The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 30, 2009, 11:05 PM   #1
hkusp1
Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 25
illegal search a seizure question

i was just at a buddies house picking up some ammo and showing him my new ar 15 and he asked me why i bought it and i said i wanted to get one now in case this new "assault weapons" ban and i use that term loosely goes into effect and i made a remark that ounce i owned my ar 15 that they couldnt take it away from me for no reason and he said under this new ban that they could come into my home and take it for no reason. is this true??
__________________
i say we ban obama
hkusp1 is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 11:35 PM   #2
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
For the most part in order to come into your house and sieze anything government agents will need a warrant.

If a new law bans possession of "assault weapons" and has no provision for grandfathering already possessed and or manufactured weapons it would make your possession of said weapon illegal.

If the government had information that you possessed an illegal weapon in your home. They could use that information to get a warrant and come into your home and sieze said weapon and subsequently charge you with a crime. It wouldn't be siezed for "no reason" it would be siezed because it violated the law.

It's a very simple look at one scenario.

Just because you possess it now doesn't mean said possession won't be made illegal in the future. The previous AWB had a grandfather provision but there is no telling what some future law may say.

Also, what new ban is your friend talking about?

Last edited by vranasaurus; March 30, 2009 at 11:46 PM.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 11:44 PM   #3
hkusp1
Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 25
ok i get what your saying thanks for the info i will have to look into this alittle deeper but still useful do u know where i can view all the details of the new "assault weapons" ban
__________________
i say we ban obama
hkusp1 is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 11:50 PM   #4
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
do u know where i can view all the details of the new "assault weapons" ban
It exists only in the minds of the potential authors.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old March 30, 2009, 11:50 PM   #5
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
That's the thing. There is no new awb.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 10:27 AM   #6
kirkcdl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2002
Location: Roseburg,ORYGUN
Posts: 818
My opinion(ONLY)is that a gun seizure will only work in the first city it's tried in,after that I'd think there would be gun battles in all following cities.Just a hypothesis,I truly hope it never comes to that...
kirkcdl is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 10:43 AM   #7
M1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
Quote:
ok i get what your saying thanks for the info i will have to look into this alittle deeper but still useful do u know where i can view all the details of the new "assault weapons" ban
There is none. It doesn't exist. No such legislation has passed either house of Congress, and chances are none will. Until and unless such legislation is passed, there is no way to know what would or would not be in the bill.

That said, the US government can't just seize private property -- they have to pay for it. There is simply no way the Feds could pay for all of the so-called assault weapons owned by individuals in the US. The far more likely approach (which was used in the expired 1994 assault weapons ban) would be to grandfather existing guns.

Furthermore, the Federal government simply does not have the manpower to start searching people's homes and confiscating firearms.

In other words, your buddy doesn't know what he's talking about.
M1911 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 10:46 AM   #8
eaglesnester
Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Posts: 99
2nd amend and search and seizure

Do we not have protection against the government taking legal
aquired private property?
eaglesnester is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 01:13 PM   #9
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
i was just at a buddies house picking up some ammo and showing him my new ar 15 and he asked me why i bought it and i said i wanted to get one now in case this new "assault weapons" ban and i use that term loosely goes into effect and i made a remark that ounce i owned my ar 15 that they couldnt take it away from me for no reason and he said under this new ban that they could come into my home and take it for no reason. is this true??
They've already taken most of your punctuation and all your capital letters. Why would they leave you your rifle?




















zukiphile is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 02:04 PM   #10
JustDreadful
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2008
Location: Sin City
Posts: 270
Quote:
They've already taken most of your punctuation and all your capital letters.
Hah! Well done!
__________________
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

"Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge."
JustDreadful is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 02:39 PM   #11
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Furthermore, the Federal government simply does not have the manpower to start searching people's homes and confiscating firearms.
thats because the manpower is in Iraq.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 02:44 PM   #12
guns and more
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 101
Quote:
Do we not have protection against the government taking legal
aquired private property?
I don't know. Ask the executives from AIG.
guns and more is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 03:47 PM   #13
M1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
Quote:
thats because the manpower is in Iraq.
Even if the army was recalled from Iraq, they wouldn't have enough manpower to do it -- there's only about 130,000 troops in Iraq. Guys, the black helicopters aren't coming, the UN troops won't be invading your town, and Obama is not going to send troops to search your home. It won't happen.

He might pass a law similar to the 1994 assault weapon ban, but first it has to get through the House, Senate, and conference committee. And given that the Senate President and Speaker of the House have both said they are not interested in such legislation, it isn't happening anytime soon.
M1911 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 04:27 PM   #14
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Even if the army was recalled from Iraq, they wouldn't have enough manpower to do it
we could go on and on about that one...I agree with you about:
Quote:
the black helicopters aren't coming, the UN troops won't be invading your town, and Obama is not going to send troops to search your home. It won't happen.
I totally agree with that. But think about it, if said ban was true then I believe that the entire U.S. military does have the manpower to go door to door. I know I know, it won't happen, like I said above, I agree with you on that. Not to get all hypothetical on you.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 05:02 PM   #15
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
The logistics of door to door seizures is not only logistically daunting but they would almost certainly viate the 4th amendment.

