Ban state and Grandpa's hidden whatever

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Reading lots of posts about upcoming or proposed bans on guns and mags in various states, inevitably someone proclaims that they will not turn theirs in or most folks won't.

As I've said before, even if you keep them, they are now useless for any lawful activity and except for being hidden, so what.

OK, gun loving Grandpa kicks off or goes to home as he is now not able to take care of himself. What do the kids do with the forbidden items? Unless they are hard core, they probably don't want a hidden stash in their house?

They can't sell them legally. Yeah, they could drive them to another state and if stopped by the law - oops.

If they call the local law to come get the forbidden times, does a surviving Grandma get hit with the legal penalties of fines and time?

If Grandma is in the house and knew of the stash - is she a felon? Now maybe your Andy of Mayberry type will handle it on the sly but I wouldn't trust all law officers to do such.

I wouldn't want to put my kids in such a bind.
 
exactly. one only needs to use the banned item once and go to prison for doing so. somebody is breaking into your home and you shoot them only one time with a prohibited gun (holds more than 10 rounds, wrong configuration….); they go to hospital and then jail for a few months while you go to prison AND get sued for using an illegal gun. go target shooting and somebody reports you... instant felony. elections have consequences.
 
I will always obey the law. If it ever comes down to it, I will comply.
I agree that a hidden gun is useless. I haven’t needed a gun many times in real life. A gun isn’t worth risking jail Time; no matter how strongly I feel about the right to own them.
 
rickyrick said:
I will always obey the law. If it ever comes down to it, I will comply.
I agree that a hidden gun is useless. I haven’t needed a gun many times in real life. A gun isn’t worth risking jail Time; no matter how strongly I feel about the right to own them.
Click to expand...
pacifists are the reason states try to and generally pass these restrictions on rights.
 
I can vote, that’s our system. If a law is passed I can speak against it and vote next time.

Everyone that huffs and puffs about “cold dead hands”, “moron lane” and all that but end up complying as well.

How many gun laws have passed already in which no one fought back? To me everyone is a pacifist.
If you don’t comply with a gun law, then you are no longer innocent of crime.

The legal experts here seem to agree that regulating guns is permitted within our system of government.
Other than voting or peaceful protests, there’s no other recourse. Violence is not the answer here.
 
That's a good point and something to think about.

Partly it may boil down to which laws are in question; some of the bans you are a dangerous felon for a few extra round of capacity in a magazine, other bans (like some city bans/ordinances and you better research your laws before breaking them) are a fine at worst.

I'm hoping if some of these things ever hit home a federal court decides magazines and "bad" rifles are in common use and at a minimum can stay with their owners. Even in some of the worst states for gun laws, they grandfathered everything owned prior - it's only recently where I keep reading they make things people own masses of illegal and expect they are destroyed or turned in.
 
Nobody (in their right mind) wants to be a criminal, but nobody wants to be oppressed either. At what point does compliance and pacifistic behavior break down to another "shot heard round' the world"? That's what the 2A was written for, yes?

I ponder this a lot; in today's modern age, what is that tipping point? It kinda feels like a futile debate anymore. I also have no delusions of grandeur; at a personal level or for the general pro gun crowd. I do love my guns. I love other things more though, and if given a choice.. it'd be a hard pill to swallow.

Ehh. I wish I was more eloquent in my thoughts.
 
pacifists are the reason states try to and generally pass these restrictions on rights.
Click to expand...

It takes both. It takes some to stand up and become "felons at the stroke of a pen" fighting for inalienable rights.

It also takes those who will use that will put that:

"shot heard round' the world"
Click to expand...

Into action at the voting booths and political arena.

Both are necessary.
 
Let's not go off on a general RKBA discussion. My OP was a specific problem of those who would hide their forbidden items and what it means to their heirs or relatives.
 
State bans "high capacity" magazines and no grandfathering.

Federal ban "high capacity" magazines and allows grandfathering.

Supreme Court rules state laws that did not allow grandfathering are unconstitutional.

Person who got rid of all his "high capacity" magazines because of a state ban can not replace what he had due to recent federal ban on new sales/transfers.

IMO a lot of those is states with these bans do not believe the ban laws they live under are settled business as far as the courts go. Anyone who has currently banned/illegal items in their home should certainly let their spouse know what is going on, but I can certainly understand why so many are not giving up their banned stuff.
 
Statiscally, I would more likely have a financial or medical emergency before I’d ever actually need a gun to defend myself or family. Even though my main reason to own guns is personal defense, I do enjoy owning them and shooting them, it is highly unlikely I’d ever actually need to defend myself.
If I am charged with a crime my life would be adversely affected... at a minimum, it will cost me money, but could cost my job, freedom and/or financial stability.

Is the magazine or gun worth the risk of keeping it in a post ban scenario? That’s a decision we all have to make. A magazine that I can no long use, a gun I can no longer shoot is worthless to me. What’s the point of committing a crime in order to retain possession of an inanimate object. What’s the point of hiding a gun? I have no more mental attachment to a gun than I do a lampshade or a broom.

Me making a stand isn’t going to change anything. Those that have the power to resist and effect change do not stand up against gun control. There’s no real patriots anymore. The only people taking to the streets and fighting for anything are the ones that want to rid the country of guns.
I’m not being a pacifist, I’m being a realist. No point in becoming a criminal to make a stand when it will accomplish nothing. No point in burying guns in the backyard.
Guns could be banned now, there will be no pushback. A few people would go online and pretend to be patriots and nothing more. A few politicians will tweet about their disapproval.
 
Guns could be banned now, there will be no pushback
Click to expand...

