Should those of us in free states sell our former prebans to .... - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should those of us in free states sell our former prebans to .... (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/16/2004 6:43:38 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
I don't own any pre-bans. If I did, I'd be making arrangements with someone in one of the "resricted" areas for an after the sunset sale. I'd do this regardless of what I originally paid for the rifle/lower. All I'd want is a replacement lower of equal quality. If I paid $900 for a pre-ban lower two years ago, after the sunset it will be worth less than a brand new lower (collctibles no included ). Therefore, I can't justify charging someone more than a replacement cost.

I'm doing this for someone. Not to pat myself on the back, but I paid more than $900 for the thing, and I'm simply asking for a new lower in return. I'd want someone to do it for me.

QS

Posted: 8/16/2004 6:52:53 AM EDT

[#2]

I have some preban (pre 89 ban) Hungarian AK's, I got them dirt cheap a couple of years ago, when they were going for nearly $1400, I realize that they are not worth anywhere near that now, and in a month when there will be plenty of US made AK's configured similarly on the market they will be worth maby $500 a piece (for anybody who is not familiar with them the Hungarians are very nice), which is only slightly more than the thumbhole versions of the same rifle are going for, and that is fine by me. I may even be willing to trade one of them for the cash to buy a nice no ban, but I really like these guns and would have a hard time parting with them.

There are plenty of idiots, I was in yet another local gun store this weekend, and sure enough the gu behind the counter gave me the same old shit. Yep that 922r compliant MAK90 is really worth $695, (it had really nice wood and looked like new, but daaaamn), because it is a preban and with the ban about to be renewed, you can never get an AK again, and this was in a large store in a city, where they know the truth, but prefer to do what they can to keep prices high.

I remeber just a few years ago, right here on this forum, many people who preached the gospel of the ban, how it would never end, and that paying two grand for a preban was an investment, just like NFA registered MG's. I think that there are a lot of guys right here who are living in denial that they made some stupid descisions regarding how much to pay for thier rifles. The way I saw it then, was that the premium was not worth it, there is no way an Olympic recievered kit gun was worth $1500 bucks, but many were paying it, a couple of years ago you could sell all of the preban Oly's you could get your hands on for $600 a pop, in four weeks those $600 dollar recievers won't be worth a hundred, sorry, to bad, so sad.

Posted: 8/16/2004 7:00:40 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
If a new ban comes down that is retroactive to 94 (and is passed after 9/13/04), we're in a lot more trouble than just not having bayonet lugs and flash hiders. All it takes is one minute of the AWB being expired and we all have new prebans (you did drive over to your buddy's and pick up your stash of flash hiders, bayonet lugs and telestocks at midnight, right?) that cannot be taken away. A law cannot be retroactive and survive court review, it would be struck down for ex post facto, which any new law passed after 9/13/04 and made applicable to all guns made after 94 would be.

I agree with you that this would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. However, there is a bill before the house with 111 cosponsors and a sister bill before the Senate with 14 cosponsors that would make it illeagal to own a post ban. The bill is HR2038/S1431. They narrow the definition of an assault weapon to include post-bans, and make the cut-off date for the grandfather clause 9/13/1994. I ran this by the GOA, and they confirmed that this would be an result in a "turn in your post-bans" restriction.

I a pessimistic that SCOTUS would reverse the law if passed.

Posted: 8/16/2004 7:44:26 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If a new ban comes down that is retroactive to 94 (and is passed after 9/13/04), we're in a lot more trouble than just not having bayonet lugs and flash hiders. All it takes is one minute of the AWB being expired and we all have new prebans (you did drive over to your buddy's and pick up your stash of flash hiders, bayonet lugs and telestocks at midnight, right?) that cannot be taken away. A law cannot be retroactive and survive court review, it would be struck down for ex post facto, which any new law passed after 9/13/04 and made applicable to all guns made after 94 would be.

I agree with you that this would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. However, there is a bill before the house with 111 cosponsors and a sister bill before the Senate with 14 cosponsors that would make it illeagal to own a post ban. The bill is HR2038/S1431. They narrow the definition of an assault weapon to include post-bans, and make the cut-off date for the grandfather clause 9/13/1994. I ran this by the GOA, and they confirmed that this would be an result in a "turn in your post-bans" restriction.

