Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 8/25/2004 10:24:19 AM EST
Will the gov't have to offer a "buyback"?
Will the gov't "let us" keep them but require some sort of registration?
Will the gov't just require that they be destroyed or "turned in" without compensation?
Something else?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:26:02 AM EST
AG,NTSA
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:28:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 10:43:11 AM EST by macman37]
"Something Else"

For many it would probably involve large waterproof tubes and a shovel.

I've never said/wrote this before but "Molon Labe" if that happens. I have a lot of $$$ tied up in those things. They're more than just things. They're insurance.

ETA: AGNTSA to fit in with all of the other posts so far. I didn't know this had been gone over.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:28:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By arowneragain:
AG,NTSA



Allow me:

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:29:13 AM EST
How about I keep mine and they come get 'em?
Or better yet, how 'bout I'm not home when they get there? Or maybe I'm setting up an ambush for 'em? Or planning some other attack as they leave? Or later?
Just a few creative ideas...
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:30:33 AM EST
How about you do your part to make sure this shit doesn't ever happen again? Why don't you worry about that?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:32:50 AM EST
What you would be suggesting, would be the inital stages of gun confiscation.... which in turn would be a degrading of the 2nd amendment......

If such a "law" was passed, I would hate to see what happened to cause such a law to be passed..... Possibly a Patriot Act III????? The result of multiple terrorist attacks using semi auto weopons I would assume..... and possible passed under a Kerry (GASP) Administration.....

The politicians knows what happened last time they passed something "drastic"... a lot were voted out.

But as posted......

AGNTSA
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:34:02 AM EST
MOMMY MAKE IT STOP!!!
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:36:39 AM EST
STOP ! JUST FUCKING STOP WITH THE STUPID! AHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Put the keyboard down. Go sit in the corner. Never ask another question. Ever. Again.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:39:26 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:41:51 AM EST
Damn... I'm off ARFCOM for a while, and now there's a acronym for this type of thing???


Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:42:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
How about I keep mine and they come get 'em?
Or better yet, how 'bout I'm not home when they get there? Or maybe I'm setting up an ambush for 'em? Or planning some other attack as they leave? Or later?
Just a few creative ideas...



Nice.

+1
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:47:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Damn... I'm off ARFCOM for a while, and now there's a acronym for this type of thing???




Yup.



And for this thread, I give you:
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:49:41 AM EST
Anyone seen that funny Bush-Kerry video "This land is your land"?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:50:27 AM EST
Please see one of the other 4,377 threads on this subject.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:51:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Anyone seen that funny Bush-Kerry video "This land is your land"?



No, but there was that jibjab thing....it was funny, too. I wish someone would post the link.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:53:10 AM EST
Ex post facto
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:55:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Will the gov't have to offer a "buyback"?
Will the gov't "let us" keep them but require some sort of registration?
Will the gov't just require that they be destroyed or "turned in" without compensation?
Something else?



In California, that is exactly what happened. Registration was required. Most didn't register, currently it doesn't appear that Cali law enforcement is going out of its way to enforce the law. Basically, if you get caught doing something and they find an unregistered AW, it adds to the charges against you.

But keep in mind, the antis had to "grandfather" and add in an exparation date to the original fed AWB for a reason: they wouldn't have passed it otherwise. The antis would have to make big strides in public opinion before this country will accept a worse AWB. They can't even keep the current AWB in place . . .
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 10:56:57 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sodie:
Ex post facto
Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).



Wrongo.

If Congress passed a complete ban, it would not be an ex post facto law. What it would ban would be continuing possession of the banned item.

It would be an ex post facto law if the new ban made it a crime to have possessed an "assault weapon" PRIOR to the passage of the law.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:25:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By DonS:

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Will the gov't have to offer a "buyback"?
Will the gov't "let us" keep them but require some sort of registration?
Will the gov't just require that they be destroyed or "turned in" without compensation?
Something else?



In California, that is exactly what happened. Registration was required. Most didn't register, currently it doesn't appear that Cali law enforcement is going out of its way to enforce the law. Basically, if you get caught doing something and they find an unregistered AW, it adds to the charges against you.

But keep in mind, the antis had to "grandfather" and add in an exparation date to the original fed AWB for a reason: they wouldn't have passed it otherwise. The antis would have to make big strides in public opinion before this country will accept a worse AWB. They can't even keep the current AWB in place . . .



Thank you DonS, and a few others for legitimate replies. I didn't realize that this exact question had been covered before, and a search didn't turn it up.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:43:17 AM EST
95% or more of the people here would hand them over.

If all these tough guys are going to keep their semi auto rifles and risk a prison sentence or fight to the death for them they would all have MGs at home now. No different. If something like that passed it would be the same old thing just a different gun. Something like this.....

Newbie: "I know this guy who wants to sell me a semi auto AR15, wouldn't that be sweet?"

