Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/15/2004 5:01:38 PM EST
....people behind the iron curtain if there states will allow them to own pre 94 AR's???

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:03:19 PM EST
Assuming one of the involved parties is willing to go through the transfer hassle, I think it's great. After all, a preban is just a 10-year old version of what we can get new next month.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:47:15 PM EST
btt
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:52:11 PM EST
Garandman, I think it is a great idea, I have a brand new post ban bushmaster lower plus some cash that I am willing to trade for a preban colt/bushmaster (with the raised fencing) if your interested Garandman let me know.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:53:25 PM EST
I would certainly consider it!
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 5:58:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 5:58:52 PM EST by garandman]
Here's my thoughts...

First I want to wait until the election. If Kerry wins, I'm not selling / trading it.

Second, if Kerry does win, I can see them passing a new AWB - one that is retroactive to 1994. Keeping my pre 94 preban makes me un touchable. (Far as retroavctive laws - NEVER underestimate Dems hatred for your guns)

I just feel real hesitant to sell. I'm emotionally attached to this lower I WAAAAAYYY overpaid for.

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:01:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 6:01:22 PM EST by Wolfpack]
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:14:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 6:15:40 PM EST by lippo]

Originally Posted By garandman:
Here's my thoughts...

First I want to wait until the election. If Kerry wins, I'm not selling / trading it.

Second, if Kerry does win, I can see them passing a new AWB - one that is retroactive to 1994. Keeping my pre 94 preban makes me un touchable. (Far as retroavctive laws - NEVER underestimate Dems hatred for your guns)

I just feel real hesitant to sell. I'm emotionally attached to this lower I WAAAAAYYY overpaid for.





I would like to know, can they retroactively do that? It would seem to me, if the ban sunsets, they can't make another ban later on and have it go retroactive to 1993. They would have to start from the date that the bill was signed right? If they went retroactive, then you would have pre-bans, post-bans and pre-post-bans. I doubt they could make a law with it having a retroactive part.

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:20:18 PM EST
No.


That's a bandaid to the problem.


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


I did.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:34:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
No.

That's a bandaid to the problem.

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

I did.


Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:34:38 PM EST
Easy answer....No.

Move to a free zone...

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:35:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Easy answer....No.

Move to a free zone...



Damn, took my answer!

Really poeple, let's band together.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:37:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Move to a free zone...


Easily said for someone who lives in a "free zone."
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:45:34 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:48:57 PM EST
Some of you are so politically retarded.

Who do you think is gonna pass an AWB? Kerry all by himself?

(Sigh)

D.
AZEX
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:50:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
....people behind the iron curtain if there states will allow them to own pre 94 AR's???


thanks for the thought, but No Joy in Kalifornistan - registration, and registration is CLOSED. No way to own it 'legally'.

related - something that never gets discussed is the MASSIVE Civil Disobedience that went on here when Registration went into effect. IIRC, something like 80% of the number of 'assault weapons' the Grabbers knew to be imported into the State failed to materialize for Registration. Just a couple news stories when it first went down, and NOTHING since.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:50:40 PM EST
True, but I made it a point to relocate to a free zone. Easier said than done I know. It took me 3 years to plan my move (money and such). It's was worth it.

-My county is one of these most conservative ones in the state of FLA.
-Sheriff signs ALL my Form 4s & Form 1s.



Here is to hoping you make it out! The grass can be greener on the other side!

Link Posted: 8/15/2004 6:52:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
No.
That's a bandaid to the problem.
They should work to fix the laws, or take their money and leave.
I did.

Fuck you, Brother. Thanx for your "Support".
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 7:02:24 PM EST
I also have a preban I was thinking of selling reasonably to someone in a state that doens't have the sunset. What states are we looking at that don't have it? I know CA is out, and CT is an option. What other states? I have a little Olympic CAR 15 I'd sell.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 7:05:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Easy answer....No.

Move to a free zone...




Did you live in Florida before 1987 when they passed concealed carry there?


When did Arizona get concealed carry, 1994?

Texas 1995?

How come droves of oppressed gun owners didn't move to NY for the many decades when NY issued CCW licensez and all those other states didn't? Were they filled with bleeting sheep? Did they just "know" that in 20-30 years that those states would have CCW? Or was it because most normal people don't leave their homes, jobs and loved ones over gun laws, no matter how much they say that on the internet?




