Senate To Go After Some Handguns

[Heartland Patriot]

And another thing.....this proposal eliminates the presumption of innocence (which should be unconstitutional in and of itself). Anyone caught with a mag of greater than 10 round capacity will have to prove they bought it before the ban, which is impossible. Even if you have itemized receipts of all your magazine purchases it won't PROVE you didn't by any particular magazine after the ban. So effectively, there really is no grandfathering for magazines.

Isn't that ex post facto? I don't think it will hold up. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. That's why the previous AWB was written as such, to eliminate that possibility. They'd have to do the exact same thing this time. I know how you feel about it, but this is BLATANT vs simply pulling the usual stunts.

[JALLEN]

Hmm, Single feature which will now include a thumb hole stock.... guess my nice little bolt action .22LR would be an 'Assault weapon' if it were wearing a nice Boyd's stock (http://www.boydsgunstocks.com/RVT-MARLI ... 61-061.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Sheesh.

At least in California, assault weapons are semi-auto, center fire only.

Of course, since they are making up that category, they can define it anyway they like, whether it makes any sense or not.

[longhorn_92]

[youtube][/youtube]

This is Diane Feinstein in her own words about the Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban ALL guns. She will not ban all guns with her new proposal... it will take time. The registration is the FIRST step to eventual banning the 2nd Amendment completely!

Obama said he wanted to TRANSFORM America... here you go.

[JALLEN]

[youtube][/youtube]

This is Diane Feinstein in her own words about the Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban ALL guns. She will not ban all guns with her new proposal... it will take time. The registration is the FIRST step to eventual banning the 2nd Amendment completely!

Obama said he wanted to TRANSFORM America... here you go.

She was vice Chairman of the SF Board of Supervisors when Harvey Milk and George Mosconi were shot by another supervisor, and she discovered it. I don't know what she was like before, but she was been an unrelenting foe of gun ownership ever since.

Just remember LBJ's instructions: "If you've got the votes, they do things your way. If they have the votes, you do things their way." Don't ever forget that. You have to have the votes. You can avoid anything as long as you have the votes, and want to use the power badly enough.

[VMI77]

And another thing.....this proposal eliminates the presumption of innocence (which should be unconstitutional in and of itself). Anyone caught with a mag of greater than 10 round capacity will have to prove they bought it before the ban, which is impossible. Even if you have itemized receipts of all your magazine purchases it won't PROVE you didn't by any particular magazine after the ban. So effectively, there really is no grandfathering for magazines.

Isn't that ex post facto? I don't think it will hold up. Ex post facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3. That's why the previous AWB was written as such, to eliminate that possibility. They'd have to do the exact same thing this time. I know how you feel about it, but this is BLATANT vs simply pulling the usual stunts.

The proposal is illegal on its face, in a variety of ways. 1) it infringes on the 2nd Amendment; 2) it deprives people of property without just compensation; 3) it eliminates due process by removing the presumption of innocence --you're guilty unless you can prove yourself to be innocent; 4) it denies equal protection under the law; 5) it asserts power to the Federal government that is explicitly denied by the Constitution since the power to define what guns we can posses is not an enumerated power of the Federal government; 5) and yes, is an ex-post facto law.

This is an all out assault on the Constitution. My wife, who pays little attention to politics, read a few articles on Yahoo about this Bill, and she told me she was scared to death because the government is trying to take away a Constitutional right that we have had since the country was founded. She understands what that means for our future....regardless of which amendment we're talking about....explicitly infringing on one of them is deadly serious business. This isn't the product of a misunderstanding or about technical legal interpretations...it is a deliberate orchestrated attack on the Constitution, and if they get away with this, then the Constitution is officially a dead letter, and we no longer live in a Republic, under the rule of law, but a police state under the rule of men --and not just any men, but the most craven, ignorant, pathological, untrustworthy of men.

And btw, where have all The One's liberal defenders in this forum gone to? It seems like we haven't heard a peep out of them for awhile now.

[VMI77]

[youtube][/youtube]

This is Diane Feinstein in her own words about the Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban ALL guns. She will not ban all guns with her new proposal... it will take time. The registration is the FIRST step to eventual banning the 2nd Amendment completely!

Obama said he wanted to TRANSFORM America... here you go.

She was vice Chairman of the SF Board of Supervisors when Harvey Milk and George Mosconi were shot by another supervisor, and she discovered it. I don't know what she was like before, but she was been an unrelenting foe of gun ownership ever since.

Just remember LBJ's instructions: "If you've got the votes, they do things your way. If they have the votes, you do things their way." Don't ever forget that. You have to have the votes. You can avoid anything as long as you have the votes, and want to use the power badly enough.

No she hasn't, she is an unrelenting proponent of disarming us plebes, she owns guns and fully intends to keep hers. She has even carried a gun on her person.