How? And no 'push back? Think there would be.
Outright ban would never be permitted unless and until the 2A is somehow changed or eliminated.
Executive Order? Nope..National Emergency? Hmm, that's an interesting one..hopefully that 'precedent' won't come to pass. BUT, an EO cannot conflict with the Constitution, pretty sure(see attempts to overrule 14th amendment)..
 
Last edited:
EO cannot conflict with the Constitution
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court is OK with it, then it's ok.

The Japanese Interment in WWII was by executive order. At first, in Korematsu v. United States, Scotus says it was ok.

The majority opinion was written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent, such as Fred Korematsu.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

Evidence was faked to make the case.

A similar moral panic could lead a ban executive order. Give you a scenario. For whatever reason, 50 terrorists of an Islamic orientation - such as San Bernadino or Major Hassan - coordinate and simultaneously go on a rampage in 50 elementary schools, killing hundreds. The weapons used are AR-15s and higher capacity magazines bought in stores like Academy (see the Parkland lawsuits).

The next week it happens again at malls.

The President has a two fold executive order:

All such weapons are to be banned from sale and existing ones registered (or turned in).

All Islamic Males from 18 to 45 are to be interned.

What happens? Most Islamic citizens in the USA are fine folk. It is clearly unconstitutional but the Conservative Five in SCOTUS go along.

How do you push back? So you bury your guns (let's see if there is enforcement). Do you get your banned guns and fight the Feds when they come in trucks to take away law abiding citizens solely based on the actions of few due a religion?

If I want to go back further into the past, I might mention that Southern States before the Civil War passed laws banning rallies against slavery, printing antislavery materials such as pamphlets or in the press plus preaching against slavery from the Pulpit.

Well, that was clearly Unconstitutional but did they care? NOPE.

The Internet is full of let's fight, resist rhetoric. History suggests moral panics and ethnic issues in our country will wash thoughts of the Constitution out of the mind of folks really quickly.
 
It should be noted that Owen Roberts, the only Non-FDR appointee, wrote a dissent in Korematsu.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish we could have an informed discussion about this:

1. The historical precedent is the National Firearms Act of 1934. Among other things, the sale of machine guns was restricted. Not the ownership. You can learn what the actual legal status of grandpa’s tommy gun is. Yes, you can still keep it although how it is transferred to you may be regulated, as is selling it.

Grandpa maybe had a tommy gun. Time was, you could buy them cheap off the shelf at the store.

My friend Dana had the hand grenade his grandpa brought back from the war- we accept not having hand grenades or bazookas. No one is on a big “gummint taking away our bazookas” rant even though any modern militia uses stuff like that. (Dana and his brother had to dodge the cops in high school as they blew a big hole in the ground near a tree. It still worked.)

If people are upset about restriction of military grade munitions, why not get the Class 3 stamp and take grandpa’s tommy gun to the range and have at it?
 
We aren't talking about Tommy guns. We are talking about possessing a newly banned item that you don't turn in and how it impacts others who come into possession when you are gone or disabled.

Some states, IIRC - don't allow transfer of things that they ban on your death. I'm sure someone knows those laws, if I have it incorrect.
 
Glenn E Meyer said:
Some states, IIRC - don't allow transfer of things that they ban on your death.
Click to expand...

I don't know of a state that does this (grandfathering a banned item), but this was an explicit feature of Sen. Feinstein's 2012 proposal.
 
In the aftermath of the sandy Hook school shooting, Connecticut turned the screws on their "assault weapons" law. For those who don't already know, Connecticut adopted an "assault weapon" law around the same time as the 1994 federal AWB. The federal AWB expired in 2004 -- the Connecticut law did not. The Connecticut law allowed people who owned "assault weapons" to register them with the state police, and keep them.

Following Sandy Hook, Connecticut changed their definition from allowing a detachable magazine plus two evil features to allowing only one evil feature. That meant that "post-ban" configuration AR-15s, which had thereto been unregulated, instantly became "assault weapons." There was a window of opportunity (of several months duration) from passage of the law to the drop dead date, within which time owners of newly-declared "assault weapons" could either register them or dispose of them out of the state.

I know people in Connecticut who wrestled with this decision. In the end, most decided to register, because what's the point of owning an AR-15 if you can never take it out of the house, can never shoot it, and never let anyone know you own it?

Except for one guy with whom I worked on a project a couple of years later. He was living and working in Connecticut at the time, and he owned a post-ban AR-15. And he was apparently asleep at the switch, because (the story goes) he walked into work one day about six months after the window of opportunity had closed and asked "Hey! Am I supposed to register my AR-15? How do I do that?" A couple of co-workers reportedly told him to STFU and get it out of Connecticut ASAP.

I once talked to an attorney about setting up a trust to protect my limited assets from probate. The attorney's junior partner was a shooter, and we got to talking about guns and trusts. (Not NFA trusts -- just estate trusts in general.) The junior partner offered the opinion that people in Connecticut were screwed because anyone who owned an AR-15 could not add it to a trust. The post-Sandy Hook law doesn't allow transfers of "assault weapons" within the state. Moving your own firearm from your personal possession to a trust is (according to this lawyer) a transfer, and is therefore prohibited in Connecticut.

As to an unregistered "assault weapon," possession under the Connecticut law is a felony. Obviously, they can't prosecute a dead person, but it raises some interesting problems for the executor of the estate. I would not want to deal with it.
 
I am older than most and not as old as some. A long time ago my MIL & FIL took a vacation to Mexico. While there, she bought 2 switch blade knives and gave one to me and the other to their son (my BIL).

They were banned deadly weapons by the state from back in the 60s.

I sharpened the heck out of mine and kept it in one of my tackle boxes (Game Wardens are not interested in tackle box contents, just baskets and stringers) the whole time I owned it. BIL kept his in his back pocket.

I don't know where his is now and don't care. Someone wanted my tackle box, so the knife went with it. I don't miss it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top