I was thinking...

[K_W]

Could it be argued that gun bans with grandfather clauses are unconstitutional on the basis that people younger than the age of purchase at the time of enactment are not afforded the same protections as those who had attained the age at the time of enactment?

If, for example, a ban with grandfathering were enacted tomorrow on [fill in blank gun or part], anyone born before 2003-2006 would never have the same rights (i.e. right to possess and freedom from prosecution) that all of us would continue to enjoy... unlike cigarettes or alcohol which someone can attain the freedom to possess without fear of prosecution when they reach a certain age.


Would that not be a violation of equal protections under the 14th?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Could it be argued that gun bans with grandfather clauses are unconstitutional on the basis that people younger than the age of purchase at the time of enactment are not afforded the same protections as those who had attained the age at the time of enactment?

i.e. machine gun bans... Someone born in or before 1968 had the opportunity to purchase and register a full auto fire arm prior to enactment but anyone born in or after 1969 was never afforded the same opportunity.

If, for example, a ban with grandfathering were enacted tomorrow on [fill in blank], anyone born before 2003-2006 would not have the same rights (i.e. right to possess and freedom from prosecution) that all of us enjoyed (and would continue to enjoy)...

Would that not be a violation of equal protections under the 14th?

I turned 9 in December of 1968. I was making $2 for mowing the ~1 acre lot of the nextdoor neighbor with a push mower. I couldn't have afforded a machine gun back then.

But I think grandfathering mostly applies to the guns that someone already had in their possession when the new law took effect, not the ability to have done something prior to the law taking effect, but failing to do so.

 

[INPatriot]

Could it be argued that gun bans with grandfather clauses are unconstitutional?

Would that not be a violation of equal protections under the 14th the Second Amendment?

Yes Sir; it would. You are correct.

 

[K_W]

I turned 9 in December of 1968. I was making $2 for mowing the ~1 acre lot of the nextdoor neighbor with a push mower. I couldn't have afforded a machine gun back then.

But I think grandfathering mostly applies to the guns that someone already had in their possession when the new law took effect, not the ability to have done something prior to the law taking effect, but failing to do so.

Not quite what I meant... I meant that, in a possession ban with grandfather scenario, someone born X years before an arbitrary date has the ability to possess and be free from prosecution, while someone born after that date will -never- have the ability to possess and be free from prosecution.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not quite what I meant... I meant that, in a possession ban with grandfather scenario, someone born X years before an arbitrary date has the ability to possess and be free from prosecution, while someone born after that date will -never- have the ability to possess and be free from prosecution.

That's exactly what I thought you meant. It just doesn't work that way in this case unfortunately.

Edit: It was the machine guns that were made illegal, not the age at which someone could buy or possess one.

 

[K_W]

That's exactly what I thought you meant. It just doesn't work that way in this case unfortunately.

Edit: It was the machine guns that were made illegal, not the age at which someone could buy or possess one.

That was just one example I was citing.

Take standard capacity magazine bans with grandfathering... Unlike cigarettes or alcohol which someone can attain the freedom to possess without prosecution when they reach a certain age... Someone born before an arbitrary point in time would never be able to legally possess them while someone born after that time can continue to possess them without fear of prosecution. Neither of them did anything to lose the right to possess them.

In my view they do not enjoy equal protection under the law.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That was just one example I was citing.

Take standard capacity magazine bans with grandfathering... Unlike cigarettes or alcohol which someone can attain the freedom to possess without prosecution when they reach a certain age... Someone born before an arbitrary point in time would never be able to legally possess them while someone born after that time can continue to possess them without fear of prosecution. Neither of them did anything to lose the right to possess them.

In my view they do not enjoy equal protection under the law.

Again, it's not the "ability to buy" that's regulated. It's the ability to possess. If you owned it before the ban and it's grandfathered, you can own it. You can't buy new ones just because you could have before the ban.

 

[K_W]

Again, it's not the "ability to buy" that's regulated. It's the ability to possess. If you owned it before the ban and it's grandfathered, you can own it. You can't buy new ones just because you could have before the ban.

Sorry, forget about full autos, that was a bad example for what I was trying to ask...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Sorry, forget about full autos, that was a bad example for what I was trying to ask...

No worries! Your magazine example works too. Same principle. If you had a "hi-capacity" mag before the ban, you're fine. You can't go out and buy one after the ban.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Any and all gun laws and/or regulations that restrict guns in any capacity beyond that of the 2nd amendment is a violation of our rights.

Disband the ATF, and bar anyone involved from working in any gov.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Could it be argued that gun bans with grandfather clauses are unconstitutional on the basis that people younger than the age of purchase at the time of enactment are not afforded the same protections as those who had attained the age at the time of enactment?

If, for example, a ban with grandfathering were enacted tomorrow on [fill in blank gun or part], anyone born before 2003-2006 would never have the same rights (i.e. right to possess and freedom from prosecution) that all of us would continue to enjoy... unlike cigarettes or alcohol which someone can attain the freedom to possess without fear of prosecution when they reach a certain age.


Would that not be a violation of equal protections under the 14th?

You're not a Captain, are you? Because the only thing more dangerous than a Lieutenant saying, "Based on my experience..." is a Captain saying, "I've was thinking..."

 

[Mij]

 

[bgcatty]

Every time I say to my wife or grown sons: “I was thinking!”
They respond in unison: Thinking is not good for you; thinking will lead you in the wrong direction.
I just can’t win around here!

