Ban state and Grandpa's hidden whatever

[Mike38]

Violence is not the answer here.

I for one, am thankful some people thought otherwise on April 18, 1775.

To stay on topic I'm not sure the children or wife of subject Grandpa would have much to worry about, but one never knows.

[5whiskey]

To stay on topic, Glen I think a great deal of context is required. It’s a good question, with a lot of different outcomes. Are the heirs gun-savvy? Two of my children understands the issues quite well. Two don’t (one is 3 to be fair). My 24 and 14 year old are quite educated on guns, and the associated political issues. My 12 year old? She will never have interest. Anything left to her would be sold for what she could get. If she knew it was not legal, she may would give it to an older brother or sister, if they took it. Either way she wouldn’t hold on to it nor subversively black market sell it.

Another question... are we talking about something made illegal last week, last year, or last century? I would not accept an unregistered machine gun as an inheritance. I wouldn’t hold onto it “just in case” they became legal or the remote chance that they are semi-useful (honestly not really) in some form of revolution (which has like a .01% chance of happening). That is long standing law not likely to be overturned, and lets be real revolution is little more than talk of “playing gun.” However, were I to receive 30 round magazines in the will when they were made illegal only a year ago, I might would tuck those far far away in the event that case law strikes down their restriction. To some gun guys, something so mundane as the “stroke of a pen” illegality last year might be an acceptable risk. Same thing with my kids. I’ve raised them to be good and not steal, kill, do drugs, flagrantly break the law, or otherwise harm others. I’ve taught them to obey the law, same as I was. I will say a law that makes an object or activity illegal, which was otherwise perfectly legal your first 20+ years of life and doesn’t hurt anyone, might not be perceived as “legitimate.” Lots going on there.

And to the argument that prohibited items are relegated to the hole you buried them in... there are still millions of people who shoot on private land. No one will know if you have a bayonet lug or not from a mile away. They won’t know how large the magazine capacity is. Obvious things like full auto fire is easy to hear. Disciplined use of an AR15 “assault rifle” is less obvious.

On to the general “revolution” talk... and slightly off topic. I’m of the opinion that no such drastic resistance will occur unless gun control in enacted radically, swiftly, without grandfather clause, and with confiscation. The only way ther will be significant forcible resistance to a gun control measure is if it’s not incremental, bans overnight a commonly owned firearm (yes an AR fits here), has no grandfather clause, and is combined with door to door confiscation. Take any of these legs away, and massive forcible resistance goes away. We all know the anti-gun lobby loves incrementalism so none of this will happen. It’s also why I am ardently against any incremental measures that make a current legal item illegal, or restricts persons to own them without due processs.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

I will say a law that makes an object or activity illegal, which was otherwise perfectly legal your first 20+ years of life and doesn’t hurt anyone, might not be perceived as “legitimate.” Lots going on there.

And in those instances, widespread non-compliance can be a part of a political act that leads to repeal of the restriction. See the 55mph speed limit, race segregated public accommodations, and of course...

Originally Posted by 18th Am.

Section 1

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited

[Tom Servo]

I have some experience with this. Every couple of years, I'd have someone (usually a recent widow) come into the shop with an NFA gun that a deceased relative had left behind, sans paperwork. I didn't relish telling them the situation they were in. Their only legal alternative was to turn it in to law enforcement, and I knew a local attorney who helped with that pro bono.

That's not what I wanted to tell them, and it's certainly not what they wanted to hear. Most told me they'd go sell it somewhere else, or that they'd just hold onto it. I never argued, but I really needed them to take it off the property now.

In the mid-1990's, I was in Vancouver, and I was invited to a shoot with some friends. There were modern pistols and AR-15's with full-capacity mags present. When I asked how those things were legal under Canada's laws, most everyone scoffed. They didn't take the law seriously and didn't think law enforcement was going to take great pains to enforce them.

I hear quite a bit of that from gun owners in places like Connecticut who choose to "resist" or make silly statements about boating accidents, but those guys really need to plan for a situation in which they pass away and their descendents end up in possession of illegal contraband.

