PDA

View Full Version : Another AWB question: can they take them?


EastSideRich
October 14, 2008, 08:54 PM
Ok, I know the whole Assault Weapon Ban thing has been near beaten to death, but I'm starting to get a little panicky.
I do not own any rifles currently. I have a couple that I would like to pick up in the near future, as I think we may see another ban coming up and this may be my last chance.

My question is this:
If a new, more restrictive, heavy handed ban is enacted, is there a realistic chance that people would have to turn in their "assault weapons"?
Is there any reason (besides the second amendment, which doesn't really seem to matter anyway) the government could not say:
"these weapons are now illegal to possess; if you have one you are in violation of federal law and may be prosecuted if you do not relinquish said firearm."?

I don't know if I'm worrying needlessly, but I hate the thought of spending thousands of dollars on something, and then getting a letter telling me I have to go turn it in to my local police dept.
I can't really afford them right now to begin with, but if this is going to be it as far as buying a rifle, I'm going to have to figure out a way.

PT111
October 14, 2008, 09:19 PM
Can they take them - Yes
Will they take them - No

In case of some wild deal that no one has come up with they may come knocking at you door. But since no one has thought that seneario up yet there is little possibility of it happening. I know someone will correct me but I don't know of any gun ban yet that the Fed have taken guns away, just not allowed to make any new ones. Even machine guns are still legal from a Fed standpoint. State or local is a different story.

Webleymkv
October 14, 2008, 09:46 PM
I agree with PT111 that confiscation, while not impossible, is extremely unlikely. Remember too that there's a very good chance that even with a Democrat Congress and White House, there still may not be another AWB. Not all the Democrats in Congress are ultra-liberal and I'd be willing to bet that many of them haven't forgotten the backlash after the first one passed. Gun control kind of seems to be on the back burner for the Democrats right now because it's been a losing issue for them for the past eight years. Sure, you'll still have Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, and Pelosi screaming about it, but that's mainly to play to the liberal base as they'd be unlikely to get a "Blue Dog" southern or midwestern Democrat to go along with it (particularly in the House). Does this mean we should stop worrying about it? Heck no, the political fight is nowhere near over. However, I don't think we need to be in panic mode just yet.

EastSideRich
October 14, 2008, 10:56 PM
In case of some wild deal that no one has come up with they may come knocking at you door. But since no one has thought that seneario up yet there is little possibility of it happening.

I think that exact scenario has been thought up. We're all familiar with the Dianne Feinstein 60 minutes interview: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban,
picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,
"I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
I don't think she's the only one who feels this way.

My fear is that there's enough other big issues right now this may be able to sneak through; especially right after an election, when there will be at least two years before anyone could get voted out of office. This is not meant to go too political and I'm really trying not to mention any names (besides Feinstein), so I hope the mods give me a break.

I think it's a safe assumption that many if not most (not all) democrats or liberals tend to be fairly anti-gun. I think many of those think we would be better off as a society without them. When I say without them I don't mean with less of them or with more regulation, I mean without them period. I may be wrong, this is just the impression I get.
Right now the current administration is seemingly quite unpopular. It is entirely possible we could see a dramatic shift in the balance of power in our government as far as democrat vs republican.
I'm not even sure who would have to vote on such a ban (senate, all of congress ?? - it's been a long time since high school government class, which I probably barely passed). How far from the 51 votes Feinstein was looking for would we have been if there would have been a vote? If enough seats are picked up by anti-gun individuals, could that be enough? I think a lot of the more rabid anti-gun politicians haven't been pushing harder is because the time hasn't been right. If there is a significant shift in power, could the time be right?
Well I feel like I'm getting dangerously close to saying things that may get me shut down so I'm going to quit.

bclark1
October 14, 2008, 11:03 PM
Off the top of my head, there's a takings clause argument under the fifth amendment, which is probably why grandfathering is so popular - the courts have sidestepped this issue.

Quickly Googling it, we find:
http://www.lcav.org/library/reports_analyses/banning_assault_weapons_a_legal_primer_8.05_appendix_d.pdf

Thanks, LCAV! While we can assume this to be an utterly biased piece, which would not show any case law favoring 2A advocates, the rejection of a 5th Amendment prohibition against seizing arms en masse is pretty much sunk post-Heller. The most recent (and arguably most significant) case challenging California AWB laws cited in this appendix is predicated on a finding that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right. Now that we've finally acknowledged that it does, the given rationale fails.