Old time Molon Labe guy: "Run as fast as you can! 10 years in prison. Be scared just like I am."
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:50:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By KA3B:
Anyone seen that funny Bush-Kerry video "This land is your land"?



AND DICK CHANEY TO
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:53:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Will the gov't have to offer a "buyback"?
Will the gov't "let us" keep them but require some sort of registration?
Will the gov't just require that they be destroyed or "turned in" without compensation?
Something else?

How 'bout working harder against and worrying more about PREVENTING SUCH STUPID LAWS FROM BEING ENACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, instead of trying to figure out a way around them?
(or for that matter, celebrating the EXPIRATION of a fucked up law as some sort of 'Victory')
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:54:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
95% or more of the people here would hand them over.

If all these tough guys are going to keep their semi auto rifles and risk a prison sentence or fight to the death for them they would all have MGs at home now. No different. If something like that passed it would be the same old thing just a different gun. Something like this.....

Newbie: "I know this guy who wants to sell me a semi auto AR15, wouldn't that be sweet?"

Old time Molon Labe guy: "Run as fast as you can! 10 years in prison. Be scared just like I am."



You got that right except you left out the part where they would be sitting at their computer all day long complaining. Or maybe a defiant bumper sticker.

Just about the only thing that would stop some stupid 51%-49% vote in Congress to take away our firearms would be a million armed man march on DC. That would get their attention.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 11:58:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:08:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 12:09:27 PM EST by motown_steve]

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Will the gov't have to offer a "buyback"?
Will the gov't "let us" keep them but require some sort of registration?
Will the gov't just require that they be destroyed or "turned in" without compensation?
Something else?



There is currently a bill before the House and the Senate that would redefine the term "assault weapon" to include any post ban configuration, and add 60 more named firearm models to the list. It would also make it illegal to own the any newly defined "assault weapon" that was produced after 9/13/2004. I have verified with the GOA that HR2038/S1431 would require you to turn in your post-bans!

EX POST FACTO would not apply, unless they attempted to prosecute you for owning an "assault weapon" before they banned "assault weapons". If the newly defined assault weapons are not grandfathered, you could be prosecuted for owning them, if you owned them after the ban became law.

Contrary to popular belief on this board, the 5th Amendment would not protect you either. The arguement that the government must compensate you for seized items of personal property does not hold water when compared to the text of the 5th Amendment:


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; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


People tend to use the red highlighted portion of the 5th Amendment to argue that the government must compensate you if were to ban and seize your "assault rifles". As you can see, that simply is not true. The government cannot deprive you of property without due process of the law. By having a ban on assault weapons pass both Houses of Congress, and be signed into law, it could be easily argued that due process was satisfied. Also, note the conditions under which the government must compensate you for seized property:


nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Unless the government were to seize our "assault rifles" for the purpose of issuing them to a government agency or the military, then they would not have to compensate us. It is basically a foregone conclusion that the government would seize our assault rifles in order to destroy them.

The thing that frustrates me is that due to the fact that the 1994 AWB is set to expire (THANK GOD!!), many people on this board refuse to accecpt the fact that .gov is still trying very very hard to rob us of our rights and seize our weapons! The bills that I mentioned earlier (HR2038/S1431), have firm support in both houses of Congress. There are 111 cosponsors to HR2038, and 14 cosponsors to S1431. This is not enough to pass or even force a vote in either house, but support for these types of laws tends to grow over time.

MY POINT: The impending expiration of the 1994 AWB is no reason for us to get lax or over confident. In fact, now that the ban appears to be doomed, we may have to fight even harder to keep it or another, stricter ban off of the books! Expect more noise from the anti's! Expect more lies and propaganda! Be prepared to write more letters, and donate more money to pro-gun causes!

And by all means, DO NOT ALLOW JOHN KERRY TO GET ELECTED! The next President will most likely get to appoint 2 judges to the SCOTUS. If John Kerry is allowed to appoint 2 more Darth Vader Ginsburgs to the SCOTUS, then America is finished!

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:08:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 12:13:59 PM EST by Happyshooter]
The government has to pay for property it takes (legally called a "taking", in an odd bit of logical naming by the courts).

Please note that the seizure cases the courts have come off with are not takings, and they may try that instead, but it will be a tough argument for the government. Much will depend on who is named to the courts of appeal by the next pres and senate.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:10:50 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:19:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
www.runicsoft.com/images/forumpics/stupid2.jpg



What do you find to be stupid?

The idea that the government may someday attempt to outlaw certain types of weapons that it feels are too dangerous for private ownership? They already did it in 1994, and the Governments of 9 other states have enacted similar (and in some cases STRICTER) bans! The State of California HAS seized privately owned firearms, that were legally owned for years, and then made illegal by a new law! There are also people in the US government who are trying to do the same thing on a National level! The legislation has 14 Cosponsors in the Senate and 111 Cosponsors in the House!

