TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77

The_Busy_Mom wrote:I think we may be a little too nearsighted right now. While reading this thread, I saw several iterations of "I know it won't pass" or "I am hoping it won't pass" or "If it passes, which I don't think it will...". I don't worry (too much) that a ban will pass in this legislative session. I do worry about the next. If the Republican and Tea Party base don't get their acts together and come up with some concise plans to get a hold of their base memberships and come together, the House will be lost, and then it won't be a matter of if, but when.

About 4 years ago, the day of the first election of the annointed one, I look at my husband and said, "Secede". He looked at me kind of funny. I have felt that way every day since. I was in a Facebook conversation with an anti-gun woman, and she said something to the effect that I don't need high capacity, automatic weapons because the 2A was written so that civilians could protect themselves from their government, and that she knew that would never happen in America today. I promptly informed her that I would take up arms at any time, against anyone or any group, that infringed on my Constitutional rights. Try me. Again, we have to get our like-minded people re-united instead of divided, lest DiFi get her wish in the next session.

She sounds like a real student of history (sarcasm alert). Would I be likely to lose if I bet this woman has never read a non-fiction book since her last day in a classroom? My son recently graduated from UT Austin and according to him, at least 50% of the students there were completely ignorant of any historical event that happened before they were born, and a lot of them that happened after (and saying 50% is being generous). And let's not forget, UT is where a large number of those who graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes choose to go to college. That's how the Socialists are winning....they got control of the educational system and eliminated all content that doesn't serve their agenda, which obviously includes thinking.

VMI77

Bob in Big D wrote:I just looked at the news and as we all know they are having a revolution in Syria. The death toll is 60,000 and counting. I wonder which of our politicians will want to see those headlines in the USA in a year or two. We have a much larger population so the DT here may be closer to 600,000. Maybe some of these left leaning politicians need to understand where this could lead if they continue. Will they want this on their conscience? Once it starts there will be no turning back.

Conscience? You're giving them too much credit. We're going to have to get past the notion that these lefties have a conscience like normal people do if we're going to successfully defend against their depredations. They are perfectly willing to sacrifice others, including children, to get their way.

VMI77

extremist wrote:
VMI77 wrote:There is another aspect of registration under the NFA we haven't been discussing: you give up your 4th Amendment right against search and seizure. Registration under the NFA allows the BATF to enter your home to inspect your registered devices anytime they please.
That is not true. As an NFA owner, I speak from experience and knowledge. Also see:

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIF1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They still have to have a warrant and reasonable articulate suspicion to justify requesting access to your home.

Not "anytime they please".

Even Title II/Class 3 dealers are given notice before having their premises inspected for compliance - (Correction, FFL/SOT/Class 3 Dealers CAN be subject to inspection without notice DURING regular business hours).

As a Form 4 NFA owner, you do NOT have to give up your 4th Amendment rights - at least not yet.

Regards,
James

Articles I've read say otherwise, but you're right according to the source you cite. However, I don't see "reasonable articulate suspicion" to be much of an obstacle (and I'm assuming that such suspicion is the basis for obtaining the warrant). Also, we don't know what changes may occur as the result of adding to the NFA registration.

VMI77

bayouhazard wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote: if they are not paid, the items in question would be confiscated. Can't you even see the injustice of this?
Refuse to pay property taxes and see how long Texas lets you keep "your" house.

A key difference being that when I bought a house I knew there would be taxes and how much the taxes would be. Another key difference is that the tax is based on the value of the property. No one buys a $180,000 house and pays a $1,200,000 property tax. Another difference is that Texas can't decide tomorrow to raise your property taxes by six times. And not even in commie Kalifornia are the taxes on property higher than the value of the property itself.

VMI77

There is another aspect of registration under the NFA we haven't been discussing: you give up your 4th Amendment right against search and seizure. Registration under the NFA allows the BATF to enter your home to inspect your registered devices anytime they please.