In any case - the 5th Amendment's been incorporated, so in combination with the individual right conferred by the 2d, I think we can buy in reliance that, even if a ban occurs, large-scale, federal confiscation would be blocked by the Bill of Rights. I'm not suggesting the legal challenges to California law will be successful, I'm just saying that, on a federal level, any future outright ban giving citizens no means to place their property legally anywhere in the country or sell it to recoup their investment would go beyond the reasonable regulation left available by Heller and rise to the level of an unconstitutional taking.

Further, by buying now, you're improving the odds that a view favoring ARs will be adopted. You're supporting the companies that create the jobs and do the lobbying. You're counting yourself among the voters who will fight for this right. You're increasing the total of dollars that would be stolen in the event of a ban or confiscation. Etcetera. And if we take it far enough, such that tons of AR/AK/etc. receivers are out there already, it takes the wind out of banning sails, because the sheer volume already in existence would suggest that the total elimination of these devices is impossible.

Kermit
October 14, 2008, 11:07 PM
I guess it's possible, but unless the owners surrendered them easily, I don't see it being all that successful

sholling
October 15, 2008, 12:12 AM
It's possible. Perhaps likely someday. As far as how the taking clause goes, if sales and transfers are banned then the value becomes $1. So sure when confiscation time comes you can sue the government for a buck. As far as refusing to turn them in... don't look for mass raids fanning out. Look for 2-3 well publicized one house raids per community with the owners carted off to prison. That will be enough to give the 50% that didn't turn them in on time something to think about. Most will turn them in. The 5-10% that are left will be easy pickings. One house at a time.

GlockNut
October 15, 2008, 12:21 AM
I will never give up mine. If the government wants them...they can try to come and get them any time they like...

Somebody once said that it is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!
There is alot of truth to that statement.

mike
gn

bclark1
October 15, 2008, 01:27 AM
As far as how the taking clause goes, if sales and transfers are banned then the value becomes $1.

How does it follow that something has no value simply as a result of limits on transferability? I don't fancy myself any kind of constitutional scholar, so I apologize if there's some grounds for that, but my understanding is courts are often reluctant to go to extremes making valuations. Fair market value is a common measure. Even when something is not given its whole fair market value, some significant value is often still acknowledged.

Anyway, if you're worried about EBRs getting banned, you can at least buy a Remington R-15 - that's a hunting rifle, not a military assault weapon, because it's painted with a commercial camouflage pattern instead of a matte or military pattern finish. And "reasonable" gun legislation only wants to take the military assault weapons from gangbangers - it's pure "malarkey" that it'd affect legitimate sporting arms. :rolleyes:

KChen986
October 15, 2008, 05:48 AM
They *shouldn't* be able to take them.

Unless there's some super judicial twisting and stretching, confiscating arms that violate laws made after the fact violates the ex post facto/bill of attainder clause in Article I, section 9 of the constitution. Basically, they cannot criminalize behavior, then go back and punish all those individuals who violated it prior to the passage of the law. To do so would violate due process, since there isn't any due notice.

However--it seems that under the Lautenberg laws, firearms may be removed out of the hands of individuals formerly convicted of domestic violence, even if they had the weapons prior to the passage of the Lautenberg laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban (I know wikipedia isn't an authoratative source...)

Either way, one would have to look closely at the cases involving the Lautenberg laws. If the Dems or Congress seeks to remove weapons following the AWB, they have a huge fight ahead of them.....

buzz_knox
October 15, 2008, 07:48 AM
Basically, they cannot criminalize behavior, then go back and punish all those individuals who violated it prior to the passage of the law.

This is true, but it doesn't apply here. What they do is to criminalize possession of the weapons themselves so the punishable conduct becomes possession of the weapon in the present, not in the past.

As for the 5th Amendment, it doesn't apply to possession of prohibited materials. The gov't didn't compensate owners of narcotics or alcohol when those items were banned.

mechdriver
October 15, 2008, 08:01 AM
Rights are chipped away one small chunk at a time. Usually with a guarantee of security in it's place. We can't allow a ban of any kind and should lobby against it at every opportunity.
When the first ban went into affect, manufactures changed the cosmetic look of the guns to fit within the rules of the ban. If a person with criminal intent wanted his gun to be shorter he could then, as always, cut the stock and/or barrel. The point is that someone who is going to break the law does not care if the tool he uses is legal or not. If the liberals or conservatives want crime control then they will regulate criminals. Don't be fooled by any promise of making your streets safer by the elimination of an object. The goal of all gun bans by type is to remove firearms of all types from the hands of law abiding citizens, one type at a time.

velocette
October 15, 2008, 11:43 AM
As far as whether they can take them, please turn your attention to New Orleans immediately after the big blow.
They were collecting them all over the place.
Pretty hard to argue with a squad of armored men with automatic weapons all trained on you.
Pretty easy to talk about "not mine - - - Never mine" when faced with a keyboard and screen.

