gun ban "loopholes"

[Crankgrinder]

When i illustrate the fact that the ban of 94 did not work one way or the other, someone always pops off with " the laws werent enforced, and groups (gun companies) went through loopholes in the law". I then retort with " what loopholes? the law banned guns with certain features. Gun companies built guns that met these requirements exactly if not they could not have been sold. I could not buy a magazine for my ruger .22 dad gave me with more than 10 rounds, (which goes real quick in a .22 and is a pain to keep reloading.) Where was the "loophole" there? and what do you mean the laws werent "enforced"? You cannot make someone give up something that was legal at the time they bought it its called the grandfather law. Id like to know is there something wrong with my interpretation, or has watching too much media news absorbed into/ and therefore pickled many peoples brains because i truly dont see why so many people just dont get it?

[ScottRiqui]

I agree that the term "loophole" is thrown around way too often, anytime someone believes someone else is adhering to the letter of the law while skirting the "spirit" of the law. My opinion is that if someone is complaining about loopholes, then the law itself is to blame, and should have been written more clearly.

One thing, though - the "grandfather clause" you described is not a guarantee or a required part of any new law.

[JohnKSa]

You cannot make someone give up something that was legal at the time they bought it its called the grandfather law.

Yes they can. The fact that they didn't do so in the last AWB has nothing to do with what they can and can't do.

They can't retroactively make the purchase and possession before the law went into effect a crime, but they can make possession and/or use after the law goes into effect a crime. There would likely have to be some sort of grace period, as well as a requirement for the government to reimburse those who are forced to relinquish property.

[musher]

... they can make possession and/or use after the law goes into effect a crime. There would likely have to be some sort of grace period, as well as a requirement for the government to reimburse those who are forced to relinquish property.

Don't hold your breath. As far as I know, California didn't compensate the owners of SKS rifles that were deemed illegal because DOJ changed its mind about what the laws meant.

[Dre_sa]

And as far as reimbursement is concerned, I doubt we'd get much of what was paid for the rifles we'd have to turn in.

I doubt they'd give more than $200 per rifle.

Thoughts?

[ScottRiqui]

Don't hold your breath. As far as I know, California didn't compensate the owners of SKS rifles that were deemed illegal because DOJ changed its mind about what the laws meant.

California did have a "buyback" program for the SKS. It expired on 1/1/2000, and offered owners $230 per rifle. They didn't have to do it - "grandfathering" isn't a legal requirement, but I guess they thought it would be more palatable than an outright confiscation.

[Crankgrinder]

that they can or cant is beside the point. Im sure they can make anything a crime that they want if there arent enough criminals all one has to do is make some. Its been done before. my position on that issue is that feinsteins camp and the media have been accusing people of skirting the law when in fact they did not thus blaming the ineffectiveness of the law on someone else. BTW im sure the russians and the German jews wished they had just become criminals under their laws instead of submitting and im sure there are a great many who were glad they did and lived long past those times because of it.

[ScottRiqui]

I think most of us agree with you about the misuse of the term "loophole". We're just taking issue with your patently-incorrect claim that "You cannot make someone give up something that was legal at the time they bought it its called the grandfather law." You said "Id like to know is there something wrong with my interpretation". We're telling you that you're wrong about that one point, but overall, your post is pretty much spot-on.

If a manufacturer starts making thumbhole stocks to regain the ergonomic functionality that was lost when pistol grips became illegal, the manufacturer hasn't done anything wrong.

[musher]

California did have a "buyback" program for the SKS

Learn something every day.

[mrbatchelor]

Originally Posted by Dre_sa

And as far as reimbursement is concerned, I doubt we'd get much of what was paid for the rifles we'd have to turn in.

I doubt they'd give more than $200 per rifle.

Thoughts?

I think $200 is high. Most of the gun buy backs police departments have offer stupid money, or a booby prize. Not real money.

But I also don't think we would get to confiscation until they're confident enough they can body slam us without retribution. They'd never try it now. Despite what we might say, they people who really call the shots on the anti side aren't stupid. I think Cuomo's over reach has been the best thing that could have possibly happened for us since Sandy Hook. It makes them appear as naked aggressors using dead children as props.

[JohnKSa]

They don't have to confiscate the illegalized guns, and it would surprise me greatly if they took that approach.

It's already happened elsewhere, we don't have to guess how it will happen here.

All they have to do is make them illegal and wait. Over time, they'll chip away at the folks who don't turn them in or register their guns. A little at a time, one here, one there, so there's no obvious point at which those who are non-compliant feel like their collective backs are up against the wall and might be spurred to organized resistance.

