0
Skyrad

If AR15s are banned will the cops be fighting owners in the streets?

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that I really think it would happen but if the POTUS managed to ban AR15s would the cops find themselves in street fights with the populous when they went to confiscate them?



LAW ABIDING CITIZENS do not fight cops in the street, or anywhere else.



frankly if the law to ban and confiscate is unconstitutional, then not allowing them to have your guns would not be against the law. If they wanted to force it, then they are taking your property, and you would be justified to defend it. Especially if they were entering your house.



The decision on whether a law to ban assault rifles is unConstitutional is not yours to make. You have to assume it's Constitutional until a court declares otherwise.



What part of the Heller Decision are you having trouble understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that I really think it would happen but if the POTUS managed to ban AR15s would the cops find themselves in street fights with the populous when they went to confiscate them?



LAW ABIDING CITIZENS do not fight cops in the street, or anywhere else.



frankly if the law to ban and confiscate is unconstitutional, then not allowing them to have your guns would not be against the law. If they wanted to force it, then they are taking your property, and you would be justified to defend it. Especially if they were entering your house.



The decision on whether a law to ban assault rifles is unConstitutional is not yours to make. You have to assume it's Constitutional until a court declares otherwise.



What part of the Heller Decision are you having trouble understanding?



Clearly YOU don't understand the part where Scalia writes that the 2nd is NOT UNLIMITED and that the ruling specifically addresses the "in common use at the time" issue. AR15s were not "in common use at the time" of ratification.

Scalia also wrote "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not that I really think it would happen but if the POTUS managed to ban AR15s would the cops find themselves in street fights with the populous when they went to confiscate them?



LAW ABIDING CITIZENS do not fight cops in the street, or anywhere else.



frankly if the law to ban and confiscate is unconstitutional, then not allowing them to have your guns would not be against the law. If they wanted to force it, then they are taking your property, and you would be justified to defend it. Especially if they were entering your house.



The decision on whether a law to ban assault rifles is unConstitutional is not yours to make. You have to assume it's Constitutional until a court declares otherwise.



So the gov't bans weapons, and decides to confiscate them -- on appeal the decision is made that the new ban and confiscation is unconstitutional and overturns it == and the gov't has already destroyed millions of weapons, without fair compensation.

So what is the settlement for people who had their rights illegally evaporated?

It would of course probably take 2-5 years for the case to work its way through the courts. So you think mericans should just allow their property to be taken illegally and destroyed?

A law limiting freedom (or any law really) should have to be proven constitutional before it can take effect. But does Obama believe in the constitution>?
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

This is just paranoid gun loving hysteria. The cops wouldn't be going door to door raiding peoples homes for their stockpiled weapons.

It would be much more likely in the case of an overwhelming ban on firearms, that a buyback is issued by the Fed.....paying you some predetermined market value for your property.

MOST law abiding people would sell them back, but there will still be tens of millions of weapons not turned over.

Those weapons will slowly work their way out of circulation as they come into contact with govt.

I.E. your house catches fire and the fire dept notices you have some rifles.....or, your mom or dad dies and you inherit a bunch of (now illegal) firearms you don't have a desire to possess.....etc.

What they won't do is start kicking in the doors of people searching for guns, anyone who thinks that.....certainly shouldn't be taken seriously in this discussion.

This isn't Syria, or 1930's Germany.




Hmmm. I don't believe the majority of gunowners would willingly turn over their ar15,'s for instance -- otherwise, why would they have run out and bought them up in anticipation of a ban over the last 5 years?


And if the ban doesn't include confiscation, what use is it? Even if it got 1/3rd of guns handed in, there's still 200 million out there, and I doubt that many gun owners would comply willingly.

When they recently disallowed and confiscated some long guns here in canada, 'MARKET VALUE' was NOT offered for the gun=owners involved.
If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Clearly YOU don't understand the part where Scalia writes that the 2nd is NOT UNLIMITED and that the ruling specifically addresses the "in common use at the time" issue. AR15s were not "in common use at the time" of ratification.

Scalia also wrote "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."



Well, he clearly states commercial sales. Not just "sales", and clearly not "all sales."

Would that mean he means to differentiate commercial sales from private sales?
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know a fair amount of gentlemen in uniform themselves who feel differently and would refuse such orders as being unlawful and against the constitution they swore to uphold.



Do you mean the ones in uniform who use questionable searches and seizures to arrest, prosecute and jail millions of Americans for marijuana that most of the population feels should be legal, and the cops themselves coudn't really give a shit about other than the job security it gives them? Or the ones in uniform who invade countries on fabricated pretenses, violate the Geneva Convention and waterboard prisoners? Yeah, not too hypocritical, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know a fair amount of gentlemen in uniform themselves who feel differently and would refuse such orders as being unlawful and against the constitution they swore to uphold.



There are an additional fair amount of gentlemen in uniform that presented with an old white guy aiming an AR at them would welcome the chance to carry out orders.
The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know a fair amount of gentlemen in uniform themselves who feel differently and would refuse such orders as being unlawful and against the constitution they swore to uphold.



Just to pile on...

Were any of them in New Orleans in fall 2005?
Those guys didn't seem to have any problems following orders to disarm the public.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Semi automatic weapons were most certainly "in use at the time" weapons commonly used by citizens for protection are protected by the 2nd Amendment. The AR15 is the most common and popular rifle. It outsells every other model.



Try reading the decision again. You clearly missed something the first time.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0