And that's the thing with these new AWB proposals. Note the language that allows the guns to be grandfathered to the current owner but forbids the transfer of them after that.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting Tom.

Is there any legal liability for not reporting knowing of such a weapon?

While going to shoot with friends and not worrying about the law is different from where I was yesterday, in an organized event that had 60 people who would be felons in NY shooting. Those would be gone.

Shooting at a rock in the woods is not really that exciting just as sneaking a drink in a speak easy or drinking Dad's home made hooch is really rebellion. Certainly, illegal sexual acts were quite common. But folks did and do get caught. That's why I think the secret resistance meme is useless.

In the Civil Rights era, we had marches of hundreds to hundreds of thousands. In some cases, they were opposed the forces of the government.

I doubt we will see hundred thousand gun folks with higher capacity, semi-auto weapons of military appearance marching to Washington DC.

Unless the laws are not passed, repealed or dealt with by the courts, a few guys in woods and Grandpa's buried whatever are not effective opposition to the loss of rights.

[Tom Servo]

Is there any legal liability for not reporting knowing of such a weapon?

Strictly speaking, no. I spoke with our attorney, and the fact that the person brought it in AND the fact I knew what it was would have to somehow come up in a legal proceeding for it to be an issue. If I had the slightest inkling the person was going to do something awful, I certainly would have made the call, but that wasn't ever the situation.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Growing up, there was no shortage of guys with WW2 bringbacks, Lahtis, and other Title II weapons that had failed to register them. I don’t know how long they had them; but enough people owned and shot them that I didn’t think it was unusual.

I can remember being about 12 and shooting an unregistered Title II subgun when the local sheriff’s deputy showed up. We were standing on an old county road firing into a river bank that served as the unofficial shooting range. I didn’t know anything about NFA, so I wasn’t nervous in the slightest and neither were the adults. He chatted with the adults a bit and went on his way.

I imagine that in a lot of this country, a ban on firearms is going to remain unenforceable and unenforced on the majority of peacable citizens who aren’t creating problems with law enforcement.

During the 1994 AWB, people fairly regularly ignored it and put prohibited features on their post-ban weapons and then go shoot at public ranges in a major urban metro area like Dallas.

As far as such behavior helping our rights, it doesn’t do a whole lot; but it does keep alive the underlying culture of RKBA and a resistance to unjust laws. I think open civil disobedience is more effective at challenging unjust laws. Quietly ignoring the laws just lets the government use selective enforcement when it decides it wants to. Standing up and saying “No I won’t do that!” brings it to a head.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think a new AWB will be pursued with more vigor and rigor than the last one. The electronic and media tech we have now could easily be used to send notices to identified folks that we think you have a prohibited item. Just as I just bought items that are felony bait elsewhere from Brownells. So, we know you got them - turn them in.

As far as disobedience, keeping the guns in the basement isn't exactly on the level of Rosa Parks or the Selma to Montgomery march and bridge incident. It's just Internet virtue signaling.

Would the major modern ranges in TX allow you to shoot a prohibited item after a ban. Nope. Would a well organized IPSC, IDPA, Steel, etc. match let you use a prohibited item - no. IDPA already is that way for handguns. It would move that way for carbine matches in a second.

I'm told the Ruger 9mm carbine is becoming popular for matches in ban states.

Read an article that Thomas is thinking about retiring. He's pretty understanding about the weapons type issue. Would the next justice be so?

The new AG waffled on the issue during hearings. Left a wide indicate latitude for gun and mag bans.

To return to my OP - if there was a ban nation wide, I'd expect that the kids would ditch them in most cases. If not, they are still useless for most purposes. As a Dad, I wouldn't put my kid or heirs in that bind.

[rickyrick]

If there’s no accommodations for transferring grandfathered items and it would cause my heirs a legal headache, I’d ditch them. If something is outright banned, I’d destroy it or turn it in.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Would the major modern ranges in TX allow you to shoot a prohibited item after a ban. Nope. Would a well organized IPSC, IDPA, Steel, etc. match let you use a prohibited item - no. IDPA already is that way for handguns. It would move that way for carbine matches in a second.

