- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/5/16 at 1:00 pm to jimbeam
Given how many people have started hand carving ar lowers from plastic, metal, and even wood, that ban is impossible to enforce.
Posted on 7/5/16 at 1:06 pm to X123F45
quote:
Given how many people have started hand carving ar lowers from plastic, metal, and even wood, that ban is impossible to enforce.
They will never be fully able to ban them since CNC machines exist and the source code for machining them is available online.
All of the questions in the OP are speculative. There is no telling what would happen. My personal belief is that nothing will be passed on a national level.
But what we're seeing now is a stark division in the expansion of gun rights versus the expansion of gun control. Look at states like California that passed Gunmageddon this week with some absolutely atrocious legislation. But then look to the south and Midwest to see expansion of constitutional carry and other pro-freedom provisions.
I am unsure what will happen but I think that the ease of transmitting information with the internet will make it nearly impossible for them to sneak anything by or pass more restrictive legislation at a federal level. People are also slowly abandoning mainstream media and are adopting alternative media.
I've never seen a heavier division in my lifetime but I'm pretty young so...
Posted on 7/5/16 at 1:12 pm to bapple
quote:
I am unsure what will happen but I think that the ease of transmitting information with the internet will make it nearly impossible for them to sneak anything by or pass more restrictive legislation at a federal level. People are also slowly abandoning mainstream media and are adopting alternative media.
Kinda like the 3 am Obamacare vote.
Remember the "we have to pass the bill to see what's in there"?
Posted on 7/5/16 at 1:34 pm to Crawdaddy
quote:
If an "assault weapons ban" goes back into play such as back in the 90s, would the existing owners be ok?
How will this work?
Would it just be no new items on the so called banned list would be for sale?
All depends on what laws if any are pushed through. But was just curious about all the exiting firearms based on example from the past ban
As far as a ban like last time, here's the deal you probably be grandfathered for now. Also the ATF has very narrows rules such as what is an assault weapons. A stripped lower is not an assault rifle but if it had a pistol grip and collapsible stock then it would be one. In other words if it didn't meet the definition of assault weapons before the ban, it won't be one during a ban. If you have a lower, I would get a collapsible stock and pistol grip installed.
Now if Hillary is elected she will get to pick 2 justices and unfortunately one of those seat was a good conservative. Expect a 5 to 4 liberal leaning court couple with the fact that 2 liberals justices want to revisit Heller and that's not a good thing. If Heller is not overturned like the ban on the death penalty expect a very narrow reading of what constitutes a right. During Heller it was 9-0 on ownership of firearms as a right BUT it was 5-4 allowing handguns as a right. Just remember that the last time a SCOTUS appointed Democrat that ruled against the party platform was in the 50s.
Posted on 7/5/16 at 2:27 pm to jdavid1
Clinton's AWB was a JOKE. You could still buy an AR, it just didn't have a threaded barrel or bayonet lug. I never wanted an AK or an AR until our wonderful government told me I didn't need one. 
Posted on 7/11/16 at 10:43 am to Clames
Clames. Right after that new law was passed the new no police chief promptly stated..he would confiscate weapons from citizens the next time disaster struck. I am digging for the exact quote
Posted on 7/11/16 at 11:42 am to choupiquesushi
He can try and have his arse handed to him, in court or otherwise.
Posted on 7/11/16 at 2:14 pm to jimbeam
in the 90s there was no new sales of ARs but there was nobody going around taking the current guns people had. of course back then there were way less ARs out there then there are now.
Biggest issue was high cap mags. I remember paying around 120 bucks for a 17 round glock mag.
Biggest issue was high cap mags. I remember paying around 120 bucks for a 17 round glock mag.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 10:04 am to Clames
quote:
If an "assault weapons ban" goes back into play
He can try and have his arse handed to him, in court or otherwise.
in the mean time - nothing prevents him from seizing until courts intervene. Even then NOPD and their minions were and would be very slow to comply
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:07 pm to Crawdaddy
My opinion is that if a ban came back into existence that grandfathering would take place but I also think that it would include no transfers or sales to other people. The weapon would be yours until the day you died and then at that point it would become property of the federal government.
I also am a firm believer that even though the 4473 does not list your specific firearm, that anything you buy with a debit or credit card can be easily be used to build a database of what you have in your possession. Buying AR mags online, and a box of 5.56 at Walmart could be used against you. Goes without saying that the card you used to purchase that firearm online is attached to a barcode of the make and model of what you purchased.
Scary to think about but it happens with every purchase. Walmart has it down to such a science that they can tell if a woman is pregnant even before she knows, just from what she buys.
I also am a firm believer that even though the 4473 does not list your specific firearm, that anything you buy with a debit or credit card can be easily be used to build a database of what you have in your possession. Buying AR mags online, and a box of 5.56 at Walmart could be used against you. Goes without saying that the card you used to purchase that firearm online is attached to a barcode of the make and model of what you purchased.
