They were pretty eager to turn in all the ball and powder they took from the armories during the powder alarm in Concord, Lexington and Bedford...
They lined up and returned pretty quickly.
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
CA Senate Votes to Require Background Checks for AMMO and BAN Semi Auto Rifles
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
They lined up and returned pretty quickly.
WallHack
Banned
I still disagree with you. Confiscation, the one we actually fear, is when they go door to door collecting. What they've done is make it so it's illegal to possess. They don't come to your door and take it. They took no value as, under law, it is contraband, thus, legally, has zero value. I'm not saying I agree with it (and I most certainly don't!). But, to me, it's not the "confiscation" that many here harp about.
Malum prohibitum laws blow. Mens rea should be the order of the day.
Sure it is. Excepting for medical marijuana (which, to my knowledge, the dispensaries have not yet opened). Even though <1oz is a civil fine it is still illegal.
Do they go door to door? That's the confiscation to which I am referring.
Billsail
NES Member
This. Federal law STILL prohibits use and possession. You can become a "prohibited person" at the drop of a hat. Even if you potheads have a Mass legal prescription, it doesn't matter to the Feds. Think about the importance of having your daily "toke" is, compared to the consequences, and Mass will jam you up on suitability as well.
Say "confiscation" to anyone. Do they think "oh possession is illegal" or "door-to-door searches"? "We" can be any number of posters on this site.
I argue semantics because they are important (even if I turn out to be incorrect). Just like we argue what an "assault weapon" is with an anti. The definition and meaning is very important.
Do you lose the property upon passing of the law? No. Therefore they have not taken anything from you and so you have not been deprived of property without due process (as you still have it in your possession). I'm not saying it's right (and it's not) nor is it something I want.
I would, however, not be super surprised to see that coming down the pipe there...
Last edited:
By that logic, Germany didn't confiscate weapons before/during WWII because their decrees stated that people had a limited amount of time to voluntarily turn their arms in. After that period, anyone found to be in possession of arms would face severe penalties or be shot on the spot.
If someone legally owned marijuana today, and it was made illegal tomorrow with no grandfathering of what was already legally owned, then yes it would be confiscation of property.
WallHack
Banned
Very narrow definition of confiscation you have there, son. Confiscation to me means government saying "you can't have that, give it here" I'm not sure how much simpler it could be.....
Then you will have to be content to be wrong I guess...
If you buy the argument that levels of abstraction remove guilt from the aggressor then government has some bridges to sell you and will offer you a free train ride, room and board for the rest of your life and even a shower.
I don't know why you are trying to hard to excuse what is being done here?
The simple fact is that lawfully purchased property is being taken away from anyone who obeys the law. Even the courts find that to be a taking and have ruled as such over and over.
The holder of such property has no choice by to relinquish ownership and possession or be in violation of the law. This whole pre-ban thing didn't happen because they like us and wanted to make sure we still had a way to get the toys we wanted if we were willing to deal with higher price and hassle. It happened because they knew that outlawing existing guns WAS CONFISCATION and the law would fail immediately in the courts.
Last edited:
It's definitely confiscation. They are banning transfers of currently owned "assault weapons." Which means upon death your rifles cannot be passed down. They must be fully destroyed or made inoperable. That's confiscation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2
I think you're right. Unfortunately, we have to wait for these stupid laws to make their way through the legal process which can take years as well all know. Lawmakers have lost their damn minds. They just devise whatever laws they like and shove them through the legislature without caring about constitutionality anymore. Hell, what do they have to lose? Pass the damn thing and hope know one cares or challenges it. If they do lose it in court, oh well, they can say they tried and move on to passing their next asinine law with the same process.
I mean BANNING semi-auto's.....REALLY? If that doesn't fall under the 'commonly owned' language handed down through SCOTUS, then I don't know what the hell will...
xtry51
NES Member
They don't care and they'll keep passing laws because they are fully aware that:
1) They can pass laws faster than they can be challenged.
2) There is no penalty for doing so, even when laws blatantly violate previous decisions.
#1 cannot be solved without abolishing all government.
#2 has a single solution. Politicians who pass laws that violate rights start dying. In large numbers.
1) They can pass laws faster than they can be challenged.