VMI77

The Annoyed Man wrote:
cling wrote:
srothstein wrote:
cling wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.
It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.
That depends on how you define working.
anygunanywhere specifically asked about Americans being able to keep firearms that are registered.

That was the question asked and answered truthfully. I have been able to keep everything I have on the national registry. His response to that dose of reality was ad hominem attacks. I thought there was a forum rule against that but maybe I should thank him for the reminder why I spend my online time in other venues.

Good luck to all of you. With friend like him, you're going to need it.
And Cling, you still haven't addressed why you even think this is OK. It's one thing if you purchased an NFA item, knowing that you would have to jump through all these hoops to get permission to BUY the item. But how can you in good conscience say that there is no harm done by requiring gun owners to pay thousands of dollars in fees retroactively for purchases made when no such fees were necessary at the time of purchase? Those retroactive fees constitute a taking, since if they are not paid, the items in question would be confiscated. Can't you even see the injustice of this? And if you can, how is it that you're still OK with it?

And if you're OK with it, how can you be surprised that your intransigence angers people, since you're OK with them getting screwed for having made a perfectly legal purchase at the time?

I am frankly surprised that you are surprised at the reaction to the injustice you propose, your avatar being a representation of the Most Just. Or is it a symbol that means nothing to you?

Seems like that might create an interesting legal situation. The fee may not be considered a ex post facto law because it's a civil penalty, but by not paying it and keeping your property you incur a criminal penalty, which does constitute an ex post facto law.

VMI77

cling wrote:
srothstein wrote:
cling wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.
It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.
That depends on how you define working.
anygunanywhere specifically asked about Americans being able to keep firearms that are registered.

That was the question asked and answered truthfully. I have been able to keep everything I have on the national registry. His response to that dose of reality was ad hominem attacks. I thought there was a forum rule against that but maybe I should thank him for the reminder why I spend my online time in other venues.

Good luck to all of you. With friend like him, you're going to need it.

You realize that the current proposal is for a $200 tax on every banned rifle and every magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, right? If you have an AR15 and five 30 round pmags you'll be paying $1200 to register them. I hope you also realize that this isn't 1930 and the context of registration is entirely different. Therefore, you can't reliably extrapolate the past into the future. You're on new ground and you can't depend on what has happened in the past.

VMI77

cling wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."
Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.
Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Oh, and btw, it is impossible to prove that you bought a magazine before the ban, and this proposed Bill reverses the presumption of innocence....so if you're caught with a mag of greater than 10 rounds capacity, and the Feds want to prosecute, you're going to prison. You could have a receipt listing 10 mags of that type purchased over the internet before the ban, but it doesn't PROVE you bought the particular mag you have in your possession before the ban --you could have sold all those you bought previously in anticipation of the ban and then bought the one you're caught with after the ban. So, as proposed, the ban is effectively a confiscation of all mags of greater than 10 round capacity.

VMI77

BTW, a ban on all semi-auto rifles and handguns that can accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds is a ban on ALL rifles and handguns that use detachable magazines.

VMI77

cling wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
cling wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."
Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.
Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.
Let us all know how that "keep them if they are registered" thing works out for you.
It's been working for almost 80 years as far as I can tell. Look, I don't like it, but the reality is if the NFA is Constitutional then adding semiautomatics to the list of NFA firearms doesn't change that. Say what you want but that's reality.

An entirely different situation. How many mass killings by machine guns? How many people own them legally? The numbers are insignificant. There is virtually nothing to be gained politically from such a confiscation, and in fact, lots to be lost. If they confiscated those guns they would never get a large scale registration passed; it would fuel massive resistance since it would set a precedent. They don't care about machine guns because 99% of the population can't afford to own one. Just as rich and influential people can get handgun permits in Chicago and NYC, rich and influential people will probably get to keep their machine guns. It's us peasants they don't want owning guns.

VMI77

cling wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."
Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal.
Actually, that is the epitome of grandfathering. If you can prove you had them before the ban, by registering them during the amnesty period, you will be allowed to keep them.

