Author Topic: Assault Weapons Ban (Read 2638 times)

rlm2007x · « **on:** November 11, 2008, 05:55:14 AM »

Is this assault weapons ban that is likely to be reinstated going to be retroactive (make it illegal to own these guns period, or just ban new sales)? It doesn't seem like much sense to run out and buy a bunch of guns that will be illegal in a few months unless you don't mind burying them and living in fear for your freedom. Just curious, thanks.

Mikey · « **Reply #1 on:** November 12, 2008, 02:04:18 AM »

I think that if you don't buy one and keep it ready to use you will be living in fear for your freedom.

I think they can try to make it retroactive but do not know if they can do that legally. They may want to you register it but I don't think they can come take what you already have, unless you can't prove you bought it when it was legal and then they may try and take it anyhow just to make certain it was a legal purchase. Then, of course, you have to try and get it back but they could say that if it was ever confiscated, legal or not, you lose it..............

Here, in nys, I believe they will try and reinstate a proposition that was approved in the house but never made it to the senate, in which any firearm discovered by police, for almost any reason, can be conficated, marked, ballistically tested and registered in the (failed) ballistic data base. You then have to try and recover it.............

This means simply that if you happen to be stopped for a random traffic check and are asked if you have any firearms, the cop can confiscate the firearm if he or she so chooses, and turn it over to the state police for a ballistics check - then you gotta try and get it back. This will continue until or unless a court deems it inappropriate and the practice is either halted or modified.

With a federal gun ban I deriously doubt you will ever get your gun back.

My belife is that even with an 'internal security force, or a civilain security force, or whatever that obamanation wants to call it, there are not enough soldiers to disarm 80 million Americans and I think that if you don't buy one and keep it ready to use in your own defense you will be in fear of losing your freedoms. JMTCW. Mikey.

UtahRob · « **Reply #2 on:** November 14, 2008, 03:59:48 PM »

Quote from: rlm2007x on November 11, 2008, 05:55:14 AM

Is this assault weapons ban that is likely to be reinstated going to be retroactive (make it illegal to own these guns period, or just ban new sales)? It doesn't seem like much sense to run out and buy a bunch of guns that will be illegal in a few months unless you don't mind burying them and living in fear for your freedom. Just curious, thanks.

Retroative ??

They sure did that in California !!

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html

45-70.gov · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2008, 04:05:33 PM »

they may just do it quietly like they did with my striker 12

how many know how that went down?

but you never hear of them any more tho do you

i predict the 50 bmg to not be available in 4 years

phalanx · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2008, 05:14:25 PM »

Confiscating will be hard to do from an Army. Americans have had it ,and Obama wants to move to fast to do anything slow.
And it isnt only over guns ,its the 1st Amendment and the 22nd also ,this guy is setting him self up for life.
The things they want to do to the schools , Business ,Police Powers ,the list just goes on.
Guns are only the thing they know could stop them.
GOD bless our founding Fathers ,They gave us the power ,lets see if we use it.

torpedoman · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2008, 05:56:32 PM »

In the U.S,. It is illegal to make retroactive laws (even in Cal.)

45-70.gov · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2008, 06:02:48 PM »

better take a closer look at the laws reguarding domestic violence and gun ownership

those CLINTON laws have cost policemen their jobs

i don't know how to look it up.....if i am wrong please let me know

GatCat · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2008, 10:23:45 PM »

About "retroactive"; A true retroactive law would make something illegal BEFORE the law was enacted. This cannot be done. For example, a law is passed this year to make deer hunting illegal; you cannot be arrested for killing a deer last year.
What has happened, in California, and other locations, is to require certain weapons to no longer be sold there after a certain date.THEN, next step, is to require certain existing weapons to be registered to be legally possessed. Then, some of those weapons are declared to be illegal to possess after a certain date. SO, the people who played by the rules, registered the weapons, have to sell them out of state, or turn them in for destruction. Those that choose to keep the weapons after the date are now in possession of an illegal weapon.
All this is why so many people are against regestering all firearms. Sure,those bought new through an FFL have a paper trail that authorities could follow. And in some area's. like California the last 5 years or so, ALL sales between private parties are reguired to go through a dealer, so now a paper trail is started.
Which is why so many people think registration is the start of the "slippery slope".
Mark

alsaqr · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2008, 04:04:49 PM »

Quote

better take a closer look at the laws reguarding domestic violence and gun ownership

those CLINTON laws have cost policemen their jobs

The vast majority of the Republicans in the US congress voted for those "Clinton laws."

goater · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2008, 01:05:29 PM »

Does the 2nd assure the right to own and possess stinger missles? Why or why not?

Graybeard · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2008, 06:11:07 PM »

I have no doubt that the founding fathers if asked and had it explained to them what they are and their purpose would say YES. So do I but you'll never get anyone in government to buy into it.

sasu · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2008, 06:39:36 PM »

Quote from: goater on December 17, 2008, 01:05:29 PM

Does the 2nd assure the right to own and possess stinger missles? Why or why not?