I a pessimistic that SCOTUS would reverse the law if passed.

Well, speaking for myself, that would be that magical line that everyone talks about.

Posted: 8/16/2004 8:21:17 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a new ban comes down that is retroactive to 94 (and is passed after 9/13/04), we're in a lot more trouble than just not having bayonet lugs and flash hiders. All it takes is one minute of the AWB being expired and we all have new prebans (you did drive over to your buddy's and pick up your stash of flash hiders, bayonet lugs and telestocks at midnight, right?) that cannot be taken away. A law cannot be retroactive and survive court review, it would be struck down for ex post facto, which any new law passed after 9/13/04 and made applicable to all guns made after 94 would be.

I agree with you that this would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. However, there is a bill before the house with 111 cosponsors and a sister bill before the Senate with 14 cosponsors that would make it illeagal to own a post ban. The bill is HR2038/S1431. They narrow the definition of an assault weapon to include post-bans, and make the cut-off date for the grandfather clause 9/13/1994. I ran this by the GOA, and they confirmed that this would be an result in a "turn in your post-bans" restriction.

I a pessimistic that SCOTUS would reverse the law if passed.

Well, speaking for myself, that would be that magical line that everyone talks about.

For me the line ends at the death of current ban, it's past time to start taking back OUR rights.

Posted: 8/16/2004 8:29:23 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Ex post facto would apply if a (new and enhanced) ban was made retroactive to 94, as they would be saying they could prosecute anyone that possessed a firearm that met their criteria even before the criteria was written. A new ban can only apply starting on the day it was signed into law, it cannot be retroactive.

You are not getting what Ex-post facto means. It means they cannot prosecute you for actions prior to the passing of the law a crime. So if they pass a new law banning AWBs on 01/20/05, it means they cannot prosecute you for your ownership of a AWB prior to this date. But if you are still in possession of one after this date, regardless of when it was made, you can be prosecuted.

* Grandpa bought a tommy gun in 1927, and it was 100% legal, he failed to register it. They cannot prosecute him for possession prior to 1934, but if he still has it today he can be prosecuted.

* I could legally drink when I was 18, now the law is 21. They cannot prosecute me for drinking when I was 18, but the day the law became 21, I had to abide.

* I have a Texas CHL. If the law goes away tomorrow, I cannot be prosecuted for carrying today, but if I continue to carry after today, I can be prosecuted.

* Can DC residents who owned AR-15s before all guns were banned in DC still own them? No, they are illegal. They cannot be prosecuted for owning them prior to the gun ban (1976 I think), but if they have them today, they can be prosecuted. Add Morton Grove (handguns) , etc. the the list of places that have already done this.

That is what ex-post facto is all about. Just because you legally own something today does not mean it will not be illegal tomorrow. Like Feinstein said, if she had the votes for Mr. & Mrs. America to turn them in, she would have. And it would be legal.

Posted: 8/16/2004 9:26:55 AM EDT

[#7]

Thank you, Renegade.

Hey Lightning! Let me know if you have a NIB Hungarian folder you "could" part with.

Posted: 8/16/2004 9:27:16 AM EDT

[#8]

Ex-post-facto.....blah blah blah.

Let me tell you guys how it will work. Gun "X" is illegal as of now. Most people quietly hang on to theirs, some get rid of theirs. One by one, they are picked up when the owners get searched for some other reason, wether legit or not. No need to confinscate, cause they already have you by the balls.

Heyy....that sounds exactly like what happened in CA.

Posted: 8/16/2004 9:36:37 AM EDT

[#9]

Yes you should. Like someine said already the guns you guys have are 10 years old why not get a brand new one and help a fellow gun owner out.
That being said I am looking for Pre-ban Bushy or Armalite lower, or complete gun.
Thanks

Posted: 8/16/2004 10:19:25 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

That is what ex-post facto is all about. Just because you legally own something today does not mean it will not be illegal tomorrow. Like Feinstein said, if she had the votes for Mr. & Mrs. America to turn them in, she would have. And it would be legal.