Someone turns in an enemy, a wife spills the beans during a divorce, someone's kid says the wrong thing at school or at the doctor's office or to a buddy. Somewhere there's a paper trail that turns up a gun that should have been surrendered. Someone has a house fire and they find illegal guns in the ashes. Someone gets careless and gets caught at the range with something he shouldn't own.

They have all the time in the world. Why bother risking lives and resistance by doing a door-to-door? Waiting works just as well if you're not impatient.

They will eventually get them all and with very minor effort.

In the meantime, those non-compliant folks who wouldn't give them up won't be able to rationalize any advantage in keeping their guns. What's the point of having a gun you can't use in self-defense or to hunt, or even to shoot? The only option would be to hide it away and never use it again on penalty of getting caught committing a felony. They might as well have turned them in before the grace period expired and taken the pittance offered for all their non-compliance gained them.

There's really only one logical "line-in-the-sand" moment, and contrary to popular opinion and oft-repeated slogans, it isn't "when they come for your guns" because that's never going to happen.

[dlb435]

Feinstien is the only one that has filed anything yet. Her proposal is so far out of line that it could never pass.
Example: all current "assault weapons" would be grandfather in and become class three weapons. With the huge numbers of what is by her definition an "assault weapon" the ATF would need more than 1 billion dollars in resources just to register what's out there now. Considering the budget crunch we have now I just can't see that going forward.
Obama seems to be leaning more toward the mental health care side but that is even more expensive.
So far, there is no solid proposal out there that has any chance in the House.
As for the last ban, I thought it was useless.
Did it prevent or lower crime; no it didn't.
Everbody knows that the vast majority of gun related crimes are commited with handguns, not rifles. Seems that the gun control folks haven't noticed this little fact. Maybe they would be taken more seriously if they got thier facts straight.

[DaleA]

JohnKSa - a very depressing scenario.

I think the rest of us should take note though because this seem to me to be likely the way 'the frog will be boiled.'

So, do we want these rights, these freedoms, these liberties or will we watch them get watered down, diluted and fade away?

Right now this is a political discussion and with all the gun buying out there we MUST have a lot of folks on the pro gun side. If we all speak up how can we NOT be heard???

[RockSmoot]

Everbody knows that the vast majority of crimes are commited with handguns, not rifles. Seems that the gun control folks haven't noticed this little fact. Maybe they would be taken more seriously if they got thier facts straight.

They know this, they just don't care. Stopping crime isn't what this is about. Unfortunately their lack of logic doesn't seem to matter much.

[johnwilliamson062]

The only unfair "loopholes," IMO, are the exceptions for very expensive rifles like the Browning BAR MK II. The law effectively says you have no rights unless you can buy a $2,000+ rifle.

[JWT]

Feinsteins bill is very unlikely to pass but never say never. It is possible, though not very probable that it could. Obama would like nothing more than to have the NRA and gun advocates let down their guard. We must keep the pressure on Congress not to even consider the bill.

[44 AMP]

Everbody knows that the vast majority of crimes are commited with handguns, not rifles. Seems that the gun control folks haven't noticed this little fact. Maybe they would be taken more seriously if they got thier facts straight.

Back in the 60s the chosen target of the anti's was handguns. The Saturday Night Special was the main one, but all handguns, were bad.

Nothing has changed,except the focus onto semi autos "assault weapons", and that only because of the high profile mass killings done in very tiny numbers using them. (very tiny number is relationship to the overall number of shootings, not the number of victims at one time)

Once they get rid of all the evil assault weapons, (including many handguns) do you think they will retire to their front porches, satisfied in a job well done?

I doubt it.

Also note that the anti gun crowd lost a huge amount of their support after 9/11, which was very drastic proof that assault weapons were not the biggest threat to our personal safety.

We really must thank our governemnt, for the wonderful job they have been doing in the past decade. NO major terrorist incidents in the US (other than Ft Hood, and some argue that one isn't a terrorist incident), so we feel safe again. SO safe that now, once again, assault weapons are the overridding concern of a highly vocal misguided few.

[StukaJU87]

The reason the '94 AWB had "loopholes" was because their goal was to get something passed so they could establish precedence. They knew there was no chance if they proposed what they really wanted right out the gate.

The '94 AWB was there way of testing the waters to see what they could get away with and to see how we would react. They knew there were "loopholes" and intentionally put them there so when people pointed out how useless the ban was, they could say it would work better if it was stronger. They didn't go after private sales for 2 reasons. 1) They knew it would be a hard sale and 2) They knew we would take advantage of it and they could use it against us in the future. In a way, they gave us enough rope to hang ourselves. So now future bans will "attempt to save us from ourselves" by stopping said private sales.