The idea behind armed citizens is that people have only small arms, rifles, shotguns, maybe machine guns. These weapons have limited reach and power so that other citizens and the police can overpower another citizen gone berserk. Bombs, missiles etc are so destructive that we would have a serious problem if anyone wanted to misuse such weapons.

That is my answer to the classic argument of "2nd Amendment guarantees even nuclear bombs, so we have to draw the line somewhere so let's ban rifles and pistols."

billy_56081 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 18, 2008, 01:40:41 AM »

And Goater, what is your thought on the 2ND amendment since you are admittedly an Obama voter and liberal. It would be nice to get some input from someone from the other side of what most people here believe.

lrs · « **Reply #13 on:** December 18, 2008, 06:47:15 AM »

If the government let loose on the American public with military weapons of war and mass destruction, I would not mind having a few stinger missiles.
In the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, US supplied Afghan rebels with missiles, which enabled the rebels to down helicopters.
The 2nd amendment ain't about duck hunting.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #14 on:** December 18, 2008, 06:57:03 AM »

Weapons had no restrictions in the begining of our country. You could own a cannon if you could afford it, any type of firearm. In the Civil War, many rich southerners financed their own company or regiment of men. Many in the north and south brought their own weapons at the begining of the war in the various militias. After the civil war, the army used the single shot 45-70 and the Remington 1858 designed revolver. Many purchased their own Henrys and Winchesters for use in the Indian wars of the late 1800's. Some men owned Gatlin guns. That is why as late as the 1930's many owned machine guns, Tommy's and BAR's. You can own a black powder cannon today since it is considered a primitive weapon now. Remember the Revolutionary War was started because the Brittish in Boston was starting to confiscate weapons. The Patriots hid the Boston citizens weapons at Lexington and Concord to keep them from being confiscated. Then the Brit's found out and marched on Lexington and Concord to confiscate them, and it all began. Liberals forget this.

Mohawk · « **Reply #15 on:** December 18, 2008, 08:02:34 AM »

Quote from: goater on December 17, 2008, 01:05:29 PM

Does the 2nd assure the right to own and possess stinger missles? Why or why not?

Yes. Why? The constitution says so. Actually, an F-15 with 30 mm cannons is better. 180 million armed Americans (remember that term?) walk the streets everyday. They don't harm people. They don't rob people, they will even give up their seat on the bus for a young lady. Just please tell Obama, I don't' want any smoking cigarettes inside the white house. If I have to go outside, so does he. Thanks.......

45-70.gov · « **Reply #16 on:** December 18, 2008, 01:46:33 PM »

Quote from: goater on December 17, 2008, 01:05:29 PM

Does the 2nd assure the right to own and possess stinger missles? Why or why not?

i think you can with proper registration fees etc.....
is it a class 3 weapon??

i had a shot gun that was registered as a destructive device

billy_56081 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 18, 2008, 04:04:31 PM »

One thing about stinger missiles, they are super simple to operate. I was in the Air Defence branch of the Army and it was always said the 16S (stinger missile operator) took one of the lowest ASFAB scores. Us 16R, (vulcan crewmembers were much smarter)

. I can still remember how to operate a Stingier missile from our cross training.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #18 on:** December 18, 2008, 04:08:25 PM »

You guys remember CB radios. You were supposed to get a license to operate one from the FCC back in the 70's. They had so many requests, they just let it go and didn't require license anymore. If all us gun owners would go buy a class III liscense to own a silenced gun, machine gun, or such. Maybe a few million requests at one time, they would have to let it go, and not require registration. Just a thought.

goater · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2008, 05:06:16 PM »

"And Goater, what is your thought on the 2ND amendment since you are admittedly an Obama voter and liberal. It would be nice to get some input from someone from the other side of what most people here believe."

Billy,

Thanks for your quite civil approach to this. When I've asked this question in other forums, I usually don't get this kind of response ... asking me for my thoughts ... I'm usually called a communist, or something like that. I'm not sure that I can give you a satisfying answer. I tend to equivocate about this.

Let me first state that I enjoy my firearms (3 shotguns and a 22)and would be offended if anybody wanted to take them from me.

With that being said ...

From my perspective ... it would be ill conceived to suggest that citizens should be able to own or possess stinger missiles. That fact congers up images of a teen that snags his father's stinger and heads off to the airport for a little fun. I suspect that most would agree with me. If we had a right to these, they would be far too easy for terrorists to acquire these arms.

If you subscribe to the above, it is evident that there are limits to our right to bear arms. The substantive issue becomes "what are the limits"?

I don't have an answer to define the limits ... I only want to suggest that there are limits ... IMHO, too many 2nd Amendment advocates have a knee jerk response that there are no limits, when it is apparent to me me that there are/should be limits.

I also feel, contrary to most who frequent these kind of web sites, that republicans are far more likely to impinge on our gun rights than Democrats. I have seen evidence that Republicans are more capable of rationalizing restricting our rights than demos.

