Senate To Go After Some Handguns

[VMI77]

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.

Exactly. Shoot, shovel, shut up then becomes the requirement for anyone not willing to give up their life and the lives of their loved ones to thugs.

[anygunanywhere]

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?

All rule of law is now gone.

If congress don't do it then executive order will.

It doesn't matter when you owned it it will be illegal.

If they confiscate it they don't have to pay you for it becaus e if it is illegal it is worth nothing. They will give you nothing for your firearms.

Also, since you did not register them and pay the 200 bucks per item you are a criminal.

The government does not pay criminals for their illegal possessions.

All normalcy is now gone.

Anygunanywhere

[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?

All rule of law is now gone.

If congress don't do it then executive order will.

It doesn't matter when you owned it it will be illegal.

If they confiscate it they don't have to pay you for it becaus e if it is illegal it is worth nothing. They will give you nothing for your firearms.

Also, since you did not register them and pay the 200 bucks per item you are a criminal.

The government does not pay criminals for their illegal possessions.

All normalcy is now gone.

Anygunanywhere

True, but the sword cuts both ways --at least to some degree-- and some of us may find it quite liberating.

[Nightshift]

Hmm, it seems murder rate is down to 1950's level here in Dallas.

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages ... ame=TX_DMN" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you want to read the article here:
http://webmedia.newseum.org/newseum-mul ... TX_DMN.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bayouhazard]

The tax would be cheaper than the Obamacare tax for self insuring.

[Jimineer]

Why does the GOP have to fight for anything? Just vote no. That should be our motto: just vote no.

[Dori]

Why does the GOP have to fight for anything? Just vote no. That should be our motto: just vote no.

To more spending
To gun control
To socialism

[daveboyd]

My first choice is Secession!

Agreed.

[punkndisorderly]

Were such a ban to pass, it's essentially game over. It's analagous to banning the sale or transfer of gasoline cars.

Sure, you get to keep them, and you could refuse to register but:

If you ever drive it, you go to jail
If someone steals it, you have no recourse
If it wears out, you can't replace it
You can't get gas for it
Etc.

For guns:
If you ever use it for self defense, you go to jail
If someone steals it, you have no recourse
If they get busted, and say where they got it, you go to jail.
If you bury it in the backyard, you're just as deprived of it as f they took it
When it wears out, it's gone
When the magazines wear out, they're gone
When you die, it's gone or it goes illegally to your kin and the cycle begins anew

[anygunanywhere]

Those doing the banning need to go to jail. For treason.

Anygunanywhere

[VMI77]

Were such a ban to pass, it's essentially game over. It's analagous to banning the sale or transfer of gasoline cars.

Sure, you get to keep them, and you could refuse to register but:

If you ever drive it, you go to jail
If someone steals it, you have no recourse
If it wears out, you can't replace it
You can't get gas for it
Etc.

For guns:
If you ever use it for self defense, you go to jail
If someone steals it, you have no recourse
If they get busted, and say where they got it, you go to jail.
If you bury it in the backyard, you're just as deprived of it as f they took it
When it wears out, it's gone
When the magazines wear out, they're gone
When you die, it's gone or it goes illegally to your kin and the cycle begins anew

I think you're too pessimistic. None of these things are necessarily true....yes, everyone of them could happen, but it's possible some won't, at least some of the time. For instance, even your first...maybe, maybe not. Say you pull a gun on someone who broke into your house....you think he's going to run off to the police station and tell them you pulled a gun on him while he was trying to rob you? Some might, but I suspect most won't. In fact, in that scenario, since guns are illegal, and when guns are illegal only outlaws have guns, he might think you're another criminal.

At this point, while the left may be able to ban guns, the country is still pretty far away from being persuaded to give up the right to self-defense as they have in the UK....even in the Socialist Utopias like Kalifornia, New Jersey, Illinois, and Maryland most people still belief you have a right to defend yourself. And before those mags and guns wear out the whole country may experience a lesson about the need for guns in self-defense, as economic collapse at some point in the next 20 years is a virtual certainty ---probably not sooner than 5 years, but closer to 10 than 20.

[recaffeination]

Maybe not a total ban officially but didn't the Heller decision say registration and fees are good, even the the fees are very high?