What if the new ban after sep. 2004 turns Horribly wrong? Is there actually a chance that they may come to confiscate our precious ARs??
If so, would the compensate us for them? I doubt it, but i think they should, since we never did anything wrong.

Amazing what you'll find elsewhere in the good old U.S. Constitution...

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [b]nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[/b]

Oh yeah, the Constitution is all important to politicians and government agencies.  What worlld have you been living in?   If the Constitution meant anything to them, there would be no bans on any type of firearm.  And yet there are.

But it isn't being taken for [b]public[/b] use.. it is being taken for private/govt demilling. (possible interpretation)

-Lee

While politicians and government agencies can be very selective about which parts of the Constitution they like to disregard, they are not the final arbiters of the meaning or the applicability of the Constitution.  It is the province of the courts to interpret the Constitution.  And while there have been relatively few recent 2nd Amendment cases, the takings clause is another story.  

Interesting take on things, but the power of emminent domain only applies to takings for public use.  That is, if not taken for public use under the power of eminent domain (and thus invoking the protections of the takings clause), its would be theft/conversion.

Sure they will compensate us. They will just increase the taxes to pay for it.

We'd have to pay them to dispose of the rifles. Afterall, they're not going to pay all those people who come knocking on your door out of the government payrolls. We will. Call it a stick it up your ass fee.  

The value of your firearms that would be seized could be deducted from you income tax.  No direct $$$ out of the Gummint coffers, and no real money in your pocket either.  Just the empty hole in your safe.  -TF

Guns? AR-15? what er you talking about? I sold all mine for a profit back in 94. Who'd I sell them to? Can't remember the names from 10 years ago! Got a warrant? [;D]

If they banned ARs outright, they would be contraband and subject to forfeiture.  Just like illegal drugs.  Whether the Fifth Amendment takings clause would require them to give gun owners a chance to turn them in exchange is something that the courts would have to decide.  I think they'd write the law so as to avoid the legal challange.

I think that if they were going to do an outright ban with no exception for legal pre-bans, they'd provide a short window when you could turn the stuff in and get your "just compensation," and after the window closed, they'd just take the stuff and throw your sorry ass in jail.

If that did happen they wouldnt come door to door they would just say if YOU dont bring them into your local police department by this date then your automaticaly a fellon .

Your assuming that someone would make it through my front door alive to take my guns in the first place.  If my guns get taken away its because I am dead, so I won't care if I am compensated.

what are the odds of the law turning to the point where they might confiscate our ARS?
I've been reading at different versions of the renewal law, and things look grim.

Specially with Bush and ashcroft both in favor of the AWB....wait! i've got to pull this knife out of my back.

If it comes to that they will empower themselves  to throw you in the slammer on one pretext or another (suspicion of terrorism for owning a banned item?) until your memory improves.
Everyone here is going to have to make a decision, hand them over like good little sheeple or open fire and take some with you.
There are other options but they require proactive engagement at the root cause, are unpopular here, and will go unstated.

Despite what a lot of people think, the chances of an outright ban and confiscation are [i]extremely[/i] low, and most likely impossible in reality.

An outright ban which would criminalize possession and require confiscation (or turning in your weapons) would deprive you of all 'economically viable use' of your property.  Generally speaking, thats the most definite trigger for compensation under the takings clause.  I'm no takings clause scholar, but the Supreme Court has shown far more deference to the 5th Amendment than the 2nd.  Even short term, temporary and non-destructive uses of an individual's property by the government have been deemed takings by the courts, requiring the payment of just compensation for the temporary use and occupation.  And while the government can certainly regulate firearms and their use under the commerce clause, the more such regulation deprives the individual of the use and economic benefit of their property, the closer it comes to a taking.  An outright ban which required destruction, turning in, or confiscation of your property would definitely be a taking and require 'just compensation'.  And that, my friend, is what will kill any Congressional effort to completely ban and confiscate.  Certainly, Uncle Sugar could well afford to pay us all for our guns, but writing such a law would require a fairly large fund to pay gun owners, create an agency or arm of the government to administer such a program, and to fight the inevitable multitude of court battles that would arise (not only challenging the law itself, but also every gun owner could go to court to dispute the amount set as 'just compensation').  Basically, it would end up as the mother of all budget battles.  Staunch pro-gun senators and representatives as well as a lot of fence-sitters could simply fight it on budgetary grounds, keeping themselves free of the political implications of the actual gun/2nd Amendment issue.

It'll never happen.

If you're still thinking it could, ask yourself, why weren't machineguns and other NFA weapons simply confiscated in '34, '68, or '86?  NFA owners are a very small minority of gun owners and even back in 1986, it would have been easy for Congress to call it a taking, pay them their money and get all those evil NFA guns off the streets...except for the inevitable budget battle which would have arisen at the first talk of a 'taking'.  NOw consider there's a lot more black rifle owners today than there was in 1986, and the prices have increased significantly.  The fact is, they knew it then, and they certainly know it now; regulation is easy to accomplish, a taking is not.

No one will come knocking on your door for it. Too dangerous, and too expensive.
What is possible is them making 'assault weapons' a Class III restricted device. Which, cannot be produced anymore, so the number of them out there is the last of the supply.
You'd see the prices climb like those of Class III origin (not suppressors or SBR which can still be made.)
They'll do as California did, and freeze the sale of these weapons within the state. Therefore, when you die, it goes to the torch unless you sell it out of state.
Aren't you glad you registered it?
Gun buy backs are the biggest scam ever. You'd take your preban colt in, and they'd toss you 600 bucks if you're lucky. Then, you're likely not to get 600 bucks in your hand, it'll be for your taxes, or in coupons to Payless.
-Steve

Nobody turn them in. Black market for sales

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES! come get some baby!

Come on guys lets not let something like this happen.  Join the NRA, write your congressman, spread the word, and TAKE ACTION.

I know it's the "in thing" around here that [b]they[/b] are coming to get you and take your firearm, but thanks for showing the more realistic other side.

That would be the most likely scenario.  That coupled with the villainizing of such weapons in media and education would eliminate the desire to own an AR, AK, or other sutoloading rifles in one or two generations.  The handful of private collectors would be easier to either ignore or confiscate from.  

Either way, they would be registered and the ATF would know which one of them had what rifles.  They would be more easily tracked or controlled.  If they did decide to confiscate, it would affect such a small group that the public wouldn't pay any attention to it.

That would be the easiest way for them to do it.  Even if it takes ten generations, it would still accomplish their goal.  Any method that takes too much at one time would create suspicion and uproar.  That's not something anyone wants.  It may not be good for us, but it would be the smart thing for them to do if indeed disarmament of the civilian populace is anyone's agenda.