Until the next Sandy Hook. Then, you will either turn them in or you'll be a criminal. And you've already given up your rights just by conceding that YOU have to prove you bought them before a ban. The law in the US is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. THEY should have to prove you didn't, it's not up to YOU to prove you did. If you're already conceding the presumption of innocence you may as well go ahead and turn in your guns anyway, since you're already willing to give up the most fundamental right in our judicial system.

VMI77

oldtexan wrote:
psijac wrote:
oldtexan wrote:
VMI77 wrote:
tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."
There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.
VMI77, there have been numerous registration schemes that have not led to confiscation. Here are just a few off the top of my head. Canada had firearms registration during WW2 but abandoned it after the war. Canada's long gun registry, initiated in the '90s IIRC, just died or is about to become moribund. Registration of full auto weapons and other items here under the NFA beginning in the 1930s hasn't led to the Feds confiscating those weapons.
The question is now, how do you tell the difference? That is the core argument to concealed carry. Will the guy that pulls a gun on you and asks for your wallet want your money or your life? Is a rape victim better off if she doesn't fight back, or does he have terrible things in mind for her corpse?
That is a very good question. Good judgment, based on knowledge and experience, is required to tell the difference. You have to know your strengths and limitations; you have to understand how your opponent operates and his strengths and limitations; you have to know what actions on your part will carry what consequences.

With respect to the proposed gun control measures, the best course, IMO, is to calmly, realistically, and reasonably assess the threats to our gun rights, formulate a plan of action based on reality to keep the threats from becoming law, and have a plan of what to do if they do become reality. We should strive to view the threats realistically, not underestimating them or overestimating them. It always helps to visualize the battlefield from your enemy's point of view; that helps you understand your strengths and weaknesses better and his, as well. If we underestimate the opponent, we likely lose because we don't do enough. If we overestimate the opponent, we will risk convincing ourselves and our allies we have already lost, and then we certainly will lose.

We frequently accuse the gun control crowd of being driven by emotion, and I agree that they are to an extent. Unfortunately I'm seeing an awful lot of fear, bordering on hysteria, among our people on various gun forums. This doesn't help us solve the problem, IMO.

A bit of an overstatement, but true on the whole. The examples you cite really aren't comparable to today's circumstances. For one thing, back in the 30s and 40s there was no lying 24/7 mass media. Machine guns have been pretty much irrelevant and confiscating them would likely be counterproductive since it would just fuel resistance to registration and other gun control proposals. Also, Canada is not an impediment or a threat to the leftist agenda....the US is. Once bans and confiscation occur here they will occur in places like Canada too. The 2nd Amendment strikes at the heart of collectivism and the left will do everything possible to eviscerate or eliminate it.

I don't fear the future at all. I know that the US is going to collapse economically...it's inevitable....I just don't know when. I knew that if The One was re-elected he'd come after our guns....it was both obvious and predictable. It's also obvious that the collectivists want our guns and are going to try to take them. And as soon as they have enough political power they will. Do they have it now? I'm inclined to think not, but we'll see. If they get the political power they need they will register guns and confiscate them. It's coming as sure as a morning sunrise, unless something major happens to prevent it.

VMI77

tomtexan wrote:If it passes, and that is a big IF, at least the weapons currently owned will be "grandfathered."

Wrong. They have to be registered. If you don't register then you'll be a criminal. If you do register them, a couple years down the road when they're banned you have to turn them in or you'll be a criminal. You won't be able to claim you sold or lost them, because the registration will include a requirement to report a stolen or lost weapon. If you falsely claim a gun is lost or stolen you'll be a criminal. So, no matter what you do, unless you register your guns and turn those guns in when confiscation comes, you'll be a criminal. There has NEVER been a registration that wasn't followed by confiscation.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 13 matches

Re: Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

Re: Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

Re: Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Feinstein on proposed ban(update on pg 2)

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban

Re: Info from Sen Feinstein's website on proposed ban