Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

[Beiruty]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

[jimlongley]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

[anygunanywhere]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

[sjfcontrol]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

[baldeagle]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.

[sjfcontrol]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.

Free/Open market. Not the Black Market. You think the Government will agree to pay Black Market prices?

[tbrown]

I'm reading about prohibition and I can't find any documentation for booze buybacks. I can't find anything about ATF going house to house to confiscate alcohol either. What am I missing?

[anygunanywhere]

I'm reading about prohibition and I can't find any documentation for booze buybacks. I can't find anything about ATF going house to house to confiscate alcohol either. What am I missing?

I think I have the answer.

During prohibition nearly everyine was drinking on the sly. Alcohol production and consumption was on a grand scale. In my estimation apart from the ultra committed enforcers of the feds, state, and some locals, no one cared. They just sipped away.

This will be different.

The cops did go after stills but enforcement was a failure.

Guns are not like alcohol. Stills could pop up anywhere. Guns can't.

Proohibition failed, true. The war on drugs is a failure, true. Goberment just does not want to admit it cause they need something to do. War on guns and disarmament? The gobermint can do this! Something to keep them employed for a long time.

Once they take your guns and throw you in jail what else do you have?


Anygunanywhere

[Blindref757]

You could set up a trust, it doesn't have to belong to a corporation. Upon your death the other trustees and beneficiaries will take over the firearms, the down side to that is they aren't yours, they belong to the trust.

If you're dead doesn't ownership become somewhat of a moot question?

It is still part of your estate, which you paid for and accumulated, and you ought to have the legal right to pass it along to your heirs, just like with a car or a house. If her law passes, I could sell all of my guns to my son for $1 before it takes effect, and then borrow them back.

That would make him the criminal if National Registration is the new law and they aren't registered. And should you use one in an honest to goodness self defense situation, he would be potentially criminally and civilly liable.

I'm very concerned about the push that is coming for the requirement to pay for liability insurance on all weapons. It becomes a defacto form of registration. Liberals don't care about dead children...as long as there is somebody getting paid. They hate it when the perp kills himself...there is no justice in that. Therefore, wealth is transferred when the insurance pays off the victims family.

[Slowplay]

I'm reading about prohibition and I can't find any documentation for booze buybacks. I can't find anything about ATF going house to house to confiscate alcohol either. What am I missing?

Start with the 18th Amendment - http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxviii" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AMENDMENT XVIII

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.

SECTION 2.

The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

SECTION 3.

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Where is possession prohibited?

Interesting side note - why would the federal government need to pass a Constitutional amendment for liquor prohibition, which was not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights? However, the current anti-2nd amendment crowd considers anyone objecting to infringing on the 2nd Amendment through simple legislation or executive fiat to be extremists.

[The Annoyed Man]

Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.

And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.

Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.

Or like the price of a machine gun?

[hpcatx]

Just wanted to float a question to you all. Haven't thoroughly evaluated the hypothetical, so I'm not sure how I would respond. And let me preface this with the fact that I am of course opposed to any registration scheme and, knowing that would be the first step towards confiscation, not comply.

If registration is required, might there be an argument for registering one or two weapons to appear to be compliant, while not registering the rest? (I assume the security apparatus that is currently in place would already be able to determine who is and who isn't a firearm owner, especially holding a CHL.) For example, if registration of all guns is required, should a CHL register one or two carry gun that is used the most -- in case s/he is approached by a LEO for a traffic stop? What about registering a pump action shotty in case of a break in and leaving the semi-auto one off of the lists?

What would the pros and cons be?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree with the stock response to never register anything, cede no ground in a "compromise," but I'm just trying to explore this hypothetical from every angle.

[sjfcontrol]

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.

Or like the price of a machine gun?

As you well know, TAM, machine guns are not outlawed (at least not ALL of them), merely highly regulated and taxed.

[sjfcontrol]

Just wanted to float a question to you all. Haven't thoroughly evaluated the hypothetical, so I'm not sure how I would respond. And let me preface this with the fact that I am of course opposed to any registration scheme and, knowing that would be the first step towards confiscation, not comply.

If registration is required, might there be an argument for registering one or two weapons to appear to be compliant, while not registering the rest? (I assume the security apparatus that is currently in place would already be able to determine who is and who isn't a firearm owner, especially holding a CHL.) For example, if registration of all guns is required, should a CHL register one or two carry gun that is used the most -- in case s/he is approached by a LEO for a traffic stop? What about registering a pump action shotty in case of a break in and leaving the semi-auto one off of the lists?

What would the pros and cons be?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree with the stock response to never register anything, cede no ground in a "compromise," but I'm just trying to explore this hypothetical from every angle.

Why would you "assume" that? It is not a requirement to have a gun to have a CHL, or for DPS to know what kind of gun you have (unless the license is NSA). And the other "security" measures, such as the background check prior to purchase, by law are restricted from creating database of owners and guns. The 4473 form is not sent to BATFE (unless the FFL goes out of business), and in fact, if you're a CHL holder, the information is not even phoned in. Additionally, the ability to sell firearms face-to-face without any documentation of the sale, or background check of the buyer, means that even if the Government WAS trying to keep a "ghost registry", it would only go as far as the original owner. Who, like people have been aluding to here, could always just claim he sold (or lost) the gun(s) in question.

Of course, if you voluntarily register some of your firearms, they WILL know you have at least some, and may want to check for others, IMO.

[hpcatx]

Why would you "assume" that?
[...]
Of course, if you voluntarily register some of your firearms, they WILL know you have at least some, and may want to check for others, IMO.

Even without that assumption, the question posed is still an interesting hypothetical. I would make that assumption with my tin foil hat squarely on my noggin.

I tend to agree with your analysis... where there's one declared, there might be more. At the same time, I wouldn't want to have a benign encounter with a LEO turn into a felony while carrying out of the house. I think the comments from others that the government can confiscate weapons "one bullet at a time" are predicated on that you're home and ready to defend you and yours. Assume the S doesn't HTF, I would still need to be out and about in may daily routine of work, daycare, groceries, etc.

Just trying to examine the issue from every angle. Thanks for the response!