Scary to think about but it happens with every purchase. Walmart has it down to such a science that they can tell if a woman is pregnant even before she knows, just from what she buys.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 1:12 pm to LG2BAMA
quote:
in the 90s there was no new sales of AR
No they had new ones being produced they just couldn't have more than x number of banned features. I bought a Colt MT6700 AR-15 in 1999 only difference between that one and my last one is the threaded barrel and bayonet lug. Also you could still by the weapons affected by the ban if they were manufactured prior to the ban. All that did was drive the price through the roof. You would notice guns listed as PRE-BAN. Same would happen this go round if it ever comes. Your stripped lower would have been made before the legislation and since the lower is the gun in the eyes of the ATF it would be able to be configured any way you wanted. Mags were pricey during the last ban as well so those $10 p-mags will be worth well north of $20-30 after a ban
Posted on 7/14/16 at 2:14 pm to Clames
quote:I'm not a lawyer (and never wanted to be one). But maybe a constitutional scholar can chime in.
It was held up 8-0 post Scalia in Caetano v Massachusetts. No new justice will change that.
I though the Caetano decision dealt solely with stun guns.
I thought the Heller decision (which came on a 5-4 vote) upheld the right of private citizens to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, unconnected with service in a militia (such as self-defense in one's home).
I fail to see how the Heller decision won't change as soon as Hillary gets to appoint a SCOTUS justice.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 2:52 pm to dawg23
quote:
I fail to see how the Heller decision won't change as soon as Hillary gets to appoint a SCOTUS justice.
Pretty certain you're right.
Also, during the ban I traded a mossberg marine for a 1st gen glock with 2 15 or 17 round mags. I held onto the glock for a couple of months and sold it to a guy for about $1000. Took that straight to a gun store and bought a Beretta 686.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 2:58 pm to bbvdd
quote:
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
She was given a stun gun by a friend because she had a violent ex. Some time later she was questioned by police about a shoplifting incident which she wasn't involved with and arrested because she had the stun gun
quote:
In this case, the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts
law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after
examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon
contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by
the Second Amendment.”
quote:
The court offered three explanations to support its
holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to
stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are
not protected because they “were not in common use at the
time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781,
26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear
statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . .
arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.
This post was edited on 7/14/16 at 3:01 pm
Posted on 7/14/16 at 3:52 pm to Crawdaddy
Are you asking if you would be grandfathered in?
Posted on 7/14/16 at 4:17 pm to dawg23
quote:
I though the Caetano decision dealt solely with stun guns.
Read the actual decision.
quote:
I thought the Heller decision (which came on a 5-4 vote) upheld the right of private citizens to own firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, unconnected with service in a militia (such as self-defense in one's home).
It was a bit more complicated than that. At the core of Heller was whether or not the 2nd Amendment was a right protected for the individual or the collective. The individual interpretation was a unanimous decision, not 5-4. 5-4 covered the scope of that individual right within two competing views.
quote:
I fail to see how the Heller decision won't change as soon as Hillary gets to appoint a SCOTUS justice.
Read the language of the Caetano decision. SCOTUS decisions are not nearly as arbitrary as you imagine.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 5:49 pm to Clames
quote:I don't think I'm imagining anything. I posted a request for some help in interpreting the decisions -- in fact I'm fairly certain I said, "But maybe a constitutional scholar can chime in."
SCOTUS decisions are not nearly as arbitrary as you imagine.
Based on your response, I presume maybe that's what you are. If so, thanks for chiming in.
And assuming you really are one, maybe you can explain why Hillary's appointees (if she wins in November) won't change any number of previous decisions, including Heller.
Posted on 7/14/16 at 9:25 pm to Crawdaddy
Basically, Fed Gov has no idea what guns you currently have. They my have an idea how many you have based on your NICS checks. But they don't know what you bought unless they get the records from the FFL's you purchased from.
They cannot pass legislation making what you have now as being illegal.
If they did, that's when the SHTF.
They cannot pass legislation making what you have now as being illegal.
If they did, that's when the SHTF.
This post was edited on 7/14/16 at 9:27 pm
Posted on 7/14/16 at 9:35 pm to dawg23
quote:
And assuming you really are one, maybe you can explain why Hillary's appointees (if she wins in November) won't change any number of previous decisions, including Heller.
They can't just go back and change a decision, didn't happen with Roe v Wade when conservatives were appointed. There would have to be a case that challenged the grounds upon which Heller was decided which would require some municipality to pass laws clearly in violation of Heller then defend them successfully to the Supreme Court. Caetano v Massachusetts couldn't do that post-Scalia, all 8 existing judges upheld Heller so what makes you think 1 liberal judge will suddenly undo that much precedence?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News