TexasCHLforum.com

equin wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

equin wrote:Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

The cannot confiscate legally owned property, it would be part of the estate.

That's what I would argue as the administrator of the estate, that it's an asset with value that belongs to the estate and cannot be seized without due process. But I'm not an estate or firearms law expert so I don't know.

Beiruty wrote:

equin wrote:Kind of on topic - Buffalo, NY police department plans to seize guns from deceased permit holders:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/14/bu ... -funerals/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aside from the 2nd Amendment issue, I wonder if it also poses a property rights issue for the estate of the deceased since it's still an asset with value belonging to the estate. I'm also wondering how this would play out if a trust for the deceased's firearms were established prior to his/her death with the deceased as a beneficiary. Then what happens?

The cannot confiscate legally owned property, it would be part of the estate.

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.

Hey, the Feds can't get confiscation passed, may as well get the states to do their work. Same end result.

My bet is that they wouldn't see it that way. Those forms represent power, power is something obama understands at an instinctual level. They will NOT delegate power without a fight. But we can agree to disagree.

sjfcontrol wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

The Obama justice dept? Seriously? HaHaHaHaHaHa! Priceless. No offense intended but I would take that bet any day.

You think they are going to give up THEIR lists to a bunch of local rubes? I would expect a micturition contest at the least.

sjfcontrol wrote:Feds might have something to say about that...

VoiceofReason wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:

gljjt wrote:

Beiruty wrote:Colorado comes to my mind. Anti-gun governor booted out.

Pretty sure the anti gun CO incumbent Governor won. The US Senator lost however.

"We" lost In Oregon with background checks. The result and the method (billionaire funding) is not encouraging.

Mallory won in CT. This may play out badly (confiscations) in the weeks and months ahead.

Yes it was a great night. But there were a few really bad losses.

I say "Bring It On!". I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it. If one small microcosm of our country (Colorado) chooses to demonstrate what many of us believe to be true (i.e. registration leads to confiscation), then at least it is isolated in one place - and - it proves our point. It will boost our side of the argument across the rest of the country. All those 'fence sitters' who own guns but don't want to take sides may finally wake up.

Connecticut is far more likely to see confiscations. Leaked memos have allegedly indicated the governor and the head of the state police are prepared to start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines") after the election, which has now passed. Apparently noncompliance to required registration is supposedly about 90% in CT.


Edited for clarity

Now, how are they going to “start confiscating unregistered "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” when they are unregistered and they do not have a list of who has them?

Are they going to demand from all gun dealers in the state a list of all "assault" weapons (and "high capacity magazines")” sold in the state since (let’s say) 1963? Are they going to search your house for the AR you told them you sold ten years ago? Are they going to start mass warrantless searches?

I am not even going to address the fallout the state would have to deal with from the bloodshed that would surely happen if they tried this.

No, the state completely misjudged the reaction of the people to their “law” and now the best thing they can do is try to pretend it never happened and move on with another tactic.

JP171 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?

As a general rule no military member would willingly fire on citizens of the US as to do so if they are NON Combatants would be NO, also as a general rule to do so is an unlawful order and required by law to be refused and the issuer is to be taken into custody by any soldier, marine, sailor, airman that has received and acknowledged as unlawful that order. the issue isn't cut and dried but as far as most people in the military the order would be refused and the person who issued it would be taken into custody to be processed by a CID investigator under article 32 of the UCMJ

VoiceofReason wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:I hear so many liberals tell me, "Nobody wants to take your guns away," and I simply don't believe it.

Oh, it's far more than mere guns. Want to see what they have planned? Read this: http://www.varmintal.com/hci.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They cannot succeed in that plan without registration.

And then they were hit squarely between the eyes with a big chunk of reality.

I wouldn’t worry about registration too much. They can pass all the laws they want and if the majority do not obey the laws then all it does is make the lawmakers look like idiots. Case in point “The great Connecticut gun & magazine registration.

My question is, would the U.S. government actually fire on its own citizens?