Get real folks, if it comes to pass, they'll enact legislation criminalizing ownership, then just wait for all the "felons" to surface.

Roger

Bogie
October 15, 2008, 11:49 AM
Scenario:

As the test for the new president, a group of Islamic nutjobs armed with AKs, ARs, handguns, and improvised explosives hijacks a gun-free zone. When the first of the first responders show up, they are met with car bombs. When the next wave shows up, they take aimed sniper fire from other locations.

After it's all boiled down, and what is left of the hostages and heroes are buried, and there's a national week of mourning and hand-wringing, Patriot Bill II is trotted out, and bans everything from slingshots up as "terrorist weapons."

Congratulations - you are now a terrorist.

Musketeer
October 15, 2008, 12:06 PM
Can they take them - Yes
Will they take them - No


Ever hear of New Orleans?

Could they take them - Yes
Did they take them - Yes
Have they returned all of them or compensated the owners - No

NYC requires EVERYTHING to be registered. If they decide to ban all guns within the city you know those weapons will be confiscated.

Gov'ts have a long and proud history of confiscating firearms, why would you think anything is any different now?

rzach
October 15, 2008, 12:16 PM
Years ago they took all of the gold,I went fishing last week all of my gum fell in to the water:D

SPUSCG
October 15, 2008, 12:18 PM
where would they find someone brave enough to go to someones door and say knock knock, can we steal you assault weapons?

yeah i dont see a ban on ownersip going well.

buzz_knox
October 15, 2008, 12:28 PM
where would they find someone brave enough to go to someones door and say knock knock, can we steal you assault weapons?


They'll get them from the same place they found the ones who would kick in the door to take drugs, property, people, etc. If the locals won't do it, they'll import those who will from other areas, just as they did in New Orleans.

We expect officers to follow the law, even if they disagree with it. We expect a racist cop to protect all citizens, regardless of color. We expect a pro-life cop to protect Planned Parenthood offices. Why won't we expect cops to enforce gun control and gun bans, given they've been doing it since the first gun control was passed in Georgia in the 17th Century?

Musketeer
October 15, 2008, 12:32 PM
where would they find someone brave enough to go to someones door and say knock knock, can we steal you assault weapons?

yeah i dont see a ban on ownersip going well.

New Orleans:
http://blog.joehuffman.org/content/binary/NOPoliceLookingForSurvivors.jpg

Am I the only one here who remembers this?

Where would they find someone to do this? The same place they did last time, they tell the police to do it and they will. They did it before in New Orleans when it was not just a violation of the COTUS but of the State Constitution. They left homeowners zip tied in their front yard while they gathered up their lawfully owned weapons. This was only 3 years ago people! These were THE POLICE.

Trust me, when a gov't decides to take arms it has no problem finding people to do it. They already have plenty on hand.

MikeGoob
October 15, 2008, 12:48 PM
1) they will make you buy a stamp for every 'assault' type weapon you own. You must come register every gun that fits some description and pay an increasing fee every year on said weapon.

2) when they've had enough fun registering and taxing for awhile and they have a good list of who owns the guns, they will be able to refuse to reregister the guns anymore, making the guns illegal.

They will have you by the castanets then: People who have legally paid and jumped through the hoops for awhile are unlikely to hide their now illegal rifles, while the criminals who never registered them wont care.

PT111
October 15, 2008, 12:58 PM
Do you think New Orleans is going to do it again? How many states have passed laws against that since the Katrina/Nagin debacle? It is now less likely than it ever has been.

Musketeer
October 15, 2008, 01:50 PM
Do you think New Orleans is going to do it again? How many states have passed laws against that since the Katrina/Nagin debacle? It is now less likely than it ever has been.

Yes, I do think NO would do it again and I completely believe the officers ordered to do so would follow their orders. Then the NRA and SAF would have to go to court to get an injunction to stop it.