THANK YOU.

Posted: 8/16/2004 12:45:50 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a new ban comes down that is retroactive to 94 (and is passed after 9/13/04), we're in a lot more trouble than just not having bayonet lugs and flash hiders. All it takes is one minute of the AWB being expired and we all have new prebans (you did drive over to your buddy's and pick up your stash of flash hiders, bayonet lugs and telestocks at midnight, right?) that cannot be taken away. A law cannot be retroactive and survive court review, it would be struck down for ex post facto, which any new law passed after 9/13/04 and made applicable to all guns made after 94 would be.

I agree with you that this would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. However, there is a bill before the house with 111 cosponsors and a sister bill before the Senate with 14 cosponsors that would make it illeagal to own a post ban. The bill is HR2038/S1431. They narrow the definition of an assault weapon to include post-bans, and make the cut-off date for the grandfather clause 9/13/1994. I ran this by the GOA, and they confirmed that this would be an result in a "turn in your post-bans" restriction.

I a pessimistic that SCOTUS would reverse the law if passed.

Well, speaking for myself, that would be that magical line that everyone talks about.

For me the line ends at the death of current ban, it's past time to start taking back OUR rights.

No, not THAT line..the passive resistance to "active pinging"..so to speak.

Posted: 8/16/2004 6:02:21 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If a new ban comes down that is retroactive to 94 (and is passed after 9/13/04), we're in a lot more trouble than just not having bayonet lugs and flash hiders. All it takes is one minute of the AWB being expired and we all have new prebans (you did drive over to your buddy's and pick up your stash of flash hiders, bayonet lugs and telestocks at midnight, right?) that cannot be taken away. A law cannot be retroactive and survive court review, it would be struck down for ex post facto, which any new law passed after 9/13/04 and made applicable to all guns made after 94 would be.

I agree with you that this would be a violation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. However, there is a bill before the house with 111 cosponsors and a sister bill before the Senate with 14 cosponsors that would make it illeagal to own a post ban. The bill is HR2038/S1431. They narrow the definition of an assault weapon to include post-bans, and make the cut-off date for the grandfather clause 9/13/1994. I ran this by the GOA, and they confirmed that this would be an result in a "turn in your post-bans" restriction.

I a pessimistic that SCOTUS would reverse the law if passed.

Well, speaking for myself, that would be that magical line that everyone talks about.

For me the line ends at the death of current ban, it's past time to start taking back OUR rights.

No, not THAT line..the passive resistance to "active pinging"..so to speak.

Sorry that was the line I was speaking [not war]. IMO WE need to be more "active" in getting the crap that's on the books repealed. Take the 86 mg ban here is a BS law if ever there was one, to my knowlage the 34 NFA as been broken ONCE in it's history. So why does it still stand? how did it get pasSed? easy because the MG owning group is small and not many people know about it. And Brady knew that not many would bitch about it. [kind of like the ban on 50 BMG]. IMO it's time to get the message out to the little people that they are being BS'ed by Brady foundation. Sending letters to congressmen is great but we also need to address the masses as well.

Posted: 8/17/2004 8:47:24 AM EDT

[#13]

For those of you who would trade a brand-new "post-ban" lower/rifle for an older, used "pre-ban" lower/rifle....THANK YOU.

Since according to the law "pre" and "post" are all the same thing if you live in the right state, I applaud you for helping out fellow gun-owners.

Posted: 8/19/2004 2:50:14 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
No.

That's a bandaid to the problem.

They should work to fix the laws, or take their money and leave.

And in the mean-time...we're on our own???

Somebody wants to trade, that's their business.

The PROBLEM that I see is that any means of circumventing the bad law simply allows it to continue.

Kalifornia passed it's Assault Weapon Ban, but grandfathered anyone willing to register. So, since it's the old "I get to keep mine" bullshit, the gunowners in Kali don't have much motivation to change things.

Sure, they get to keep theirs - and when they die, nobody in Kali will get to one anymore. All those weapons get purged from the State in 1 generation. They win.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Should those of us in free states sell our former prebans to .... (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us