I think it would be stupid for anyone to assume that just because the 1994 AWB is about to expire (THANK GOD), that we have won! In reality, the fight is only begining! The lefties and the Antis will be back! We MUST stay ready and focused!
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:27:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:34:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 12:47:07 PM EST by SUPERSPORT]

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
....."all talk, no walk pussies?"



I never called anyone a pussy.


Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
should we assume that you two have illegal machine guns



No, I don't go around saying Molon Labe. I obey the law and I never said anyone should break it.


Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
should we assume that you two have illegal machine guns



This is what you should be asking the people who say they would bury their AR in the back yard not me.

You totally misunderstood what I said. We are both making the same point.

Link Posted: 8/25/2004 12:35:05 PM EST
I'd be honest with the Government on my owning AR's just like I am on my income tax return.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 1:00:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 1:01:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:
www.runicsoft.com/images/forumpics/stupid2.jpg



What do you find to be stupid?




Redundancy.



Find me the thread that addressed my exact question please. I couldn't find it.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 1:44:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By HiramRanger:
So super and flash... should we assume that you two have illegal machine guns since you basically call those that don't break the law "all talk, no walk pussies?"



If I did I sure wouldn't admit it on a public forum now, would I?
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:13:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By SUPERSPORT:
95% or more of the people here would hand them over.

If all these tough guys are going to keep their semi auto rifles and risk a prison sentence or fight to the death for them they would all have MGs at home now. No different. If something like that passed it would be the same old thing just a different gun. Something like this.....

Newbie: "I know this guy who wants to sell me a semi auto AR15, wouldn't that be sweet?"

Old time Molon Labe guy: "Run as fast as you can! 10 years in prison. Be scared just like I am."



That's not what happened in California after either Cali AW ban.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:37:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
The government has to pay for property it takes (legally called a "taking", in an odd bit of logical naming by the courts).

Please note that the seizure cases the courts have come off with are not takings, and they may try that instead, but it will be a tough argument for the government. Much will depend on who is named to the courts of appeal by the next pres and senate.



Wrong. The government only has to compensate, as motown_steve pointed out already, if they take your property for PUBLIC USE. If they ban your AR, you have to dispose of it, and the government can do this without ANY compensation. This is black-letter law.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:46:01 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/25/2004 3:46:44 PM EST by Happyshooter]

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
The government has to pay for property it takes (legally called a "taking", in an odd bit of logical naming by the courts).

Please note that the seizure cases the courts have come off with are not takings, and they may try that instead, but it will be a tough argument for the government. Much will depend on who is named to the courts of appeal by the next pres and senate.



Wrong. The government only has to compensate, as motown_steve pointed out already, if they take your property for PUBLIC USE. If they ban your AR, you have to dispose of it, and the government can do this without ANY compensation. This is black-letter law.



Wrong right back at ya

A governmental taking by regulation which deprives an owner of all rights to have and/or use the property recongized under law is called "per se". The courts protect both real property and personalty, but personalty is given a lower level of protection by the courts. (See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 U.S. 2886 (1992) “In the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [a property owner] ought to be aware of the possibility that the new regulation might even render his property economically worthless (at least if the property’s only economically productive use is sale or manufacture for sale).”
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 3:52:37 PM EST
We played nice for the last 10 years. If a draconian law were passed, I doubt it would be nice next time.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:06:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:

Originally Posted By PAEBR332:

Originally Posted By Happyshooter:
The government has to pay for property it takes (legally called a "taking", in an odd bit of logical naming by the courts).

Please note that the seizure cases the courts have come off with are not takings, and they may try that instead, but it will be a tough argument for the government. Much will depend on who is named to the courts of appeal by the next pres and senate.



Wrong. The government only has to compensate, as motown_steve pointed out already, if they take your property for PUBLIC USE. If they ban your AR, you have to dispose of it, and the government can do this without ANY compensation. This is black-letter law.



Wrong right back at ya

A governmental taking by regulation which deprives an owner of all rights to have and/or use the property recongized under law is called "per se". The courts protect both real property and personalty, but personalty is given a lower level of protection by the courts. (See Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 U.S. 2886 (1992) “In the case of personal property, by reason of the State’s traditionally high degree of control over commercial dealings, [a property owner] ought to be aware of the possibility that the new regulation might even render his property economically worthless (at least if the property’s only economically productive use is sale or manufacture for sale).”



Lucas does not say what you think it says. In this case, the SCOTUS remanded the case for rehearing. They never ruled with finality on whether this actually rose to the level of an actual taking.

There is ZERO case law in which outlawing a privately held item automatically invoked right to compensation. Lucas is a very poor example for you to cite, as the property in question was not outlawed in any way. It was merely regulated so that its value to Lucas was essentially destroyed.
Link Posted: 8/25/2004 4:12:18 PM EST
I cited it for the lower level of protection.
Top Top