If/When the Assault weapons ban comes back...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: If/When the Assault weapons ban comes back...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    86

    If/When the Assault weapons ban comes back...

    If I go and purchase an assault weapons component... Say a lower receiver and barrel for an AR-15... If I get these components NOW and stick em away.

    Can I build it up with parts after the ban goes into effect and be grandfathered in?

    I don't have the money or gun experience for an AR right now, buuut with the political climate I want to ensure that I can get one later.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934
    I'd say yes you can. The key is to buy the lower prior to any ban after that you can do what ever you want as long as everything is grandfathered in. The lower is considered the weapon, everything else are just parts.
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Unless the new AWB calls for all existing assault weapons to be confiscated, it's unlikely you'll have to worry. What's more likely, however, is that all existing assault weapons will be grandfathered.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    86
    If there's ever a confiscation, I'll sell it to the feds for a reasonable markup.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,096

    Exclamation You are not understanding confinscation

    Quote Originally Posted by Pele View Post
    If there's ever a confiscation, I'll sell it to the feds for a reasonable markup.

    They come
    They take
    You get charged for a crime you may not have commited
    You lose your rights
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    They come
    They take
    You get charged for a crime you may not have commited
    You lose your rights
    Something very similar happened in California a few years ago. New laws were passed banning certain firearms and even law enforcement was unsure in many instances of what was illegal. One individual trying to be a good law abiding citizen was unsure of one firearm. He took it into the local P.D. and was first told it was fine. A few months later he got a knock on the door and was shocked to find L.E. there to confiscate his "legal" firearm. A search was made of his home to ensure he wasn't hiding any more illegal guns and he was basically treated like a criminal. I wish I could locate the news article but can't find it any more.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Something very similar happened in California a few years ago. New laws were passed banning certain firearms and even law enforcement was unsure in many instances of what was illegal. One individual trying to be a good law abiding citizen was unsure of one firearm. He took it into the local P.D. and was first told it was fine. A few months later he got a knock on the door and was shocked to find L.E. there to confiscate his "legal" firearm. A search was made of his home to ensure he wasn't hiding any more illegal guns and he was basically treated like a criminal. I wish I could locate the news article but can't find it any more.
    Ronwill, is this a scenario similar to the one you refer to?

    Gun Confiscation Starts In California

    Y2KNEWSWIRE has confirmed with the California State Attorney General office:
    Certain firearms are now under a confiscation order. This, also posted on a state-run web site. California residents must turn in their SKS rifles by 1/1/2000 -- precisely the Y2K rollover date -- or face criminal prosecution. Recently-enacted legislation mandates this confiscation, calling it a "buyback" program and offering to reimburse gun owners $230 per "relinquished" rifle.

    Amid cries from gun owners that their Second Amendment rights are being further trampled just in time for Y2K, Y2KNEWSWIRE hit the phones to find out exactly what's going on here.

    We spoke with Nathan Barankin, Director of Communications for the California Attorney General office, who informed us that this recent SKS gun ban issue arises from an unresolved legal definition. California was one of the first states to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which included the SKS rifle -- but only if the rifle had a detachable magazine. Rifles with fixed, non-removable magazines were exempt from this confiscation order, but those with removable magazine had to be recorded ("registered") and turned over to government authorities.

    Many owners of fixed-magazine SKS rifles later converted them to removable-magazine models. At the time, the Attorney General (who is not the current AG) wrote a letter to these gun owners assuring them that these rifles were perfectly legal and not subject to the gun confiscation order.

    In 1996, a man owning one of these converted rifles was arrested in Santa Clara County and prosecuted by the District Attorney for possessing an illegal firearm. The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court where a decision was finally handed down: yes, indeed, these rifles are illegal, the court said.

    This ruling created instant criminals. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE, "So what we had in 1997 was, by judicial ruling, a law that says all these people who had been informed that these weapons were legal were now suddenly felons."

    Yes: a state court decision transformed law-abiding citizens into felons. Recognizing the obvious problem here, the state legislature passed a bill that would allow owners of these newly-illegal SKS rifles a "window of opportunity" to turn them in without being prosecuted as felons. Barankin says, "This was not something that the legislature took a great deal of pleasure in doing." In fact, the author of this bill was a former chapter president of the NRA in Los Angeles.

    Currently, the Attorney General is trying to get the word out to people so that local police aren't forced to arrest these newly-defined "felons" who would likely end up doing time in prison for owning a gun that the state previously assured them was perfectly legal!


    THAT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION


    But the story may be much larger than this. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE about the trees, not the forest. We threw out a wildcard and asked Barankin his thoughts on the parallels between California's gun confiscation program and Adolf Hitler's gun registration (and subsequent confiscation) that ultimately helped the regime kill millions of ethnic Jews with minimum resistance.

    He didn't waver. He answered, "Let me put it this way, Bill Lockyer [the Attorney General] himself is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. What the state is attempting to do is enact reasonable gun control laws that are necessary to protect the public. One of those laws covers the assault weapons."

