TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol

Bob in Big D wrote:Seems to still make the news.
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... talk.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which was all a retrospective analysis of what went wrong in 2012. It did not say anything about future plans, or that there was anything currently active regarding 2016. I'm NOT saying he isn't thinking about another run, but I can't imagine that he would be consumed with such plans at this time. YMMV.

sjfcontrol

The Annoyed Man wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.
You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.
Or like the price of a machine gun?
As you well know, TAM, machine guns are not outlawed (at least not ALL of them), merely highly regulated and taxed.
Well isn't that what DiFi's bill is proposing to do to the AR15? You'll be required to register them as a Class III weapon, and no more can be manufactured or imported. Then your $800 AR is now worth $8000.00.

If that is what we're talking about, then there is no confiscation, and therefore the govt doesn't have to pay for anything. We we're talking about the fair market value of weapons to compensate for their confiscation. That only happens if they are outright outlawed, right? If they are outlawed, their value drops to zero, since they cannot be sold or kept.

sjfcontrol

Bob in Big D wrote:Clue...2016

You seriously think that is consuming much of any bodies time at this point? Maybe dreams and fantasies, but unlikely much actual time yet. IMHO

sjfcontrol

What "National Office" would that be?
Clue: He didn't become President!

sjfcontrol

hpcatx wrote:Just wanted to float a question to you all. Haven't thoroughly evaluated the hypothetical, so I'm not sure how I would respond. And let me preface this with the fact that I am of course opposed to any registration scheme and, knowing that would be the first step towards confiscation, not comply.

If registration is required, might there be an argument for registering one or two weapons to appear to be compliant, while not registering the rest? (I assume the security apparatus that is currently in place would already be able to determine who is and who isn't a firearm owner, especially holding a CHL.) For example, if registration of all guns is required, should a CHL register one or two carry gun that is used the most -- in case s/he is approached by a LEO for a traffic stop? What about registering a pump action shotty in case of a break in and leaving the semi-auto one off of the lists?

What would the pros and cons be?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree with the stock response to never register anything, cede no ground in a "compromise," but I'm just trying to explore this hypothetical from every angle.

Why would you "assume" that? It is not a requirement to have a gun to have a CHL, or for DPS to know what kind of gun you have (unless the license is NSA). And the other "security" measures, such as the background check prior to purchase, by law are restricted from creating database of owners and guns. The 4473 form is not sent to BATFE (unless the FFL goes out of business), and in fact, if you're a CHL holder, the information is not even phoned in. Additionally, the ability to sell firearms face-to-face without any documentation of the sale, or background check of the buyer, means that even if the Government WAS trying to keep a "ghost registry", it would only go as far as the original owner. Who, like people have been aluding to here, could always just claim he sold (or lost) the gun(s) in question.

Of course, if you voluntarily register some of your firearms, they WILL know you have at least some, and may want to check for others, IMO.

sjfcontrol

The Annoyed Man wrote:
baldeagle wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.
You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.
Or like the price of a machine gun?

As you well know, TAM, machine guns are not outlawed (at least not ALL of them), merely highly regulated and taxed.

sjfcontrol

baldeagle wrote:
sjfcontrol wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
Beiruty wrote:Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.
And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.
Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere
If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.
You mean like the price of drugs? Or alcohol during prohibition?

I think you're confused.

Free/Open market. Not the Black Market. You think the Government will agree to pay Black Market prices?

sjfcontrol

anygunanywhere wrote:
jimlongley wrote:
Beiruty wrote:Such law or part of law would be unconstitutional. Government can't confiscate something without due and fair compensation. And due to the numbers of black evil rifles, Government cannot and will not afford the cost of said due and fair compensation.
And "fair compensation" is going up rapidly. Maybe there is a good side to price gouging.
Your idea of fair compensation and the goberment's idea are radically different.

Anygunanywhere

If they are outlawed, then their free-market value is ZERO.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 8 matches

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

Re: Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass