What would you do if guns you owned were banned retroactively?

[bmyers]

Unfortunately I think its coming

 

[chraland51]

I was hoping that someone would finally bring up no ex post facto laws and the constitution. My one or two firearms were legal when I bought them and they will be legal as long as I have them. I will vote agains any of our elected officials that I can who tries to make my legal possession illegal by any legal maneuvre. That is just my opinion. It seems a little curious that an AR-15 and an AR-10 that I used to have, but sold both months ago were not assault weapons as they only had the ability to take high capacity mags and had pistol grips---no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor or any of the other things that would make them assault weapons. Maybe I should have kept them. FBI data says that last year only 2.5% of gun murders were commited by rifles.

 

[TheRude1]

1070 the fan radio show is going off on guns right now.

The stupidity of the host is staggering.

Clearly does not know the difference between semi auto and automatic.
Blaming video games.

Some caller just said that at the Louisville show he walked in and
bought a gun from a dealer without even showing ID.
Bull****.

Thats what you get for listening to sports radio !

 

[TheRude1]

And as to the original question

I would tell them to suck the dinggleberrys off of my taint

 

[printcraft]

Thats what you get for listening to sports radio !

I wasn't, my employee had it on in the back of the shop.
I wasted a few minutes explaining the bull**** coming out of the speaker.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The ****tards writing this legislation know nothing about guns. How big are the "clips" in your handguns? Oh, yours use magazines? Looks like you're exempt.

It would be like me trying to ban curling irons. I don't know **** about them. They get hot... right? That's scary.

 

[Hammerhead]

Oh, yeah. By the way...


MOLON LABE

 

[4sarge]

Why is it that the United States government thinks for the Iraqis to stay free, it is vital for every home to be allowed one automatic Kalashnikov, but people in the United States shouldn't be allowed to own semi-automatic firearms? What are our elected officials trying to tell us?
Please take time today to contact your congressmen to express your support for the Second Amendment and NO new gun legislation. The congressional switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.

 

[nipprdog]

Is there a reason you are being so aggressive with fellow gun owners on behalf of Fine Swine? I too have heard, in her own words on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NBC, etc. of a proposal for complete and total ban on manufacture, importation, and Private Ownership of anything with more than 10 rounds.

Maybe not now but I heard her say it myself couple weeks ago
Must have rethunk that one ??

I've heard her say it before too. But that is NOT she is introducing. She knows it wouldn't pass.

She said she wanted to ban "sale, transfer, AND POSSESSION." To me, that says that if you "possess" one after a certain date, you are in violation of the federal infringement, er law."

Seeing how "truthful" she has been in the past, I take this to mean that if you owned an AR-15 last year, you are fine, but if you own one after the bill goes into effect, you are a federal felon.

She said not retroactivly. If you own one at the time of the ban, you can keep it. You just can't sell it or give it to someone.

 

[wakproductions]

She said not retroactivly. If you own one at the time of the ban, you can keep it. You just can't sell it or give it to someone.

Would you be able to pass it down to your kids?

 

[HeadlessRoland]

I've heard her say it before too. But that is NOT she is introducing. She knows it wouldn't pass.



She said not retroactivly. If you own one at the time of the ban, you can keep it. You just can't sell it or give it to someone.

OF COURSE she said it won't be retro-active. It CAN'T be retroactive.

Any attempt to pass an ex-post-facto law on firearms would rile me more than their yappy-dog barking and attempts to limit the size of the sheet metal comprising your mag. An attempt to make this into an ex-post-facto bit of legislation would instantly convert me from law-abiding citizen to ex-patriate living abroad. I'm talking 'out on the next plane before they seal the borders'. The passage of ex-post-facto legislation declaring possession of non-existent 'assault' rifles (whatever in the **** that might be in their twisted little heads) would also be a bill of attainder, making a class of people criminals by fiat, which is not only expressly prohibited, but which would also clearly demonstrate their lack of respect for the Constitution of these United States of America, as well as a serious intention to continue violating its noble, honorable, and sacred tenets. This would bode ill and speak of severe Government over-reach: the Beast unrestrained as you might find in Ezekiel or Malachi. I would flee and seek political asylum abroad (no hints as to where, though a clever person could probably deduce a prime destination with minimal criterion), assuming I could find a flight before the borders were sealed, though that might depend upon whether I could find and bribe a private pilot. Most likely, if they did pass a bill of Attainder, it would be very much on. Lexington-style.

This would portend way more than simple over-reach by the Congress: they've been doing that for decades, if not centuries. But a total and complete abrogation and usurpation of what has been expressly forbidden, as a foundation not only of our Constitution, but of English common law? This would be a harbinger of very bad things. Gulag-type things. Round-up-and-extermination-type things.