    We asked whether the current confiscation order would soon be expanded to other firearms. Barankin told us, "No." He explained further, "This is a very narrow situation, necessitated by the poor interpretation of an existing law and a court ruling. The state of California is not interested in getting in the business of confiscating anyone's weapons."

    Y2KNEWSWIRE then asked about the confiscation deadline: 1/1/2000. Just in time for Y2K. Barankin answered, "It is a coincidence. This was a law that was enacted in late Fall, last year, and generally laws that are passed in California become effective the next January 1, so they just wanted to give people a year to comply with the law."

    According to Barankin, then, this gun confiscation order has nothing to do with Y2K and everything to do with correcting a legal snafu. Barankin, by the way, was very straightforward and more than happy to answer even our most aggressive questions.


    A CLOSER LOOK AT THE CONFISCATION ORDER AND POTENTIAL Y2K RAMIFICATIONS


    Interestingly, the web site describing the gun confiscation program does contain phrases reminiscent of authoritarian control:

    "Procedures to turn in your [rifle]" and "...persons in California possessing an SKS semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine may be subject to prosecution, and the weapon subject to seizure..."

    Further instructions tell rifle owners, "To relinquish your [rifle] to your local law enforcement agency, you must strictly adhere to the following guidelines..."

    The only people allowed to own these rifles are those with the right "papers," authorized by state officials. All this sounds a little too familiar, and it has probably only worsened the fear of those individuals theorizing that Y2K will result in the invocation of various Executive Orders that activate the widespread confiscation of firearms. The State of California, it seems, did not go out its way to make sure its gun confiscation instructions did not add to this fear.


    CRIMINALS PROBABLY WON'T COMPLY


    Y2KNEWSWIRE has learned that at least one person in the state Dept. of Justice does not think this will remove these guns from the hands of criminals. We spoke with a senior level employee in the California Dept. of Justice who told us, under condition that we do not attribute the quote to him, "I haven't heard anybody say anything other than only the law-abiding people will turn them in."

    As this Dept. of Justice employee points out, efforts to confiscate guns from criminals often has the opposite effect: criminals ignore the law while law-abiding gun owners comply. This further empowers criminals by changing the ratio of gun possession. After the confiscation is complete, criminals know that fewer private citizens have firearms with which to defend themselves.


    THE Y2K EFFECT


    In the context of Y2K, this current California gun confiscation order simply means that the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens will be higher still. The (voting) majority of Californians have defined this as "safety," and this new level of "safety" will be achieved precisely on January 1, 2000. Oblivious to historical parallels, California says it is simply trying to clean up a surprise legal ruling that instantly redefined thousands of law-abiding citizens as "criminals."

    The story here isn't directly about guns, really; it's about a state bureaucracy that allows itself to become mired in details while avoiding the Year 2000 question: will these laws make the people safer when Y2K arrives? Or, put another way, will increasing the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens result in fewer crimes being committed during any potential Y2K disruption?

    When we posed this very question to another mid-level employee at the Attorney General office, he disavowed having anything to do with those "top-level" decisions, saying, "We have a leader in this department that tells us what to do."

    Stricken with disbelief at the invocation of that phrase -- "just following orders" -- we ended the interview.

    In the end, we were left with a splintered picture of what's going on with gun control and Y2K in California. There is no conspiracy in this isolated case. Well-meaning individuals are attempting to prevent everyday citizens from being arrested as felons by giving them time to turn in these firearms suddenly deemed "illegal." But the people in charge seem unconcerned about the end result of their actions. They're enforcing a state Supreme Court decision, oblivious to either the historical parallels or the Y2K ramifications of their actions. They did not seem deceptive, "evil" or malicious. They did, however, seem ignorant of the geopolitical history of gun control and how increasing the ratio of armed criminals to unarmed citizens during Y2K might be a terrible idea.

    This Report Is Brought To You By Y2KNewswire
    Visit Their website at www.y2knewswire.com and subscribe to their free email alerts.


    News Archive| Home Page

    Copyright 1999 MCSM
    Most recent revision October 1999

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by gdcleanfun View Post
    Ronwill, is this a scenario similar to the one you refer to?
    GD this looks like it may be dealing with the same time frame but the news story I was referring to told of the guy taking his rifle in to see if it was legal under the new laws and then, after being told it was legal, having it confiscated. You may have pointed me in the right direction though. Thanks.

  10. #9
    It all depends on the wording in the new assault weapons ban. If it's similar to the old one, or one of the 2 that have been proposed in '07 & '08, you'll be able to build up a complete rifle out of a lower.

    I'm planning on buying a couple more stripped lowers if/when they become available again at a reasonable price.
    "When the outflow exceeds the inflow, the upkeep becomes the downfall"

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    From my cold, dead hands.

    Fortunately, I reside in a state that doesn't have a gun registry, so I don't have to worry about state or local authorities knocking on my door to take my weapons. And, since there's no federal gun registry, I don't see any feds coming to knock on my door any time soon.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast