|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 31, 2009, 11:04 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 3, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 331
|
Quote:
|
|
March 31, 2009, 11:41 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
Are you sure the previous AWB didn't grandfather in the old weapons out of political expediency, rather than Constitutional necessity? |
|
April 1, 2009, 08:20 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
It's not ex post facto because it wouldn't make your prior possession illegal.
Ex post facto applies when the government makes a law that what you did in the past is now illegal. In order to not be ex post facto the prohibited conduct occurs after the passage of the law. If the prohibited conduct occured before the passage of the law then it is ex post facto. |
April 1, 2009, 08:43 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2008
Posts: 240
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2009, 10:40 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. |
|
April 1, 2009, 10:49 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2009, 11:11 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Oops. Double pumped. Sorry.
Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 1, 2009 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Double Pumped. Sorry. |
April 1, 2009, 11:14 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
If a new federal law is ever passed which doesn't grandfather in existing "assault weapons" it would be illegal for the regular military to come and search houses. There is law called posse commitatis (sp?) which is suppose to prevent the regular military from being used for law enforcement purposes. The states could use the national guard if not employed in the service of the federal government. I believe that is what was done in New Orleans, but I'm not 100% certain of that. I'm sure others will provide more concrete information.
Of course, if the feds want the states to use the national guard to conduct searches, then they can do what they always do to try and make states comply. "If you don't do what we strongly suggest that you do, you won't be getting any highway funds or education funds from us". That typically gets most states to bow down and lick the boots of the feds.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
April 1, 2009, 11:51 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 515
|
First off, nothing requires any government to grandfather in anything. Its typically done that way to make it more palatable.
Despite what some amateur lawyers on the Internet think, its not an ex post facto law if, for instance, a law was passed banning the future possession of some fire arm that is currently legal. It would be ex post facto to punish the possession of it prior to the law being enacted. The military will do what it is told to do. It is not like BHO is going to stand up and say, "You know, I think I will federalize the NG and send them out to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens today". There are plenty of ways it could be justified that would get enough popular support that it would go forward.
__________________
bob Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum. |
April 1, 2009, 01:47 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
There are any number of means (constitutionality notwithstanding) at the government's disposal to conduct widespread searches for "illegal" firearms should the government so choose. There are several existing federal agencies with purview whose ranks could easily be and quickly inflated - agencies like BATF, DEA, FBI, ICE, etc. These new "agents" would not be constrained by posse comitatus and would be accountable only to the executive branch.
|
April 1, 2009, 02:58 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 28, 2000
Posts: 4,055
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2009, 05:09 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Location: Chiloquin, OR
Posts: 217
|
Get your foil hats ready. Show them you're serious!
__________________
The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams |
April 1, 2009, 05:27 PM | #38 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
|
When the GCA of 1968 was passed, it mandated that certain guns be registered within a certain time frame (e.g. the Marble's Game Getter). If the gun was not registered within that time frame, it could never be registered. However, it was not illegal for the owner to possess, and use the gun. The transfer of those guns was "outlawed". Since those guns were legal when they were purchased, the GCA of 1968 could not make ownership illegal, only transfer if not registered. This was discussed in quite a bit of detail after 1968. There have also been innumerable articles written on the subject before the advent of the internet.
The AWB of 1994 did not make possession of any pre-1994 guns, high-cap magazines, flash hiders, etc., illegal. The thing that changed was that those guns and accessories which fit the parameters of "assault weapons", could not be manufactured after the act was signed and took effect. That was not an expedient. The fact is, those pre-1994 guns could not be retroactively made illegal. If you owned 30-round mags for your AR15, those mags were still legal in 1995. They just couldn't be manufactured. The AWB also did not make it illegal to sell those original items after the act's passage. |
April 1, 2009, 05:42 PM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
|
Quote:
The Guard and it's various components could only be nationalized in the event of a nationwide emergency. If the Feds attempted to browbeat a governor into calling up the guard for illegal purposes, and that's what confiscaction would be, several Federal district courts, and a slew of state courts, would issue permanent or temporary injunctions to prevent the Guard from being used for unconstitutional purposes. |
|
April 1, 2009, 06:14 PM | #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2008
Posts: 239
|
The Fourth Amendment reads thusly:
Quote:
Note that the above details what law enforcement could do. What they would do, IMO, is simply get rid of them through attrition by seizing them whenever they came up, as another poster has stated. |
|
April 1, 2009, 06:35 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
The courts will disagree with your assessment of what is ex post facto. The same reason the lautenburg amendment is not ex post facto, because it doesn't punish for past firearm possession, will be the same reason that an awb with no grandfather provision will not be ex post facto.
And the government will not have to pay for the property if they sieze it from you after it's possession has been prohibited, as in you committed the crime of illegal possession of an "assault weapon". If the law was enacted you will have to comply by modifying, destroying, or rendering inoperable your "assault weapons". Any future ban will likely contain a grandfather provision because it will be much easier to enforce. |
April 1, 2009, 07:27 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2008
Posts: 239
|
Quote:
|
|
April 1, 2009, 08:31 PM | #43 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,853
|
Unlikey to pass without one
Note that the 94 AWB passed only with a grandfather clause, AND a sunset proivision. And that it basically passed by only one vote.
Any future ban bill will most likely contain a grandfather provision, as without one, it will be more difficult to get passed. And, a grandfather provision can actually make the law more enforcable, if worded correctly. Note that while the 94 bill did not ban manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rnds, it did ban their sale and posession by civilians, if the mags were made after 94, and it required the mfg date marked on the mags. So, a 30 rnd AR mag with no date was made before the ban, and grandfathered. But a 30rnd AR mag with a 1997 date on it would be illegal for a civilian to own.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 1, 2009, 11:07 PM | #44 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
|
If an AR15 is in your possession today, and the rifle is legal, a law passed tomorrow will not make that gun illegal. Your intent when you purchased it doesn't have anything to do, and can't be construed that you planned to break a law which hadn't been enacted.
|
April 1, 2009, 11:32 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
And if you continued to own the rifle after that point, yes you would be breaking the law. |
|
April 2, 2009, 06:20 AM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
After having breakfast a couple times per week at the same place for 20 years I changed dining places. This is all the guys there talked about for the past 2+ months. To a person they believe that congress has passed an AWB and Obama is about to sign it. |
|
April 2, 2009, 08:18 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 109
|
Quote:
|
|
April 2, 2009, 08:37 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Quote:
|
|
April 2, 2009, 03:36 PM | #49 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
|
Quote:
Not only is this protected by Article I, Section 9, it's also protected by the Fifth Amendment, which states in part, "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Due process requires a hearing, and in most cases a trial and adjudication by one's peers. Further, confiscation serves no "public use". No gun control act has ever gone so far as to try and confiscate firearms. When police seized weapons in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, injunctive relief was immediately sought in Federal court. The Federal court responded by forcing the NOPD to return those firearms to their rightful owners. The people who had firearms confiscated, would be able to sue the NOPD in Federal court, and probably win, if they could prove harm was done to them by an unlawful confiscation. What we have in this discussion, is a lot of supposition that smacks of "black helicopter and blue helmet" fear. |
|
April 2, 2009, 06:15 PM | #50 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 22, 2006
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
I will say that it probably wouldn't be impossible to show the removal of such weapons from civilian hands as a compelling interest, and provided it addressed other crime-related issues (not that ARs are generally used in crimes anyway, but whatever) I could see it possibly meeting a strict scrutiny standard for an exception to that clause. Quote:
To which you've made a fairly compelling rebuttal. |
||
|
|