 

[Quiet Observer]

Could it be argued that gun bans with grandfather clauses are unconstitutional on the basis that people younger than the age of purchase at the time of enactment are not afforded the same protections as those who had attained the age at the time of enactment?

If, for example, a ban with grandfathering were enacted tomorrow on [fill in blank gun or part], anyone born before 2003-2006 would never have the same rights (i.e. right to possess and freedom from prosecution) that all of us would continue to enjoy... unlike cigarettes or alcohol which someone can attain the freedom to possess without fear of prosecution when they reach a certain age.


Would that not be a violation of equal protections under the 14th?

That could then affect all grandfathering clauses in various laws, which lead to problems in many areas. Zoning and building codes come to mind.
The Constitution does not directly address smoking, so your comparison is not accurate.

 

[Leo]

The city of Chicago did something years ago. If you owned your house and your guns before a certain date, you were protected to keep the guns there. If you moved or wanted a different gun, it was a no go. Obviously people that later bought homes could not have the same "privilege". Of course the bad guys still had all the guns they can use.

I would guess the majority that could keep their handguns in their homes at that time have all died or moved when the neighborhoods became too violent.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I would argue that almost every gun law on the books is unconstitutional.

I take the word "infringement" as literal.
So... what is the meaning of the word infringement?
a violation

1. : the act of infringing : violation.
2. : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.

The supreme law of the land, our Constitution (in it's 2nd Amendment) stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That means any restrictions at all, is a violation of that.

Further...

arms
/ärmz/
noun
weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The word "arms" means any and all types of "arms" or "weapons" as it means in common use both today "arms dealer" and then.

Impact weapons like clubs and bludgeons...
cutting weapons like knives, axes, & swords...
spears, pikes, halberds, poleaxes...
bows and crossbows...
firearms (of every type)


At the time the 2A was written officers still carried swords into combat.
Soldiers often fought with their own personal rifles.
Private citizens owned field guns & cannons.
One could legally buy kegs of black powder. (explosives)

No type of weapon should be regulated by the government of the United States.

It's that simple, and I'm pretty damn sure the founding fathers kept it that vague and that simple... for that reason.

It covers everything, and it can't be changed without a further Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Wstar425]

I would argue that almost every gun law on the books is unconstitutional.

I take the word "infringement" as literal.
So... what is the meaning of the word infringement?
a violation

1. : the act of infringing : violation.
2. : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.

The supreme law of the land, our Constitution (in it's 2nd Amendment) stated that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That means any restrictions at all, is a violation of that.

Further...

arms
/ärmz/
noun
weapons and ammunition; armaments.

The word "arms" means any and all types of "arms" or "weapons" as it means in common use both today "arms dealer" and then.

Impact weapons like clubs and bludgeons...
cutting weapons like knives, axes, & swords...
spears, pikes, halberds, poleaxes...
bows and crossbows...
firearms (of every type)


At the time the 2A was written officers still carried swords into combat.
Soldiers often fought with their own personal rifles.
Private citizens owned field guns & cannons.
One could legally buy kegs of black powder. (explosives)

No type of weapon should be regulated by the government of the United States.

It's that simple, and I'm pretty damn sure the founding fathers kept it that vague and that simple... for that reason.

It covers everything, and it can't be changed without a further Constitutional Amendment.

I’m TOTALLY WITH YOU!!!

Was asked just this morning at church why I don’t “hide” my gun? Been OC since last September when our commie .gov tried to outlaw all forms of carry. New Mexico, no permit OC.

Said “I don’t have a New Mexico CCL and concealing would thus be illegal.”

Asked why not, they are easy to get! (Not really, compared to other states, and expensive and have to renew every two years. Just put on a 10 day waiting period for new purchases as well, waived with a CCL. I can wait 10 days. )

I said, “I’m not willing to jump thru all the hoops required by the State of New Mexico to get a CCL, all of which infringe on my Right, and are thus unconstitutional.

They said, “I don’t like it!” To which I responded “OK, I don’t really see anyone else being bothered by it? ( I was being ignored by everyone else) said “Have a good day” as they walked away.

Again this week, no screaming women running out of the building, no 5 year olds tried to snatch my firearm, wasn’t the first one shot, and no fainting horses; that I noticed.

 

[foszoe]

I’m TOTALLY WITH YOU!!!

Was asked just this morning at church why I don’t “hide” my gun? Been OC since last September when our commie .gov tried to outlaw all forms of carry. New Mexico, no permit OC.

Said “I don’t have a New Mexico CCL and concealing would thus be illegal.”

Asked why not, they are easy to get! (Not really, compared to other states, and expensive and have to renew every two years. Just put on a 10 day waiting period for new purchases as well, waived with a CCL. I can wait 10 days. )

I said, “I’m not willing to jump thru all the hoops required by the State of New Mexico to get a CCL, all of which infringe on my Right, and are thus unconstitutional.

They said, “I don’t like it!” To which I responded “OK, I don’t really see anyone else being bothered by it? ( I was being ignored by everyone else) said “Have a good day” as they walked away.

Again this week, no screaming women running out of the building, no 5 year olds tried to snatch my firearm, wasn’t the first one shot, and no fainting horses; that I noticed.

great interaction.

If someone "don't like it" I wouldn't look to see if others don't like it though. I would be more like you are entitled to your opinion