT
"How did they do it in Californai?" There have not beeen any gun confiscations in California. There was an SKS-D by back though. We can still own AR's. I own several.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 5:48:09 AM EDT
There was no SKS buy-back The State didn't sell the guns, so they can't "buy them back", now can they? Kali fooled SKS owners into registering in an extended registration period, then the new AG said "sorry suckers, that wasn't legal. Turn'em in".
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 6:25:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 6:36:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By shaggy:
For Kalifornians that registered their evil AR-15s, they NO LONGER OWN THE WEAPONS. They are allowed to use them until they die, then the STATE takes possession. Okay, they sort of own them since they can take them out of state or sell them out of state right now, but since they can't leave them in their estate, I'd say that Kali owns the weapon.
View Quote
I haven't read the CA law, but I doubt thats correct. The guns would probably go to the estate of the decedent (the dead guy), but the estate could not then transfer them to an heir who was a CA resident. The estate could however, transfer them out of state. Thus an heir in CA could have the guns, albeit out of state, or have the estate sell the guns outside of CA so the heir could take the value of the guns gained by the sale. Of course, if the heir wasn't a CA resident, the estate could simply transfer them out of state to the heir.
View Quote
Actually the Estate has a very short time limit with which to dispose of the AR15. After which the State does indeed take posession.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 6:45:01 AM EDT
Actually shaggy I wouldn't count on much help from the "takings clause." The government will rule (as it has already) that this applies to taking of only significant property, such as real property (real estate). Then the government will rule that taking an AR or AK is "de minimis" and significantly related to an important government purpose (public safety, "for the children"), thus the government's interest in taking it outweighs the AR owner's interest in keeping it. "We the people" indeed! Who voted for these traitorous idiots?
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:28:07 AM EDT
If the state wants'em, the state will be more than happy to take them from you're cold,dead,"domestic terrorist-We think there's a meth lab-please send military advisors and equipment-you're a child molester/racist/taxevader/drug lord/mobster/prostitute" hands.The cops won't turn on law abiding citizens, but you won't be one.You'll be some nut with an instrument of destruction that didn't comply with some legislation. Good Luck.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:39:15 AM EDT
I dont think teey will come and take guns away they will stop the sale of ammo ....
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:56:52 AM EDT
The really dangerous "survivalist-types" will have ammo caches (1000 rounds of high velocity assault rifle ammo= 2 bricks of .22's) or ,even more maniacal, the capablity to manufacture (reload) ammo. Most folks I know have plenty of "just in case" ammo.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 8:57:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 9:03:34 AM EDT
I think there's too many of, for want of a better phrase, 'US', for the gubmint to try an all-out assault on the owners of these types of weapons. Without a 'national registration list' of gun-owners and their weapons, just think how many 'accidents' would occur when the SWAT team goes into a house where some 4473 Form showed that an AR-15 and its owner [u]once[/u] resided, only to find the guy's widow, who says she gave it to a nephew, who later sold it at a gun show, to whom he can't remember. It wouldn't take too many of such 'accidents' to cause a general revulsion of the American public against these 'accidents.' If there's no general revulsion by the public, however, then I suppose it's a good day to die. Remember to vote correctly from now on. Do not fritter away your vote on making a statement, teaching the GOP a lesson, or whatever. Learn from your enemies! The Democrats have made an artform out of voting as a bloc. The one time they didn't - Nader in 2000 - they lost the election. There won't be a second time! 'Sorry Ralph, but last time we voted for you and got Bush.' The Bush Administration is [b]not[/b] going to be introducing any new gun control measures, but due to the razor thin margins in both Houses, it may be that 'compromises must be made', etc., etc., [u]ad[/u] [u]nauseum[/u]. Eric The Hun
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 9:19:19 AM EDT
Actually shaggy I wouldn't count on much help from the "takings clause." The government will rule (as it has already) that this applies to taking of only significant property, such as real property (real estate). Then the government will rule that taking an AR or AK is "de minimis" and significantly related to an important government purpose (public safety, "for the children"), thus the government's interest in taking it outweighs the AR owner's interest in keeping it.
View Quote
I am not aware of any ruling which states a taking does not need to be compensated if the property in question is not real estate or "significant" property. Can you cite a case? Certainly, there can be de minimis intrusions on property which do not amount to a taking, but that is not the issue here. Where a property owner (regardless of the type of property, personalty or realty) is deprived of all use and financial benefit of their property they are entitled to just compensation. And although the level of scrutiny may not be very high for the gov't to start an action which will amount to a taking, the level of scrutiny is basicly irrelevant to the issue of compensation and does not relieve the gov't of the duty to compensate for any taking. It seems to me that if anything, the Court has been more willing to recognize property rights and stretch the meaning of 'property rights' in recent years with respect to governmental takings. As I recall, there have been cases recognizing some types of jobs and even entitlement programs as property within the scope of the takings clause.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 9:46:37 AM EDT
the government can take anything they want from you! all they have to do is fuck you over on your land taxes oop's you forgot to pay, we can sieze your property but thats pretty much of an extreme. has for the AR seems to me the law stood in the way for california people! i mean they banned the sale of new AR's but they could not legally take away the existing ownership of them! i really thank GOD that i don't live there but who's to say in the near future it would not spread? wait and see i guess; alway's remember this anything you own can be siezed at any time you have to fight in court to get your shit back. but ether way the Gov is making money of of your's and mine's blood.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:02:37 AM EDT
A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:14:09 AM EDT
They can do whatever they want and we'll let them.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 11:35:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/3/2001 11:35:29 AM EDT by AR_Rifle]
Sure, they can take it away anytime they want to. "BUT" they can't do that if they can't catch you.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 1:12:57 PM EDT
Well shaggy I probably *could* cite a case but I don't have my Emanuel's Con Law outline with me at work. That's just what I remember from the hazy days of Con Law about eight years ago. "Takings" don't apply to itty-bitty things, like your guns. Much like losing your guns because of some misdemeanor domestic violence conviction apparently, in the opinion of our government, is not an infringement of any significant rights.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 2:05:55 PM EDT
Chairborne - I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I'll see what I can find to the contrary of my own opinion, but if you can find a case, I'd really like to see it. As for the domestic violence misdemeanor; there is no taking. The owner still has a financial interest in those guns and can still dispose of his weapons to a legal purchaser - though the sale and disposition would probably have to be arranged through the local PD who took possession of the guns at the time of the DV violation. I've done this before myself. A customer came in after having his collection (an AR15 and a Glock) confiscated during a domestic call. We went to the PD, he signed over all interest in the guns to me, the desk sargeant turned the guns over to me to sell for the guy. He could no longer possess the guns himself, and I certainly couldn't transfer the guns back to him, but he got his money out of the guns.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 2:12:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 3:16:50 PM EDT
Can they take away my AR15?
View Quote
Legally; yes.
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 3:39:16 PM EDT
The question should be: "What are you going to do when they try?"
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 3:58:51 PM EDT
geoff the up coming house has a bill to outlaw the sale not ownership of so called assault weapons also they are looking to pass the buy one gun per month bill at the same time watch out here we go vote-- call!!!!! vote-- call!!! remmeber they are only trying to help [}:(]
Link Posted: 5/3/2001 4:14:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GeoffM24: If you own an AR and they change the laws again (which I'm sure they will), can they take our ARs?
View Quote
Question is are you gonna let em? They will keep changing laws until the laws give them what they want unless we keep our vote going in the right direction. You and you alone must decide whether you will bow to them and give yours up. [sniper] The Sniper
Top Top