So no, let us hope not.

Molon labe: come - and only after having come - may you then try to take (if you are able).

 

[Indy60]

Not sure what I would do. Most of my guns have no paper trails so unless the Govt is going to buy them from me and give me enough money retire on, probably nothing. Keep them and pass them along to my kids like I am planning on doing and let them make the decision.

 

[thompal]

I was hoping that someone would finally bring up no ex post facto laws and the constitution. My one or two firearms were legal when I bought them and they will be legal as long as I have them. I will vote agains any of our elected officials that I can who tries to make my legal possession illegal by any legal maneuvre. That is just my opinion. It seems a little curious that an AR-15 and an AR-10 that I used to have, but sold both months ago were not assault weapons as they only had the ability to take high capacity mags and had pistol grips---no bayonet lug, no flash suppressor or any of the other things that would make them assault weapons. Maybe I should have kept them. FBI data says that last year only 2.5% of gun murders were commited by rifles.

Being an "assault weapon" has nothing to do with bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, or any cosmetic things. An "assault rifle" is a SELECT-FIRE firearm that fires an intermediate power cartridge. An assault rifle is an NFA item.

 

[indykid]

OF COURSE she said it won't be retro-active. It CAN'T be retroactive.

Any attempt to pass an ex-post-facto law on firearms would rile me more than their yappy-dog barking and attempts to limit the size of the sheet metal comprising your mag. An attempt to make this into an ex-post-facto bit of legislation would instantly convert me from law-abiding citizen to ex-patriate living abroad. I'm talking 'out on the next plane before they seal the borders'. The passage of ex-post-facto legislation declaring possession of non-existent 'assault' rifles (whatever in the **** that might be in their twisted little heads) would also be a bill of attainder, making a class of people criminals by fiat, which is not only expressly prohibited, but which would also clearly demonstrate their lack of respect for the Constitution of these United States of America, as well as a serious intention to continue violating its noble, honorable, and sacred tenets. This would bode ill and speak of severe Government over-reach: the Beast unrestrained as you might find in Ezekiel or Malachi. I would flee and seek political asylum abroad (no hints as to where, though a clever person could probably deduce a prime destination with minimal criterion), assuming I could find a flight before the borders were sealed, though that might depend upon whether I could find and bribe a private pilot. Most likely, if they did pass a bill of Attainder, it would be very much on. Lexington-style.

This would portend way more than simple over-reach by the Congress: they've been doing that for decades, if not centuries. But a total and complete abrogation and usurpation of what has been expressly forbidden, as a foundation not only of our Constitution, but of English common law? This would be a harbinger of very bad things. Gulag-type things. Round-up-and-extermination-type things.

So no, let us hope not.

Molon labe: come - and only after having come - may you then try to take (if you are able).

Not necessarily directed to you, but to all thinking along the same lines. Just need to point this out.

This has been said before but I am going to repeat it again. Ex-post-facto laws are unconstitutional, which is your argument. So violating the ex-post-facto law is a no-go, but violating the right of the people shall not be infringed is ok?

Murder is already illegal, firearms in the Newton Connecticut schools are illegal, so we need to remind our legislators, and those in other states, that more laws are not going to prevent what is already illegal as long as deranged people are not properly treated by our society who wrongly believes in equality for everyone. Nice thought, but not able to be pulled off.

 

[thompal]

She said not retroactivly. If you own one at the time of the ban, you can keep it. You just can't sell it or give it to someone.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what gets passed. I still say that if the wording is such that it bans "possession," with no grandfathering clause, then it's going to be interpreted by the government as possession of contraband.

 

[Signal23]

I will post the 2nd amendment next to the no trespassing sign on the front door.

 

[Armed-N-Ready]

That's a silly question.

Either hide them in my m1a1 tank (not listed in her ban) or use my Klingon
Cloaking device to hide my entire house.

 

[hammer24]

For those finding solace in the constitution and no ex post facto, you may want to revisit the Lautenburg amendment of 1996. It is the one that made people with violent misdemeanors "unfit" to own firearms. It was retro-active! People with 40 yr. old violent misdemeanors on their record woke up one morning in 1996 to find out it was illegal for them to have firearms. It was deemed unconstitutional in '99, then upheld in 2001. It applied to active duty soldiers and police officers as well!
Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

 

[Chkline]

Water proof container, hole in back yard. Nuf said.

 

[Tanfodude]

Wait, how would banning AR make a difference? And it wasn't the bushmaster that killed those kids.