Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 50 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
I tend to believe a ban is forthcoming at some point -- I'm guessing when it comes it will grandfather existing ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I tend to believe a ban is forthcoming at some point -- I'm guessing when it comes it will grandfather existing ones.
I really hope you're right about the grandfather clause, if it comes to that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,594 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
16,439 Posts
I don't know about anyone else but that reads more as a definite "maybe" to me and nothing set in concrete, just something to placate the media.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,713 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't know about anyone else but that reads more as a definite "maybe" to me and nothing set in concrete, just something to placate the media.
Right now, it's a maybe, but it's disturbing that it would even be considered.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
384 Posts
Though I don’t think it’s likely, given the short attention span of congress and the American people, a assault weapons ban won’t come from the executive branch.
Our president appears to very malleable, and will be steered into rightfully believing it’s not in his best interest.

However, when he thinks about all those Moms whose vote he might swing if he does it, who knows which side he’ll end up on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,525 Posts
I know Republicans love to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory but even they can’t be stupid enough to pass an AWB in this political climate. Ryan would have to know he would no longer be Speaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,305 Posts
I ordered my Colt AR15A4 from Bud's Saturday and paid with an E check for the discount. I checked today and they were sold out and my order was still pending. I'm just hoping that they'll have reserved one for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,782 Posts
If a theoretical ban is passed without a grandfather clause that would be a taking under the Fifth Amendment which would require the gun grabbers to pay fair market value for each rifle turned in. That is tens of billions of dollars that would have to come from somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,265 Posts
If a theoretical ban is passed without a grandfather clause that would be a taking under the Fifth Amendment which would require the gun grabbers to pay fair market value for each rifle turned in. That is tens of billions of dollars that would have to come from somewhere.
It would come from us.

"...our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

But I don't expect it to happen. If Sandy Hook didn't do it with Obama and a Democratic government, this won't do it with Trump and a Republican government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
If a theoretical ban is passed without a grandfather clause that would be a taking under the Fifth Amendment which would require the gun grabbers to pay fair market value for each rifle turned in. That is tens of billions of dollars that would have to come from somewhere.
I don't think that is right. 5A says, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." That clause deals with eminent domain, where the government appropriates private property to repurpose it. An example is if the government decides to put a highway through your property. They can do a forced buyout, but they have to pay you fair market value." (supposedly)

But I think the government can get around that if it is declaring something illegal and seizing it. I'm pretty sure it would come under the heading of "asset seizure" which is confiscation of proceeds or instruments of crime. So if you are in possession of weapon that was newly declared illegal, you would be in violation of a law, and that weapon would be an instrument of that crime. Some people may claim that would be an ex post facto law, which is prohibited by the Constitution, but it is not. The crime would occur when you keep a the illegal firearm after the law takes effect, not for having it before it took effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,524 Posts
Hope Wayne LaPierre has a line open to DJT amd can exert some influence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,616 Posts
I'm amazed at the lengths people go to rationalize, excuse, or ignore what Trump says especially taking his antigun stance that he has held for most of his life.
WWHD? What Would Hillary Do? For that matter, what would any primary candidate do except for maybe Cruz? These guys react to the voters, believe it or not and the voters in the gun community is not making their voices heard. In some cases, they are actually siding with the opposition.

Hope Wayne LaPierre has a line open to DJT amd can exert some influence.
I heard on the news this morning that the NRA is supporting the proposed ban on rate of fire increasing devices, which will mean more than bump fire stocks. Also, Marion Hammer, the NRA’s Florida lobbyist, says the NRA will not take a position on Florida's proposed "assault weapon" legislation until it sees the final text. That is politico-speak for "We could go either way on it." If they wanted to take a strong stand, they would say what they will oppose while the bill is being drafted like, "We will opposed any restrictions on modern sporting rifles." It seems like the NRA is either going to completely roll over on this one, or only put up faint opposition.
 
1 - 20 of 50 Posts
Top