There already was a law against what they did. It is called the Constitution of the State of Louisiana. The Judge in the case found the police guilty of violating THE LAW in confiscating firearms, ordered it stopped and the guns returned (still not done!).

So the NO LEOs broke the law once. There is now another law. Why should you believe they will obey it too?

Laws mean nothing when the gov't chooses to ignore them.

rogertc1
October 15, 2008, 04:14 PM
If the UN got their way there would be a world wide ban of all guns and consification by UN Troups. I guess if Ohama gets in this could happen.

SPUSCG
October 15, 2008, 05:13 PM
if there was a worldwide gun ban I think i would have to invent a semi automatic crossbow.

obxned
October 15, 2008, 05:58 PM
Any attempt to confiscate all the so-called assault rifles would definately have some unintended consequences.

SPUSCG
October 15, 2008, 07:06 PM
thats an understatement

Edward429451
October 15, 2008, 07:34 PM
I don't think it's a question of can they or would they...more like when will they?

The soft glove is still on the iron fist. The iron fist is in place. NO was a dry run to gauge public reaction. You can bet money they're thinking about it. Think hard about if you would fight or not. Most internet commandoes talk big but will likely turn em in and rat you out for a few bucks and some hope to still keep walking around. If you would not really fight, save your money bro.

If you would fight, buy now and remember that they'll be offering rewards to your friends to rat you out. Ammo and food will be needed too. Trust no one.

Sounds farfetched and chicken little you may think? Maybe maybe not. I do know of 6 million jews who wish they were more paranoid and prepared when their government turned on them...

PT111
October 15, 2008, 08:28 PM
if there was a worldwide gun ban I think i would have to invent a semi automatic crossbow.

Chinese invented that over 1000 years ago. I think it held nine arrows and could fire all nine in less than 30 seconds.

roach4047
October 15, 2008, 11:31 PM
Should the man come knocking @ my door with the intention of gathering my guns my reply would be something along these lines.

"Umm... no sir.. all of those weapons that I had were either sold off, given away as gifts, or stolen but I can't recall too many of the details off hand....but I no longer have them...:D


If that wasn't good enough then I would put my self through peace officer training school simply to be part of the gang that will always be allowed to have them.


Roach

EastSideRich
October 16, 2008, 12:02 AM
You guys have pretty much covered what I can see happening all too easily:
KChen986: confiscating arms that violate laws made after the fact violates the ex post facto/bill of attainder clause in Article I, section 9 of the constitution. Basically, they cannot criminalize behavior, then go back and punish all those individuals who violated it prior to the passage of the law. To do so would violate due process, since there isn't any due notice.

buzz_knox:This is true, but it doesn't apply here. What they do is to criminalize possession of the weapons themselves so the punishable conduct becomes possession of the weapon in the present, not in the past.
As for the 5th Amendment, it doesn't apply to possession of prohibited materials. The gov't didn't compensate owners of narcotics or alcohol when those items were banned.
Bogie:Scenario:

As the test for the new president, a group of Islamic nutjobs armed with AKs, ARs, handguns, and improvised explosives hijacks a gun-free zone. When the first of the first responders show up, they are met with car bombs. When the next wave shows up, they take aimed sniper fire from other locations.

A more likely scenario (to me): Over the course of the next year (assuming a ban is not enacted right away) there are two or three cases where just plain old nutjobs (not "terrorists") take their "assault weapons" into a mall, school, church, etc., and kill a dozen or so people each because they're upset about something. Stories in the news will highlight how these assault weapons were used to massacre people. Politicians across the board decide these weapons serve no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people and they need to be removed from the population. They are outlawed, and you can either apply for some type of permit or stamp to keep the one(s) you already own (which you probably not get), or you can turn them in, which you may have to do anyway while you wait for your application for a permit to be processed (which will never happen). If you do not turn in the weapons for which you are applying for the permit, you are committing a crime, in which case you will not only be denied your permit, you may go to jail.

Another scenario:
The next president (whoever that may be:rolleyes:) has enough other stuff on his plate to worry about that he appoints a "Gun Control Czar" to worry about this stuff for him. This guy (or gal) presents to a heavily democratic congress legislation that will get dangerous weapons off the streets, saving countless children's lives, and making us all safer....Ban, Turn-ins, criminalize and prosecute people not following the new law. A few people go to jail with very serious charges and face long prison sentences; Most everyone else ("assault weapon" owners) turn in their guns to avoid this fate.
MikeGoob:
1) they will make you buy a stamp for every 'assault' type weapon you own. You must come register every gun that fits some description and pay an increasing fee every year on said weapon.