2) There is no penalty for doing so, even when laws blatantly violate previous decisions.
#1 cannot be solved without abolishing all government.
#2 has a single solution. Politicians who pass laws that violate rights start dying. In large numbers.
Winner... When there is no consequence the obviously morally correct politicians will do the right thing.
I am sure someone with more legal credentials than I can quote better law, but here's an intro:
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And here:
Guide to the Constitution
And here:
Regulatory taking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course there have been 90+ years of ruling after that and I will tell you that most of them are rulings on "real property" (ie. land), but it is my understanding that even as the court has allowed for various taking of land for public interest, a complete deprivation of all economic interest in property without compensation is not allowed under the 5th amendment. For more than that, you'd have to ask a lawyer for the best answer.
Gun grabbers are of course trying to make the bullshit argument that if it isn't taken for public use they can take it as you will see here, but note even here that they comment that grandfather clauses obscure their analysis because they put the issue and challenge to rest.
ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN AND TAKINGS CLAUSE
JuergenG
NES Member
Cite, please.
Hint: It were the Allied Forces confiscating arms after WWII and threatening anyone who kept theirs with the death penalty.
Im much more afraid of this type of legislation than door to door confiscation. Americans have proven that they will comply with legislation that strips them of their 2A rights. All you have to do is look at CA, MA, NY, NJ, IL, etc.
Door to door might mean a bloodbath (it still likely will not), but it might be the only thing that motivates Americans to stop complying with tyranny.
And, I'm guilty of complying like a coward as well. So, I have the right to say it.
TOM1960
Banned
Seems very extreme. The rifle/shotgun combo is very popular in Europe because of the strict gun laws. They used to call them "drillings", with one rifle barrel and either one or two shotgun barrels. Allowed the hunter much versatility with a single firearm.
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck - then it is probably a duck"...
Google california sks confiscation
MaverickNH
NES Member
CA is indeed a state that takes the trouble to visit homes of those whose "FID Card" equivalent in CA has expired, or who have had a restraining order issued and are cross-indexed as having an "FID Card", etc.
They DO go door-to-door to confiscate firearms in CA.
Anyone with a CA "FID Card" will probably get a house-shaking door knock by a dressed-to-kill tactical squad "asking" to enter the home to search for banned firearms/magazines - probably after the husband has left and the wife is scared sh*tless. Firearms, ammo and mags will be seized and submitted to see if they "pass the test". Good luck getting a revolver or bolt-action, 4rd internal magazine rifle back once tossed in the government's pit.
Just the next chapter in the book for CA...
They are Americans. We let them be thrown under the bus without our support, and we deserve it when they come knocking at our doors.
They DO go door-to-door to confiscate firearms in CA.
Anyone with a CA "FID Card" will probably get a house-shaking door knock by a dressed-to-kill tactical squad "asking" to enter the home to search for banned firearms/magazines - probably after the husband has left and the wife is scared sh*tless. Firearms, ammo and mags will be seized and submitted to see if they "pass the test". Good luck getting a revolver or bolt-action, 4rd internal magazine rifle back once tossed in the government's pit.
Just the next chapter in the book for CA...
They are Americans. We let them be thrown under the bus without our support, and we deserve it when they come knocking at our doors.
What ever happened to Oath of Office that every elected official takes,to" Protect and Defend the Constitution of the U.S.A. "
I would like to think the courts could direct elected officials to keep this in mind when passing legislation.
......................Jack
I would like to think the courts could direct elected officials to keep this in mind when passing legislation.
......................Jack
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
xtry51
NES Member
Right. I'm sure that will work. I'm sure it will work even better if you write some strongly worded letters.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
These people don't give a rats ass about you and they love tyranny.
MetalgodZ
NES Member
Immediately, off the top of my head, no. But that doesn't change the fact that you're still not correct here - It had value (monetary and utilitarian value), and now it does not, since you may neither legally sell it nor legally use it.
Constructive Taking Law & Legal Definition
My Google-fu isn't working too well this AM. Read that, note that even a zoning ordinance can reasonable be challenged as a taking (hence all of the "in previous use as" lines in zoning laws) and then go look for cases.
Similar threads