We've had OPEN CARRY since statehood, nice try.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 7:05:27 PM EST
I would never sell a gun period. If I had any.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 7:07:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/15/2004 7:09:03 PM EST by Mmanwitgun]

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Easy answer....No.

Move to a free zone...




Did you live in Florida before 1987 when they passed concealed carry there?


When did Arizona get concealed carry, 1994?

Texas 1995?

How come droves of oppressed gun owners didn't move to NY for the many decades when NY issued CCW licensez and all those other states didn't? Were they filled with bleeting sheep? Did they just "know" that in 20-30 years that those states would have CCW? Or was it because most normal people don't leave their homes, jobs and loved ones over gun laws, no matter how much they say that on the internet?





Thank you Aimless, I can't stand folks who give me crap for living in such an anti gun state, but they don't realize CT legalized CCW before TX did.

Oh yea, for all you folks who recommend simply moving, would you leave your family, friends, job, home, culture and comfort just to add a bayonet lug, collapsible stock and flash hider to your AR15?
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 8:22:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Easy answer....No.

Move to a free zone...




Did you live in Florida before 1987 when they passed concealed carry there?


When did Arizona get concealed carry, 1994?

Texas 1995?

How come droves of oppressed gun owners didn't move to NY for the many decades when NY issued CCW licensez and all those other states didn't? Were they filled with bleeting sheep? Did they just "know" that in 20-30 years that those states would have CCW? Or was it because most normal people don't leave their homes, jobs and loved ones over gun laws, no matter how much they say that on the internet?





Thank you Aimless, I can't stand folks who give me crap for living in such an anti gun state, but they don't realize CT legalized CCW before TX did.

Oh yea, for all you folks who recommend simply moving, would you leave your family, friends, job, home, culture and comfort just to add a bayonet lug, collapsible stock and flash hider to your AR15?



NTSA !!!
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 8:30:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By fight4yourrights:
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???
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 8:38:13 PM EST
This is such a non-issue

How many states are we talking about? 2? 3? Does anyone know? I keep hearing Massachusetts mentioned as one of them but I seem to remember the pre-94 clause was stripped before passage. Conneticut? Maybe 5 guys in the whole state understand the law and how it applies. We are talking about a real small number of potential buyers here. Remember, people living in these states can still buy "post" bans unlike California.

If someone living in one of these states REALLY wants a pre94, he can find tons to buy on gunbroker............CHEAP. They don't need charity.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 9:15:52 PM EST
I don't own any pre-94 weapons, but I'll probably sell off some mags to guys in states that can't get new ones and then buy new ones myself.


Link Posted: 8/15/2004 9:22:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
If someone living in one of these states REALLY wants a pre94, he can find tons to buy on gunbroker............CHEAP.

You are wrong. Legally blocked from said purchase, here in CA, PRIOR to the AWB, AND AFTER IT DIES.
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 9:31:27 PM EST
I'm not finding anything "cheap" yet. Prices have dropped but not substantially.... still plenty of asshats trying to gouge me out $2000 whenever I ask "How much for the pre-ban?"


There are a few of us, especially those who got into ARs after the ban, who could use the charity swaps. Our ban isn't goin anywhere and the "suck it up" or "move to a free state" attitude is not helping us get a tele stock


- BUCC_Guy


(Live in CT... school in PA)
Link Posted: 8/15/2004 9:33:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wolfpack:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Here's my thoughts...

First I want to wait until the election. If Kerry wins, I'm not selling / trading it.

Second, if Kerry does win, I can see them passing a new AWB - one that is retroactive to 1994. Keeping my pre 94 preban makes me un touchable. (Far as retroavctive laws - NEVER underestimate Dems hatred for your guns)

I just feel real hesitant to sell. I'm emotionally attached to this lower I WAAAAAYYY overpaid for.





That's EXACTLY what I'm thinking...if Bush gets in I'll do it maybe.




+1
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 12:24:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/16/2004 12:54:56 AM EST by rickinvegas]

Originally Posted By rayra:

Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
If someone living in one of these states REALLY wants a pre94, he can find tons to buy on gunbroker............CHEAP.



You are wrong. Legally blocked from said purchase, here in CA, PRIOR to the AWB, AND AFTER IT DIES.