Well, they all allowed it 15 years ago. What has changed? IDPA was organized around 10 round magazines because it was created during the 1994 ban era; but I’m not aware of any other limiting factors. For that matter, I used 13 and 17 round mags in IDPA during the ban. I’d just load 10 if the stage required it.

[Tom Servo]

I think a new AWB will be pursued with more vigor and rigor than the last one.

Oh, they learned. The 1994 version allowed transfers of grandfathered weapons. The 2013 (and later) versions prohibit that altogether. In fact, during the deliberations, Feinstein suggested a requirement that grandfathered weapons be registered under the NFA.

Think that one through, and it makes compliance impossible. Her comment was a six-month window. Without any new staffing or funding for the NFA branch, lead times would be measured in years, and as the deadline approached, the only option would be to destroy or turn in the newly-banned weapons.

There will be a "see something, say something" campaign to encourage people to turn in their neighbors, disgruntled employers, and jilted ex-spouses. They don't have to bust everybody; they just need to nail one person every now and then to set an example and create a chilling effect.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The 90's weren't the world of social media. Today, someone would post a person using a banned item and discussing how they are the 'resistance' to the socialist wave or some such. I can also see insurance companies telling ranges to comply.

Last, our matches have a strong local and sometimes Federal LEO presence. I'd be cautious about putting those guys at risk of not reporting. I could see our match directory who runs the matches as a business forbidding such at the carbine matches.

Downloading a mag is different than running a carbine with 30 rounds.

[riffraff]

I'm 40 now and was coming of gun buying age in the middle of the last AWB - I can say the attitude surrounding all these sort of regulations in general was a whole lot different. The message we got among gun owners and at any gun shop you walked into was such laws were non enforced federal baloney, meant to be undermined, bent, broken etc.. Even the idea of converting something to full auto came with no warning, just oh you can do it via XYZ and it's no big deal and nobody is enforcing that either.. To me, at least where I lived, nobody gave a second thought to any gun anybody owned.

State laws were a different story - people were aware of and obeyed those (ie concealed carry, you didn't do so without a permit because that was enforced).

Today the attitude is much different - maybe it's the internet, maybe the fed's have stepped up enforcement and there are examples made of people. The general consensus is "you get in deep xyz for that"; everyone is much more aware of the law, to the point where even 100% legal things make people paranoid.

Whatever the case these latest attempts at an AWB are certainly done with the "vigor and rigor" and it's scary stuff. The idea of an outright ban on magazines > 10, having to destroy or turn in what we own, etc.. etc.. never even mind the guns - that's a tough pill to swallow and if enough like-minded politicians happen to stumble into office in 2020 that is surely what they will be trying to pass federally.

It's probably not coincidence that universal background check's are being pushed so hard and first when they seem a bit worthless from many perspectives - even if transfer is prohibited private sale allows passing guns along for some number of generations (provided such do not become NFA items or registered).

[USNRet93]

Whatever the case these latest attempts at an AWB are certainly done with the "vigor and rigor" and it's scary stuff. The idea of an outright ban on magazines > 10, having to destroy or turn in what we own, etc.. etc.. never even mind the guns - that's a tough pill to swallow and if enough like-minded politicians happen to stumble into office in 2020 that is surely what they will be trying to pass federally.

Or via a 'national emergency'...if that toothpaste is outta the tube(precedent)...

[sigarms228]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Or via a 'national emergency'...if that toothpaste is outta the tube(precedent)...

Not even close. The border wall had already been approved to be built in 2006. President Trump is using the National Emergencies Act to try and redirect funds to get more of it built. Nothing in the act comes anywhere close to banning "high capacity" magazine.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We are not discussing Trump's rationale for whatever he does.

The point made now and before was that the National Emergency powers could be used to declare gun violence as a national emergency and ban certain weapons and accessories.

Nancy Pelosi raised that possibility. The use of National Emergency and Executive orders for other seeming unconstitutional actions is a real threat to the RKBA.