Contrary to what we may like to think, politicians aren't stupid. They just know it is easier to get what they want a little at a time versus all at ounce. They know that if they ask or demand, you'll say no. However, if they make you think it's your idea, you'll willingly give them what they want.

A perfect example would be how machine guns were banned. I'm sure prior to prohibition, machine guns weren't a major concern. Look at the 1927 Thompson, it was marketed towards ranchers. Fast forward a few years to 1934 and all of a sudden public opinion had swayed enough that the public gladly went along with a maching gun ban. Why? Because only criminals use machine guns and making them illegal would take them out of criminals hands. Sound familiar? That was almost 80 years ago and they're still singing the same song.

The government knows it can't ban all types of firearms at once, so they don't. They know they can take advantage of situations to ban certain types of firearms, which will eventually lead to total confiscation, so they do. First was machine guns, then assault riffles because they're machine guns, now they're starting on semiautomatics. What's next?

Imagine if the government would have proposed to ban all weapons in1927. It's taken them almost 80 years, don't think they will stop anytime soon.

Sorry, for the rant.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I recall that in Australia when the bad guns were to be turned in, some Australians were happy as they got money to buy new guns that were compliant.

That would happen here in the attrition process as JohnKSa has analyzed. What good is a gun I can't use? So, I get a buck or two and buy a real neat Ruger Single Shot rifle.

[StukaJU87]

I recall that in Australia when the bad guns were to be turned in, some Australians were happy as they got money to buy new guns that were compliant.

That would happen here in the attrition process as JohnKSa has analyzed. What good is a gun I can't use? So, I get a buck or two and buy a real neat Ruger Single Shot rifle.

And there inlays the problem.

Unfortunately for years now, we have been telling the government it's ok to take our guns by allowing them to deem them non-compliant. So if we ever lose our guns, we only have ourselves to blame.

[coachteet]

When someone states that gun manufacturers "skirted" the law or used a "loophole", you can point out that it just illustrates the foolish and arbitrary nature of the term "assault weapon". It's a perfect time to press them to the issue-- you must either support banning all semi-automatic rifles, or not banning any. If they have a problem with magazine capacity, that is a separate issue. It has literally nothing at all to do with "assault weapons".

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Assault rifle usage is just an emotional ploy for the first wave. Sure, all semi anythings would be banned.

What would be left are registered hunting guns and shotguns. They would be kept at clubs and checked out for practice and the hunt. Eventually, the hunt would fall. Pesky species would be culled by government employees.

I'm reading a book about invasive species and how they could be greatly reduced by reasonable hunting rules but those are forbidden. Hunts are limited and the environmental damage increases.

Look - hunter isn't that attractive - deer are very cute. I almost hit one today on the way to shoot my evil semi. I would have felt bad if I ran it over. No compunctions about devouring tofu (actually I like tofu in Chinese dishes or Japanese). So the pure hunting crowd is sitting on sniper long range rifles with AP ammo.

The AWB, mag limits is just the start. Remember Hairplug Joe says you just need a double barrel with two rounds. You can get one in the UK - and do we want their restrictions?

Ok, with Shotgun Joe!

[StukaJU87]

Someone needs to "push the issue" that there is no such thing as "assault weapons". The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that was created to refer to semi-automatic rifles that LOOK like assault rifles. Which is why any proposed AWB is such nonsense.

It's like banning a car because it's paint is red and thinking that by eliminating all red cars, it will somehow reduce the number of deaths associated with cars.

Not sure how a black gun is any more dangerous or effective than any other color of gun. Good thing the government is around to show is the errors of our ways.

[Crankgrinder]

i like what coach said about the loose nature of the terms i think he makes a great point. My frustration in all this comes from the same place it does for lots of folks driven home even further by the fact that lots of people, not just a few, lots of them are being raised believing this stuff, and then they get to vote! i do my best to try and educate and persuade but its tough to do with people sometimes. Folks are right about the grandfather law point. Probably should have been worded more carefully. I believe it is wrong to make someone give up things legally purchased with hard earned money just because they pass a law against later. Not just wrong, but pure nonsense.

[JohnKSa]

I believe it is wrong to make someone give up things legally purchased with hard earned money just because they pass a law against later. Not just wrong, but pure nonsense.

I believe it is wrong too. I don't know precisely how the legalities work, but I suspect that there would have to be some level of compensation provided to avoid having such a law overturned.