Another AWB question: can they take them?

[EastSideRich]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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_...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]

I guess it's possible, but unless the owners surrendered them easily, I don't see it being all that successful

[sholling]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scholling

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.

[KChen986]

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/Domesti...fender_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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Years ago they took all of the gold,I went fishing last week all of my gum fell in to the water

[SPUSCG]

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]

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]

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:


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

if there was a worldwide gun ban I think i would have to invent a semi automatic crossbow.

[obxned]

Any attempt to confiscate all the so-called assault rifles would definately have some unintended consequences.