Mohawk · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2008, 08:06:24 PM »

I never understood persons wanting to give up rights when people died for them. "Setting Limits" is the first step to becoming abolished. People are allowed to drive 2,000lb automobiles that will do many times the damage of firearms, yet, a 16 year old child can get a driver's license. Where is the big "car control" movement? The guys on this forum are not asking to let us run down the sporting goods store to pick up a guided missile. They are asking that the right of the 2nd Amendment, and our law abiding way of life involving firearms, don't be infringed upon anymore than they already have. When many "law makers" can't name two enemies of the US during WII I find them a poor source on dictating my birth rights(Yes, this was a true survey given to anonymous law makers). We follow the law, because we are good citizens, but by the same token, the 2nd Amemdment is the law of the land. And we simply wish to follow that one too. If one major politcian came public and said no further infringement will hamper the 2nd Amendment, and every lawful gun owner voted based on that, and provided the candidate does not describe it as a "gun owner revolution" to where it scares people, that candidate would be unbeatable. If McCain would have said that, ever so quietly and was professional and realistic about it, it would be Obama, who? Unfortunately, I don't remember it coming up in the debates. All I remember is Obama turning his back on Autistic and other special needs kids.

phalanx · « **Reply #21 on:** December 20, 2008, 10:13:04 PM »

Guys i don't think they have their chest stuck out nearly as far today as they did have.
Congress voted themselves a $4,700.00 raise today ,but the they also did a study on the American people and if there will be riots over the economic collapse.
Many other Gov. agencys retaliated saying that Congress had lost its mind ,and they are the problem not the people.
can you imagine something as worthless as Congress getting a raise?
The joy of the new raise was silenced when the US Army war collage reported that the Police and what Millitary this Country now has here in the States is out numbered 130 to one ,and the 130 is better armed now.
The Army admitted that it would most likely lose a prolonged conflict with civilians in many areas of the country now that Americans are going from fear to anger.
Gun control and any other control at this time would be suicide , people are NOT going to give up there guns.
The report also said in the last two months Citizens have done without ,lost jobs ,fought off crime ,and the Collage had warned them to stop threatening the people with every breath they take.
Now in showing arrogance and not caring about the struggles of the people ,the entire Government isnt above being shown the door.
And to depend on the Army like they think they own it .,is also crazy.
This is the same Congress that belittled the troops just two years ago ,cut funding ,and spent day after day threatening them also.
Is Congress just totally NUTS ??

Mohawk · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2008, 03:08:25 PM »

In yesteryear, legislators would end session then go tend to their crops, look after their general store, or make sure their local church had the needed donations for the holidays. They were in touch with the people they represented, and they actually lived with them, the way it should be. They are sworn to defend the constitution, not change it, or discredit it.

Blue Duck · « **Reply #23 on:** January 08, 2009, 04:58:13 AM »

Another angle on the ban is the Ammunition Accountability Ace. Google that one and it will scare the heck out of you....... It coming and its not good.....

Casull · « **Reply #24 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:31:59 AM »

Quote

I also feel, contrary to most who frequent these kind of web sites, that republicans are far more likely to impinge on our gun rights than Democrats.

That would also be contrary to history.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #25 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:48:33 AM »

The way the Assault Weapons ban worked in '93 was it banned the sale of semi-automatic weapons that had a pistol grip, 30 round magazine capacity, flash suppressor and bayonet lug. After '93 you could have one of them and get by. For instance, you had thumbhole stocks to eliminate the pistol grip, and they removed the flash suppressors and bayonet lug capability. It could still take 30 round mags. However, it banned the sale and manufacture of 30 rounder mags. If a pre-ban could fit it was ok if it had the thumbhole stocks, etc. It also made illegal the sale of folding stocks on these weapons. The maximum magazine capacities were 10 rounds for all weapons. I noticed that Marlin had to shorten their tube fed .22 rifles to take only 10 rounds.

This is just the first phase, limited ammo purchases may be next. The '93 ban went out in 2003 and we have been flooded with 30 rounders etc since. So if you want one get it now.

I think gun or ammo control will be gradual and not all at once, If Obama is smart. Like a frog in boiling water.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** January 08, 2009, 08:51:14 AM »

mohawk, but when non land owners were allowed to vote things went down hill .

Casull · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2009, 10:31:51 AM »

Quote

Quote
better take a closer look at the laws reguarding domestic violence and gun ownership

those CLINTON laws have cost policemen their jobs

The vast majority of the Republicans in the US congress voted for those "Clinton laws."

alsaqr, you are either ignorant or a liar. That is pure and unadulterated BS!!!!!!!! The 1994 Klinton gun ban passed with the support of 38 Republican house members and 10 Republican senators. The vast majority of Republicans in the congress voted AGAINST the ban. Do you seriously think you can just make sh*t up and nobody is going to call you on it?

Line475 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 08, 2009, 12:47:46 PM »

Might not be gradual-

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2009/01/storm-warning-obama-will-attack.html

Dee · « **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2009, 01:35:28 PM »

My wife hasn't mentioned banning those type of weapons at my house. Until SHE SAYS SO, I guess I'm ok. Obama will have to make his own decisions at his house.