2) when they've had enough fun registering and taxing for awhile and they have a good list of who owns the guns, they will be able to refuse to reregister the guns anymore, making the guns illegal.
I totally agree.

As far as the New Orleans thin goes, I believe what they did was actually illegal. What I'm worried about is legislation passing which would outlaw these types of weapons (which could include everything except bolt action rifles, pump shotguns and revolvers). Once they are outlawed, it wont be illegal for them to take them away, it will be illegal for you not to turn them in.

I really hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me we will see a pretty thorough ban very soon. I really hope it wont include mandatory turn-ins and buy-backs. If I had to bet I'd bet not (not yet at least), but I wouldn't be surprised.
If it ends up going before the Supreme Court, hopefully the wording of the second amendment ("well armed" and "shall not be infringed") will still hold some weight.

roach4047:If that wasn't good enough then I would put my self through peace officer training school simply to be part of the gang that will always be allowed to have them.
Not a bad idea.

Musketeer
October 16, 2008, 08:12 AM
If that wasn't good enough then I would put my self through peace officer training school simply to be part of the gang that will always be allowed to have them.

and there you go! People ask where they will find individuals to perform confiscations. It is simple, they will find them amongst the "privileged class" who those rules do not apply to.

I find the comments from two angle here laughable. In one argument we have people thinking NO was a planned test of confiscation methods. Like George Soros was sitting there with a master plan and map of NO sending out pre-selected hit teams to raid homes for guns. In the other argument we have the pot bellied suburban militia which thinks Americans would rise up and take to the barricades with their rifles should bans and confiscation come.

Both groups need to look at reality.

Katrina was a complete debacle where gov't (starting with the local) completely dropped the ball. They could not even get bottled water to where it was needed and left parking lots full of buses to be engulfed in a flood rather than use them for an evacuation. NOTHING WAS PLANNED IN NEW ORLEANS LEAST OF ALL DOOR TO DOOR CONFISCATIONS. When they authorities made those illegal confiscations it was out of fear. These people couldn't even keep their own officers from NO from looting and some here think there was a plan to test confiscation techniques in NO... how laughable.

As far as Americans rising up in Armed Resistance... Only a small fraction of gun owners can even be bothered to join the NRA. If you cannot get them to write a small check once a year what makes you think they are going to grab a rifle and take to the barricades. I heard Wayne LaPierre at a rally a couple weeks ago and he put out a pretty amazing figure. 122 Million people voted in the Presidential election in 2004 and last year Cabelas had 80 million customers. You would think voting on gun issues should be a no brainer but obviously the majority of shooters out there are simply LAZY. They will squak but if you cannot even get them to vote against people who advocate banning their guns then why would you expect them to shed their own blood?

MikeGoob
October 16, 2008, 09:58 AM
exactly.

--Registration first

--THEN confiscation

Historically this always makes it easier to control people.

K-Minus
October 16, 2008, 09:15 PM
I don't care who you are,a cop, a government official or the queen of
flippin' england,if you come to MY house and try to take MY legally owned guns I WILL shoot you.

ElectricHellfire
October 16, 2008, 09:43 PM
If they come to my door nicely they will most likely find that I "lost" all of mine out in the Gulf of Mexico in a freak boating accident. :D If they bust in the door at 3 am there will be a firefight.

I dont really think it will come to that. I think at most they will just make it harder to get certain types of weapons. Which is absolutely idiotic. I remember the awb. You could still get AK's all day long with a thumb-hole stock. Hell, I bought one during the ban. :D

If they decide to go door to door using force I dont think that would be pretty. Just my opinion.

EastSideRich
October 16, 2008, 11:11 PM
There seems to be alot of "if they come to take my guns ......" type of responses.
What happens if it is not "Mr. Jones, Were here for your guns", but "Mr Jones, You have the right to remain silent ........"

If the police were to come and try to place you under arrest, or tell you they have a search warrant, are there alot of people who will seriously start blasting away? I'm sure there are people who will say they will, and maybe even a few who really will, but when push comes to shove, I don't think most of us are willing to start a stand-off or gun down police officers on their front steps. Both are lose/lose situations; You will either leave in the back of a squad car or a body bag.