[lbuehler325]

Legislation is all about compromise. If they are determined to reenact the ban, the GOP should at the very minimum fight for a 20 round max on handgun magazines, and no federal registration.

I don't think that a Glock 19 or an XD that hold <20 in the standard magazines should be included in the ban. And you can't recall current AR's unless you are willing to pay fair market value for them.

But here is a better idea. They shouldn't even spend one second discussing guns until they can assure me with a Balanced Budget Amendment, that we will not have an economic collapse in this nation like Greece. Because if Greece happens in the USA, I will need and will use my AR-15 and my XD if necessary.

Really? Your XD and AR-15? Funny, but ALL of my weapons with 'military characteristics' were recently all lost in a 'tragic boating accident'.

[Longhorn-breeder]

But here is a better idea. They shouldn't even spend one second discussing guns until they can assure me with a Balanced Budget Amendment, that we will not have an economic collapse in this nation like Greece. Because if Greece happens in the USA, I will need and will use my AR-15 and my XD if necessary.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lbuehler325]

Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Maybe I am having a brain fart, but what the heck would fall into this category?? Tube fed .22 maybe? That's all I can think of.

It isn't just semi autos. Non semi auto shotguns fall into the mix. The Keltec KSG is a pump action, and carries either 12 or 14 in its tubes. Therefore: 'banned'.

[lbuehler325]

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
-Background check of owner and any transferee;
-Type and serial number of the firearm;
-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

Does it seem like they want the grandfathered items to eventually be akin to machine guns manufactured prior to '86? Chalk another one up for the dems and those that hate America & our Constitution (but I repeat myself).

Registered and non-transferrable... so, you cannot pass it to a child. Therefore, the government takes it upon your death.
Registration of each 'large capacity feeding device under NFA guidelines; means a $200 tax on each 'assault weapon' and magazine you own. That adds up quick.

[Nightshift]

Really? Your XD and AR-15? Funny, but ALL of my weapons with 'military characteristics' were recently all lost in a 'tragic boating accident'.

The problem is that even if you could potentially say that you have lost all your guns in a boating accident, you will never be able to use them because you will never be able to take them to the range to practice, you would never be able to use them in a self defense situation because they would be illegal guns so you might win your self defense case you would be charged with a felony for having an unregistered weapon. If they pass this demonic bill from hell through, they have effectively turned all who would resist and not register into felons.

[sjfcontrol]

Really? Your XD and AR-15? Funny, but ALL of my weapons with 'military characteristics' were recently all lost in a 'tragic boating accident'.

The problem is that even if you could potentially say that you have lost all your guns in a boating accident, you will never be able to use them because you will never be able to take them to the range to practice, you would never be able to use them in a self defense situation because they would be illegal guns so you might win your self defense case you would be charged with a felony for having an unregistered weapon. If they pass this demonic bill from heck through, they have effectively turned all who would resist and not register into felons.

They'll still be good for the Zombie Apocalypse, though. (And after every democrat, and republican who voted for it is voted out, and the law repealed.)

[mamabearCali]

Night gun....it will become one of those things....when everything is illegal......nothing is. It becomes a Russian roulette. In England it matters not if you kill a crazed homicidal maniac with your shovel or your illegal gun, if the authorities find out you will go to jail equally. So what you have then is lawlessness, mistrust of gov't, and people don't call the police anymore. Not pretty, but that is where the protectionists are driving us.

[bizarrenormality]

Isn't that ex post facto?

No. If they pass a law this month saying it was illegal to own one in December 2012, that would be an ex post facto law. If they pass a law this month banning possession on or after 2/1/2013, that's not an ex post facto law.

[VMI77]

Isn't that ex post facto?

No. If they pass a law this month saying it was illegal to own one in December 2012, that would be an ex post facto law. If they pass a law this month banning possession on or after 2/1/2013, that's not an ex post facto law.

Thy can't simply ban possession....that is confiscation and requires compensation. They're requiring you to register a gun and pay a tax...the tax itself isn't ex post facto, but not paying the tax means criminalizing an act that occurred prior to the law --possession. Under that law you're not being punished for a new act, but for an act already committed --they've made the act illegal retroactively, so, simply by doing nothing you're made a criminal. If, for example, they start taxing some other item not now taxed, like at one time was done with property, not paying the tax may result in forfeiture, but that's a civil, not a criminal remedy. They don't put people in jail for not paying their property taxes, they just take their property. This law puts you in prison for not paying the tax. Now granted, Obamacare requires you to perform a specific act, and the SC ruled it was OK, so it's anyone's guess, but I don't think the issue is cut and dried --I'd have to read more on original intent to come to a conclusion.

However, does it really matter one way or the other? We don't live under the rule of law anymore. The left is openly stating that the 2nd Amendment should just be ignored. The 2nd clearly says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The proposed ban is clearly an infringement, a major one, so what difference does it make what is and isn't ex post facto?