Originally Posted By rickinvegas:
This is such a non-issue

How many states are we talking about? 2? 3? Does anyone know? I keep hearing Massachusetts mentioned as one of them but I seem to remember the pre-94 clause was stripped before passage. Conneticut? Maybe 5 guys in the whole state understand the law and how it applies. We are talking about a real small number of potential buyers here. Remember, people living in these states can still buy "post" bans unlike California.

If someone living in one of these states REALLY wants a pre94, he can find tons to buy on gunbroker............CHEAP. They don't need charity.



It helps to read the whole post before you jump on someone for being "wrong"
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 1:25:33 AM EST
I live in Oregon and I tend to sell most of my stuff from time to time. I have never ever asked to see a drivers licence.

That would be rude.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 1:38:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
Here's my thoughts...

First I want to wait until the election. If Kerry wins, I'm not selling / trading it.

Second, if Kerry does win, I can see them passing a new AWB - one that is retroactive to 1994. Keeping my pre 94 preban makes me un touchable. (Far as retroavctive laws - NEVER underestimate Dems hatred for your guns)

I just feel real hesitant to sell. I'm emotionally attached to this lower I WAAAAAYYY overpaid for.



There is no such thing as "untouchable". There is no reason they HAVE to grandfather anything. They could very well 'forget' to include a grandfather clause that excludes all assault weapons made before the ban. I'm not saying that its likely, just that it could happen. Don't assume anything.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 2:54:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/16/2004 2:57:00 AM EST by Kharn]
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.

Anybody that refuses to sell prebans to the guys in the AWB states because of a possible future ban is ignorant of how the legislative process works. Help a fellow ARf member out and trade any spares you have (besides family or otherwise important guns), I'd do the same if I had any prebans, and I'd ask the same if I was in a AWB state.

fight4yourrights:
I'm talking especially to you, do you think those of us still stuck in MD shouldnt bother purchasing pre-lock handguns from out of state because we could theoretically fight to get the lock law reversed? Some of the people on here have about a worse chance of getting the state-level AWB reversed than MD'ers have of getting the lock law removed.

1Andy2:
No, they *must* either: 1. grandfather guns or 2. offer just compensation for the confiscated firearms. Thats the way our legal system works, you cannot be deprived of property by law without compensation.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:09:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:11:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By MudFlapper:
Move to a free zone...


Easily said for someone who lives in a "free zone."




NOT so easy, but some HAVE done it.

Freedom at ANY price is a bargain.

Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:15:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/16/2004 3:15:51 AM EST by garandman]
Then tell me this -

If you want someones preban are you willing to pony up the $900 they paid for the lower origianlly??

Or are you asking them to take a hit??



Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:37:08 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:40:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
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.

Anybody that refuses to sell prebans to the guys in the AWB states because of a possible future ban is ignorant of how the legislative process works. Help a fellow ARf member out and trade any spares you have (besides family or otherwise important guns), I'd do the same if I had any prebans, and I'd ask the same if I was in a AWB state.

fight4yourrights:
I'm talking especially to you, do you think those of us still stuck in MD shouldnt bother purchasing pre-lock handguns from out of state because we could theoretically fight to get the lock law reversed? Some of the people on here have about a worse chance of getting the state-level AWB reversed than MD'ers have of getting the lock law removed.

1Andy2:
No, they *must* either: 1. grandfather guns or 2. offer just compensation for the confiscated firearms. Thats the way our legal system works, you cannot be deprived of property by law without compensation.

Kharn



They don't *have* to do anything they don't want to do. They make the laws. But you are *probably* right in that they would do one or the other. But that doesn't mean they have to do option 1. They could very well just round up the evil guns and send you a check 6 months later for them. It could happen.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:41:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By BookHound:
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.




Of course its easy to say youd take a financial hit if theres no chance youd actually have to take it.

But I see your point. Its a good thing to sspread freedom wherever you can.

If I could be SURE we'd never see another AWB, its a no-brainer. But there is no such guarantee.

To trade away my best protection against future AWB legislation just pains me.

If that makes me selfish, then, I guess I'm selfish.

Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:44:16 AM EST


Originally Posted By Kharn:
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.




According to my reading of the Constitution, there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER they could outlaw bayonet lugs and telestocks.

Even the Ex post facto doctrine is subject to the whims of political fancy, and the sheeple entrusted with electing their own masters.



Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:44:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:52:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:
[ I think it will take awhile for the people who own these guns to get the message that there just isn't a big enough market to support the prices any more.