I really doubt there will be New Orleans style confiscations. I can much more easily imagine warrants and arrests.

Either way I'm not willing to shoot it out and leave a widow and fatherless children, but thats just me; some of you might.

It's a damn shame, but I feel like if the right people are in place in congress, and the right president is in the white house they'll be able to do whatever they want and there will nothing anyone can do about it.
I think at most they will just make it harder to get certain types of weapons. Which is absolutely idiotic. I remember the awb. You could still get AK's all day long with a thumb-hole stock. Hell, I bought one during the ban.
Don't think they can't learn from their mistakes. If there is another ban I wouldn't expect it to be like the last one.

As kind of an aside, does anyone know how they did it in Australia and England? I know they a buyback in Australia which was paid for with some kind of sales tax increase, which I don't see them doing here (the paying us for them); but what were the consequences of not turning them in? (not rhetorical - I'm asking)

jetsfan
October 17, 2008, 12:27 AM
Tricky times we live in. I personally am a democrat but very NON-liberal. However, I to fear that we could lose our rights to carry and even more so own firearms no matter who is elected. Hopefully, the powers that be will not attempt to infringe on our rights even more than they already have. Things are pretty messed up right now and I think a gun ban or almost any non economy related act will be unlikely. Finally, if a ban is implemented then I guess each person has to decide how much they are willing to let their civil rights be violated as I am not giving up mine.

buzz_knox
October 17, 2008, 07:29 AM
Things are pretty messed up right now and I think a gun ban or almost any non economy related act will be unlikely.

Things were messed up in 1934, and they passed the NFA. They'll do the same here as 1) it's feel good legislation that'll satiate the hyperlibs, when the economy won't support the wealth redistribution plans and 2) it's guaranteed employment for gov't employees. The more things you criminalize, the more gov't you need to "deal" with the criminals.

Intune
October 17, 2008, 11:21 AM
If the police were to come and try to place you under arrest, or tell you they have a search warrant, are there alot of people who will seriously start blasting away? I'm sure there are people who will say they will, and maybe even a few who really will, but when push comes to shove, I don't think most of us are willing to start a stand-off or gun down police officers on their front steps. Both are lose/lose situations; You will either leave in the back of a squad car or a body bag.Um, no. I'm not chest-beating or LEO bashing but after a few arrests and/or gun owner deaths, the police would be in deep poo down here.

Do you really think we're going to sit in our darkened homes waiting to be flushed individually and mown down like barn rats? How 'bout "we" visit you at your staging area? Are we having fun yet?

Just talking about it makes me sick. I didn't serve my country for it to come to this.

The police could not handle it. No way. I say that with the highest regard & respect.

So now we're talking military.

"They" know this.

It's not gonna happen.

If it does...

God help us all.

JAYBIRD78
October 18, 2008, 10:50 AM
KATRINA..........BINGO

History repeats!


Just had a discussion with a coworker while we were shooting some clays. He said he was going to vote for the economy. :rolleyes: I told him I was voting for FREEDOM.

jakeswensonmt
October 18, 2008, 11:49 AM
Do you really think we're going to sit in our darkened homes waiting to be flushed individually and mown down like barn rats? How 'bout "we" visit you at your staging area? Are we having fun yet?
Some will wait like rats in a hole, and some will recognize their place in history. This is the sort of moment that separated the founding fathers of our nation from lesser men. If the police went through my town confiscating guns, word would get around fast, and instantly there'd be a civilian "militia" formed up that would meet the requirements even of the Brady's. I think the police would rethink their priorities when faced with a forest of civilian rifle barrels.

PS: This was not intended as a police bashing post. I have major respect for the men in blue, and the tough job that they do every day. This post was about patriotism and what's worth fighting and even dying for.

Caeser2001
October 18, 2008, 04:03 PM
what was britains timetable?

rogertc1
October 18, 2008, 05:52 PM
The 94 Ban got rid of the Streetsweeper shotgun and a few others...so yes they , the Democrats in Majority, could word the ban to take them all.

DC
October 18, 2008, 09:35 PM
Can it happen: Yes; especially in a number of states
Will it happen: Maybe, eventually in a couple of years, likely.
They are going to be giddy, gotta a lot of money to spend from the gitgo. At the beginning, guns aren't important. Once confidence settles in, then folks look further

It will begin in States first before the Fed level.