The bump stock ban at the initiation of a President (who may be your God or Devil, we don't care for the political debate) indicates that such actions are a possibility.

It is also the case that thinking that some savior exists on the Supreme Court may not be a good bet. In the past, SCOTUS has gone along in moral panic with clearly unconstitutional actions.

NO BORDER WALL, pro or con.

[zukiphile]

While the National Emergencies Act of 1976 may itself be defective, and congressional re-assignment of its own power over the last century to the exec is itself a queer thing, an exec announcing an emergency isn't itself precedent. If the current announcement culminates in an illegal application of existing funding, that will be a constitutional problem, but it isn't one yet. One needs to now where the money comes from before making an effective argument against the funding.

That Nancy Pelosi's reflex was to see the opportunity to abridge a civil right is informative.

Whether the problem one foresees facing is an exec whose appreciation for constitutional limits is outweighed by his ambition or his pen an phone, or the problem is a congressional caucus that doesn't accept the legitimacy of the rights described in the 2d Am., a constitutional remedy is a Sup Court that imposes legal limits on both. The Court needs to be composed correctly in order to do that.

[SIGSHR]

"Three make keep a secret if two of them are dead." What Ben Franklin said in 1735 is even more relevant today. Social media has made people very indiscreet.

[Tom Servo]

The use of National Emergency and Executive orders for other seeming unconstitutional actions is a real threat to the RKBA.

I'm not sure. The current declaration simply shuffles money around to fund a construction project. To some extent, the President has that power. That law is really badly written.

Pelosi's scenario involves something very different. One could declare a national emergency in regards to "gun violence," but what would that really entail? Perhaps diverting more money to existing programs and relevant agencies for enforcement.

If it were to go further, it would be blatant legislation by executive fiat, and there's no way SCOTUS could possibly ignore that.

I have some very real concerns about the excesses of executive power, and the current situation may end up being a test of its limits.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Pelosi's scenario involves something very different. One could declare a national emergency in regards to "gun violence," but what would that really entail? Perhaps diverting more money to existing programs and relevant agencies for enforcement.

If it were to go further, it would be blatant legislation by executive fiat, and there's no way SCOTUS could possibly ignore that.

It's harder to argue that the exec is usurping a legislative function where the legislature has been off loading authority onto the exec with emergency and regulatory powers for almost a century. The National Emergencies Act seems much like the War Powers Act; each is legislation that works around constitutional divisions of power. If one's understanding of constitutional government involved anything more than watching Schoolhouse Rock, he knows that legislation can't amend the Constitution. Yet, if the exec and congress find the accommodation agreeable, who complains?

There is no balance in "checks and balances" where the legislators have decided over time that they don't want parts of their work. People decry gridlock, but overlook its constitutional role.

[Tom Servo]

It's harder to argue that the exec is usurping a legislative function where the legislature has been off loading authority onto the exec with emergency and regulatory powers for almost a century.

Congress is, by the law they passed, supposed to review existing states of emergency every six months. To my knowledge, that has *never* happened. You're right that the NEA is a matter of kicking the can down the curb.

However, there's a big difference between reallocating funds and changing law.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While not a legal scholar, the key question is whether declaring an emergency and demanding the confiscation of a dangerous item is within the bounds of the President's authority. Trump may be moving money around but FDR imprisoned law abiding citizens on the basis of race and the Supreme Court agreed at first. That's quite a step over moving funds around.

The Supreme Court might have to decide if that sort of action was legit as they would have to decide if a new Federal AWB is legit. Unless Kavanaugh's selection causes a change in the dynamic, how would they rule on either?

There are rumbles that Thomas might retire. The new AG, Barr, has waffled on weapons type bans if reports of past and present opinions are correct.

As an aside, could Trump state that such state bans are subejct a national emergency as they weaken the role of citizens in defending self and the country? Thus, he cuts off all Federal law enforcement funding and cooperation to states that have or enact such bans? Just a pipe dream.

