Hypothetical question IF the Feinstein bill does pass

[Bob in Big D]

Personally, I think our esteemed Govenor is way overdo in speaking out on ms Frankestein's gun grabber bill. I think he is more concerned about national office than his duties in Texas at the moment!

[sjfcontrol]

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

[Bob in Big D]

Clue...2016

[sjfcontrol]

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

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

[Bob in Big D]

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

[77346]

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.

But since you won't be able to sell them, they will be worthless...

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[Slowplay]

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.

But since you won't be able to sell them, they will be worthless...

Yep, that is what I thought I read. They won't be transferable - must surrender to the gov upon owners death.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

[TexasVet]

The giving them up on the occurrence of death is one thing that bugs me. Even current NFA items can be transferred. That is why I started thinking and started this thread about alternatives.
How old does someone have to be before they can own a firearm ? I guess if is a trust then really no problems with age and it can go on for a long time. Since a trust in an "individual" in the eyes of the law that would take care of that. But can my under 18 year old child be the legal owner of a firearm.. not buy it, but own it ?

[Poldark]

Personally, I think our esteemed Govenor is way overdo in speaking out on ms Frankestein's gun grabber bill. I think he is more concerned about national office than his duties in Texas at the moment!

The silence is deafening :(

I would rather we heard something proactive very soon from our Gov. to put the gun grabbers on notice, not the usual reactive MO..!

[hpcatx]

I guess if is a trust then really no problems with age and it can go on for a long time. Since a trust in an "individual" in the eyes of the law that would take care of that. But can my under 18 year old child be the legal owner of a firearm.. not buy it, but own it ?

I am not sure about the law in Texas, but I assume it would be the same as in Louisiana because it is the BATFE that inspects trusts to see if they are proper: All trustees must be legally able to possess firearms. (Not sure if that's 18 or 21 for NFA restricted items.) A minor can be a beneficiary and, if a revocable trust, be added as a trustee when of age. I think in the case of a beneficiary taking possession, it is actually a transfer; I don't know about this last detail.

[5thGenTexan]

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.

And you don't think buried in this pile of fertilizer being shoveled in DC is a requirement that those 4473 forms would be forwarded to the BATFE? You better believe it will, think of all the JOBS that will create for the poor and down trod doing data entry in the lucky states that foisted this president upon us for a second term.

[Bob in Big D]

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.

Consumed is YOUR word not mine!