Can they take away my AR15?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Can they take away my AR15?

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 4:58:28 AM EDT

[#1]

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

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:04:49 AM EDT

[#2]

hg- you must work for the gov with that kind of speak

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:05:22 AM EDT

[#3]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:07:47 AM EDT

[#4]

Only if you let them.

Lexington and Concord? Remember that?

Live free or die.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:08:54 AM EDT

[#5]

Would we be paid for our guns?

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:11:36 AM EDT

[#6]

this is years away...

they still have tons of brain-dead legislation to beat us down with before that day comes.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:17:23 AM EDT

[#7]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:19:43 AM EDT

[#8]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:25:23 AM EDT

[#9]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:27:21 AM EDT

[#10]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:27:31 AM EDT

[#11]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:37:16 AM EDT

[#12]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:46:02 AM EDT

[#13]

"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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 5:48:09 AM EDT

[#14]

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".

Posted: 5/3/2001 6:25:30 AM EDT

[#15]

as to them taking full autos first.....i dont think so... Lokk at the cost of a full auto weapon and the paper work required to get one, you just about have to give them your first born to get one. look who is getting them, people with money to spend (wish i had some to spend...hehe)They know at all times where the legal full autos are and can inspect them whenever the want for any friggin reason. They have control of those, besides how many incidents have occured (sp) using a legal full auto weapon. No the next thing they will go for is the 50's......say bye bye to 2mile plinking

Posted: 5/3/2001 6:36:17 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 6:45:01 AM EDT

[#17]

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?

Posted: 5/3/2001 8:28:07 AM EDT

[#18]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 8:39:15 AM EDT

[#19]

I dont think teey will come and take guns away they will stop the sale of ammo ....

Posted: 5/3/2001 8:56:52 AM EDT

[#20]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 8:57:30 AM EDT

[#21]

I figure 10-12 years. We'll have eight years of G.W. Bush followed by a democrat and a school shooting. President Hillary Clinton/Diane Fineswine with the support of the democratic control house and congress will pass sweeping socialist reforms.

We will revolt, there will be blood in the streets... who's I don't know but I won't go peaceably. [;)] just kidding!

Peace and democracy will rule thoughout the land for generations to come. We'll all enjoy the God given right to self defense and live happily ever after. (gotta cut back on my meds)

Posted: 5/3/2001 9:03:34 AM EDT

[#22]

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

Posted: 5/3/2001 9:19:19 AM EDT

[#23]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 9:46:37 AM EDT

[#24]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 11:02:37 AM EDT

[#25]

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
-Barry Goldwater

Posted: 5/3/2001 11:14:09 AM EDT

[#26]

They can do whatever they want and we'll let them.

Posted: 5/3/2001 11:35:27 AM EDT

[#27]

Sure, they can take it away anytime they want to. "BUT" they can't do that if they can't catch you.

Posted: 5/3/2001 1:12:57 PM EDT

[#28]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 2:05:55 PM EDT

[#29]

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.

Posted: 5/3/2001 2:12:13 PM EDT

[#30]

This may be a little off topic but the Gov't took over my Auto shop. They also took the small church on the corner and two other buildings that were in use. Under eminent domain they made me an offer that was so unreasonable that I will probably spend a very long time and a lot of money in court fighting for fair market value of my shop. I was offered only $5k more than what I paid for the actuall shop property almost TEN years ago. In less than a year I went from having the busiest shop in town to being unemployed and screwed by the government. This was done for the better of the community, and a $55 million dollar restification project. Local History shows that my building was an auto repair shop from it's inception in the mid 1930's. I don't see why it had to go.