The new administration in New Mexico wants to pass an UBC law among others - may an AWB, and some gun activists are proposing a push for sheriffs not to comply and for informing the public of jury nullification. While is nice for local, rural sheriffs not to comply, the existence of such laws will put heirs in a hard place for noncompliance depending on grandfathering.

We've wandered a bit into executive orders but mostly relevant. Let's not go to far off topic.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

However, there's a big difference between reallocating funds and changing law.

Indeed, though note that in the last decade there was effectively a change in tax and immigration law, both undertaken where Congress had already expressed itself to the contrary. Neither was as dramatic as effective repeal of a part of the BOR.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

While not a legal scholar, the key question is whether declaring an emergency and demanding the confiscation of a dangerous item is within the bounds of the President's authority. Trump may be moving money around but FDR imprisoned law abiding citizens on the basis of race and the Supreme Court agreed at first. That's quite a step over moving funds around.

FDR also locked up law abiding german americans for their political views and Lincoln didn't do habeas corpus any favors either.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

The Supreme Court might have to decide if that sort of action was legit as they would have to decide if a new Federal AWB is legit. Unless Kavanaugh's selection causes a change in the dynamic, how would they rule on either?

That might turn in part on the composition of the court when the issue comes before it.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

There are rumbles that Thomas might retire. The new AG, Barr, has waffled on weapons type bans if reports of past and present opinions are correct.

Thomas will certainly retire or die, so an exec and Senate that will treat the matter appropriately is important.

I know little about William Barr aside from his recent testimony. To characterize his testimony as waffling is wrong. He has been a proponent of the individual right view of the 2d Am. and articulated a balancing test that should be rejected. His testimony on the subject was less focused and informed than Kavanaugh's.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

As an aside, could Trump state that such state bans are subejct a national emergency as they weaken the role of citizens in defending self and the country? Thus, he cuts off all Federal law enforcement funding and cooperation to states that have or enact such bans? Just a pipe dream.

The new administration in New Mexico wants to pass an UBC law among others - may an AWB, and some gun activists are proposing a push for sheriffs not to comply and for informing the public of jury nullification. While is nice for local, rural sheriffs not to comply, the existence of such laws will put heirs in a hard place for noncompliance depending on grandfathering.

We've wandered a bit into executive orders but mostly relevant. Let's not go to far off topic.

DJT could state many things, but really effective federal bullying by financial means, like withholding highway funds unless a 55mph speed limit is adopted, takes congressional cooperation because they ultimately control the money.

If sheriff's tolerance and jury nullification are the rule in an area, the heirs aren't really in a hard place. As with the 18th Am. and the 55mph speed limit, where non-compliance is the ordinary condition and the law is viewed as foolish, non-compliance becomes public, accepted and normal and prosecution itself is seen as an injustice.

A half century ago, William F. Buckley argued for legalization of marijuana and in the 1980s cited a lad being given a long prison sentence for possession as a reason for legalization. A week ago, I was called by a NY client whose daughter had been stopped for speeding in Ohio and was ticketed for possession because she hadn't thought to hide it from the PO.

I am not an advocate for legalization, but it illlustrates the limited utility of a legal prohibition poorly matched to ordinary attitudes.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Two of those commands — regarding bail and cruel and unusual punishments — have been deemed to apply to state and local governments.

This is from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.10260f48f8a3

where a seizure of a Land Rover was seen as extreme for a small amount of drugs. I wonder if anyone has attempted to void the harsh D Felony penalties for NY SAFE act violations for having a higher cap magazine. After all, such are legal in many states and the penalties are the same as for much more heinous offenses.

Of course, SCOTUS would have to take the case. This might be different from a 2nd Amend. based case to void the law.

[rickyrick]

In my simple mind, I perceive Speaker Pelosi’s statement as a threat against something in the bill of rights by emergency action of some unknown future president in retaliation to an emergency action by the current President. Besides the unknown identity of this future presidency, the conditions and time of the emergency action is also unknown; However, the Speaker did state which political party this unknown future president will be a member of.
That’s a head scratcher to me, but then, I’m a simple person.