I agree. I hope so anyway.


I suppose some people just won't be able to accept that they paid $ 2000 for something that is now worth $ 600 (I have had the same problem with stocks before)

Time will tell




Color me depreciated in value.

I'll be in that situation - NEVER being able to recover my investment. There are times you will not sell somethign simply cuz you can't get your $$$ back.

Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:56:18 AM EST
Garandman:
No, its not subject to political fancy, ex post facto is one of the primary building blocks of our legal system. True, the 2nd has been ignored, but confiscating firearms without compensation due to a retroactive law would never be allowed to occur in our society. If it did occur, it would be time to think very seriously about what happened to America.

Kharn
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 3:57:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 4:00:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Garandman:
No, its not subject to political fancy, ex post facto is one of the primary building blocks of our legal system. True, the 2nd has been ignored, but confiscating firearms without compensation due to a retroactive law would never be allowed to occur in our society. If it did occur, it would be time to think very seriously about what happened to America.

Kharn



Where have you been for the past 140+ years?
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 4:03:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Garandman:
No, its not subject to political fancy, ex post facto is one of the primary building blocks of our legal system. True, the 2nd has been ignored, but confiscating firearms without compensation due to a retroactive law would never be allowed to occur in our society. If it did occur, it would be time to think very seriously about what happened to America.

Kharn



History DOES NOT bear out your assertion.

You think people who want to confiscate firearms care about ex psot facto?

If you do, you don't understand dictators. YOu don't uderstand oppression.

Link Posted: 8/16/2004 4:13:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:
Then tell me this -

If you want someones preban are you willing to pony up the $900 they paid for the lower origianlly??

Or are you asking them to take a hit??



Disclaimer: I don't own any pre-bans, so I'm JAFO on this topic.

BUT, I'd say that any pre-ban owner will take that "hit" in the value / equity of his rifle as soon as 9/14/04 rolls around. If you want to hang on to it and tell yourself it's worth that, well, it's your property. But market value=what the market will actually PAY.

If I did own a pre-ban, I'd be all for swapping it for a brand-spanking-new lower (or complete rifle of similar configuration, whatever) in order to let someone in the "banned" areas have their pre-ban.

Now as far as keeping your pre-ban thinking that it will somehow be immune to future legislation...that's not even wishful thinking. That's just daydreaming. If the '94 ban dies your pre ban has nothing to differentiate it from any other rifle.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 4:29:47 AM EST
I don't consider this as profitting, but what I will do is buy prebans here after the ban for $600-$700 and sell them to banned states for the price of a new rifle and not a cent more.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 4:34:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By JCKnife:
Now as far as keeping your pre-ban thinking that it will somehow be immune to future legislation...that's not even wishful thinking. That's just daydreaming. If the '94 ban dies your pre ban has nothing to differentiate it from any other rifle.



Never heard of legal precedent??

I can see as a "compromise" any new AWB grandfathering out pre-94 rifles. There is precdent for it.

I look at keeping my preban as the best protection I have against a new AWB. If you don't think its sufficient protection, well neither do I.

But something is better than nothing.

Link Posted: 8/16/2004 5:29:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/16/2004 5:31:13 AM EST by RenegadeX]

Originally Posted By Kharn:
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.



Not exactly. They do not have to grandfather anything. They can outright ban it, regardless of when it was made, or whether it was legally owned at one time. For example, there was no grandfathering of Marijunana, Cocaine when it became illegal. There was no grandfathering of alcohol when prohibition took effect. If you find a tommy gun in your grandpa's attic, it is too late to get it legally registered. It is illegal. etc. It will easily survice any court challenge since these things already have provided the case history.

Ex-Posto facto means thery cannot charge you for having it yesterday when it was legal, but they can charge you for having it today, when it is illegal.
Link Posted: 8/16/2004 5:39:45 AM EST
Garandman and 1Andy2:
Property law is well established: you must be justly compensated if the government tries to take away property from you.

RenegadeX:
Actually, marijuana and cocaine could be possessed with the proper tax stamps, ala the 1934 NFA for machine guns and are both still available with the proper medical paperwork (at least the pot is, I'm not 100% sure about the cocaine). NFA items were given an amnesty in 1968, so your (for example) grandfather missed his chance to register it.

Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, not a simple law, totally different circumstances.

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.

Kharn
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top