What would most likely happen if a law had no grandfather provision is that they would seize them as they came up. If the government has information that you are in possession of a banned weapon they will get a warrant, sieze the weapon, and charge you with possession.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 05:28 PM   #16
hkusp1
Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 25
Post Deleted. PM Sent.
__________________
i say we ban obama

Last edited by Al Norris; March 31, 2009 at 09:49 PM. Reason: Rules Violation
hkusp1 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 06:59 PM   #17
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
Dern right hkusp1!

but I think it was meant more as a joke....

banning any sales of certain new guns would be the first step... then registration of what you have... unregistered then being illegal... then they have the list and they could pick away at that for years...

the real 'benefit' on the face of it would be that it would employee a whole lot of new LEO's. For some reason "more police" has always been a banner slogan for politicians on both sides.... one day we will live in a 'perfect world' where there is a policeman in every front yard I guess.
blume357 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 07:37 PM   #18
Maromero
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Location: Outside the continental U
Posts: 752
"That said, the US government can't just seize private property -- they have to pay for it."

Not to sure about that. That is indeed the general rule but there are exptions to circumvent it.
Maromero is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 07:57 PM   #19
hkusp1
Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 25
i know it is all in good fun blume357, It just seems like the new admin wants to disarm the american people rather quickly for some reason i mean aren't there more important things going on i.e. economy, drugs, crime, poverty, etc. You would think they would want more responsible citizens to help fight some of the bigger issues in the country.
__________________
i say we ban obama
hkusp1 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 08:01 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,319
True, the govt can't come into your home for no reason

But the fact that you live there is enough reason, if they word the request (warrant) the right way, and a judge (a member of the govt) agrees to it.

The Internet is rife with examples of govt officials, at all levels of enforcement, entering people's homes, for reasons they thought well and true. Only to later discover that they were in error. The sad thing is the number of times these incidents resulted to damage and suffering to the people and property involved.

The militarization of local police tactics over the past couple of decades is a topic of wide discussion, and engenders strong emotions. Care must be taken to remain civil and polite when discussing these kinds of things. Feelings don't matter nearly as much as rights and the laws.

Personally, no matter what new AWB dreams are filling the heads of the "public safety" extremists, their efforts are going nowhere right now. This can, and is likely to change. But no one can say with surety, just when.

I wouldn't worry about house to house searches for "assault weapons". If it ever gets to that point, it will be for ALL weapons.

Leaving behind you large numbers of people with deer rifles, revolvers and double barrels, who are very upset because you just stole their property, and maybe worse is simiply not a smart move.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 08:11 PM   #21
mskdgunman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2008
Posts: 127
Forget the manpower for the actual seizures which would be incredible. The courts and prisons are not up to the task. Hopefully there would be numerous constitutional challanges to the courts by any subjects arrested for that kind of violation. Maybe the ACLU would be forced to defend gun owners rights for a change.

I don't see it happening. They'll try something but nothing that extreme.
mskdgunman is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 08:55 PM   #22
pabst_20
Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 58
our government has more important things to worry about then whether or not to put a ban assault weapons i think.
__________________
CCW Holder, Sig 239, Browning Hi Power, S&W 432PD, Rossi 38, HK USP compact, Para PDA LDA, kimber custom SIS, kimber tactical pro, kimber ultra CDP, Sig P238, beretta PX4sc, Marlin XL7 .270
pabst_20 is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 09:04 PM   #23
chemgirlie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
Quote:
our government has more important things to worry about then whether or not to put a ban assault weapons i think.
At least for the moment people will be calling for their heads if they aren't tinkering with the economy/banks/AIG and related companies.
chemgirlie is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 09:50 PM   #24
pendennis
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
Even if Congress were to pass a new version of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, any weapon or part of a weapons system already manufactured would remain legal to own.

There is a clause in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3, which states - "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

A bill of attainder punishes specific individuals and/or groups. This is tantamount to conviction without a trial.

Ex post facto, literally means "enacted after the fact". In other words, what is legal today, can't be legislated illegal tomorrow. Your AR15, and its 30 round magazines which are legal today, can't be taken away from you tomorrow, just because Congress passes a law. They would only become illegal if manufactured after the law went into effect. There are a lot of AR-15's out there manufactured prior to 1994, the last time Congress passed a restrictive gun law. Those guns were legal to own after the law went into effect. Colt, for example, just couldn't manufacture AR-15's with flash suppressors after the law was passed in 1994.

To search your home for illegal items (contraband, drugs, illegal weapons, etc.), authorities must have probable cause that a crime has been committed, and they must attest to this in front of a judge. The judge has the option to sign a search warrant for execution by the police. Search warrants have to be specific. In other words, the police can't be on a hunting expedition. For example, if the search warrant calls for searching for drugs, the search area must be specific, and is limited to that area.

If the police search an area not in immediate control by the suspect, that area is usually off limits. If the police specify the living room in the warrant, they usually can also search the garage if the garage isn't accessible from the living room.

The above are generally true. However, there are specific instances where courts have interpreted search warrants differently in similar cases. The law is a funny (odd) thing at times.
pendennis is offline  
Old March 31, 2009, 11:00 PM   #25
2edgesword
Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2008
Location: Suffolk County, NY
Posts: 84
"That's the thing. There is no new awb."

Doesn't exist? Check out NYS Assembly Bill A-6294 February 27, 2009

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06294&sh=t

There is a grandfather clause in it but it would required surrendering the firearm to the state police for registration and ballistic fingerprinting.
2edgesword is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12988 seconds with 9 queries