Could it come to this? All weapons ban.

[Mike1911]

This is a made up scenario, could it happen here in the USA? I am not paranoid I don't think that this would happen. This is just for discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change.......it's time for Change for a better America so says a future president (dictator?). I want Congess to pass a law..............

And so it happens, a Federal law is passed sometime in the future, banning the personal ownership of ANY firearm, ammo and 'toy' guns, except for the Storm Troopers..err..police and Feds. The subjects..err..citizens are told to TURN THEM IN by a specific date at a specific location or else. The Feds and local authorities know who you are and where you live and what you have.

Would the citizens band together and fight, similar to the Lexington-Concord battle of so many years ago? Or would we be like the sheepish Brits and Aussies and do what we're told?

Would unfriendly countries surmise that this is the 'time' to strike at the infidels, those lazy and dumb Americans.

God help us all.

[size=+2]Molan labe, "Come and take them!" [/size]​

 

[Dick]

Not going to happen anytime soon unless they can figure out some way to overturn Heller, which isn't going to happen until Obama is able to change the balance on the Court, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, and likely won't be possible even if he has 8 years to work at it.

 

[tele_mark]

One problem with instituting that is there's an awful lot of free states that don't have registration and they'd have no idea who has how much of what. Even in a registration state like MAss, they can't be entirely sure.

 

[ranger4-7]

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States recently affirm that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual's right to posess a firearm for private use?

Under what scenario do you see this future law being passed? Do you see trying to push through such a law as a number one priority of the Obama Presidency? If so, you think that he would prioritize such a ban ahead of fixing an economy in a freefall, fighting a war on two fronts, dealing with the prospect of North Korea and Iran with Nukes, figuring out how how to deal with Pakistan, trying to fix social security, our schools, etc.?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. But it is fun to play the what cool toys should I buy because the world as we know it is coming to an end. Perhaps to save a little bandwith, we could just dig up some of the "Oh no, Deval Patrick is going to grab all our guns threads".

 

[Rob]

In my opinion, this will more than likely be brought up quicker than a total flat out ban of everything:

NRA-ILA on "Encoded Ammunition"/Bullet Serialization:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=227

 

[Joe R.]

Gee, one voice of paranoia, one voice of some reason ( I was planning this as #3 in the thread - damn some of you are fast! )...heck of a way to start off a Thrusday morning!

For the paranoids out there... why get yourself worked up about the Obamamarxist like this? Even with his add ons to Congress, he still doesn't have the votes to do this. All you are doing is stoking a fire that doesn't need to be stoked. Americans now aren't the same as Americans back in the Revolutionary War - too many think that their life isn't work losing for a cause. You would be lucky to get 1% of the gunowners here in the US to stand with you. The spirit just isn't there anymore...

For the reason people...all he would have to do is convince and threaten enough weak people in Congress to start the ball rolling. All of his " people " would be right up with that and would be very energetic about trying to follow the messiah's orders. Still don't think this will happen but you would have to remember that 30% or so of the police and the military would follow his orders if he said what the OP scenario put out.

Just something to think about on a Thursday...

Joe R.

 

[Mikey]

... You would be lucky to get 1% of the gunowners here in the US to stand with you. The spirit just isn't there anymore...

All the more reason to be prepared.

 

[Knob Creek]

Worry about O'Bambi signing on to that UN small arms treaty

 

[C-pher]

We saw how many of us spoke up and wrote to our senators and State Reps when they wanted to up the fee 100 bucks.

I think that if this were to come up...while we might not revolt with guns held high....I think that we would revolt with letters and phone calls. Calls in amounts that would overwhelm the offices to where this wouldn't pass.

 

[Robert J]

I do not believe it would be that difficult for obama to argue to the majority of people who just voted for him that no one needs more than 10 round magazines, hunters do not require semi-autos, military designed hardware only belongs in the hands of his private protection force and maybe the military (if they don't act up), and the party line goes on... Does he have other issues, sure but he is going to quickly find that regardless of the perception he has no more special powers than President Bush over the economy or any of the other things that people generally think is the obligation of the federal government.

obama does not seem to be a micro-manager to me, I would bet he has hundreds of people standing in line to help him build a government machine that can make every decision for you and eliminate each of the pesky responsibilities that have been bothering adults for 200 years.

 

[coastie]

I see an HR 1022 style ban being passed but a total ownership ban will not happen. I think a quick passage of HR1022 is very possible. It wont cost any money and it will show that the administration is serious on crime.

The Fudds dont care about black rifles but will put up a fight if you take their 870s. Also all the states will fight this hard. Hunters support all the Fish and Wildlife agencies and protect more land than all the treehugging groups.

I also see greater restrictions on ammo. Higher taxes, further restrictions on lead based ammo, microstamping etc.

Of greater concern to me though is the potential loss of my retirement accounts and socialized medicine.

 

[doobie]

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States recently affirm that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual's right to posess a firearm for private use?

Under what scenario do you see this future law being passed? Do you see trying to push through such a law as a number one priority of the Obama Presidency? If so, you think that he would prioritize such a ban ahead of fixing an economy in a freefall, fighting a war on two fronts, dealing with the prospect of North Korea and Iran with Nukes, figuring out how how to deal with Pakistan, trying to fix social security, our schools, etc.?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. But it is fun to play the what cool toys should I buy because the world as we know it is coming to an end. Perhaps to save a little bandwith, we could just dig up some of the "Oh no, Deval Patrick is going to grab all our guns threads".

If the democrats/Senate/House/President repealed the second amendment the Heller Decision would be meaning less.

 

[Dick]

If the democrats/Senate/House/President repealed the second amendment the Heller Decision would be meaning less.

And the process by which the Senate/House/President go about repealing the 2nd (or any other amendment) would be?

 

[FlexibleDogma]

And the process by which the Senate/House/President go about repealing the 2nd (or any other amendment) would be?

I know this is a most likely a rhetorical question. But it's worth pointing out how UNLIKELY it would be that this could happen, so I'll bite. You'd have to ratify a new amendment that says "This amendment repeals the 2nd amendment." This is covered by the 5th article of the US Constitution. There are actually two ways to do this, but the concern is focusing on how Democrats control the presidency and congress, so I'll just outline that path.

Congress has to have a 2/3rds vote agreeing to the amendment. Then 3/4th of the states have to agree to it (either via the states' legislatures or ratifying conventions in the states). The President has nothing to do with this process: He does not approve nor veto an amendment.

Off the cuff math: If you can find 13 or so states that would shoot this down, you aren't going to get the amendment. There are more than 13 "shall-issue" states, so I seriously doubt this would get any traction. (The idea of Texas, Alaska, or several other states signing off on this makes me )

For those who care: The OTHER way to do it is to have national convention requested by 2/3rds of the states. They propose the amendment, then it has to get signed off by 3/4ths of the states as above. Even more unlikely!

Aside: While anyone can look at our government and nitpick, our founding fathers were pretty damn smart. Amending the constitution is a big deal, but the states can do it on their own if congress is dragging their feet. But congress can never force an amendment that a strong majority of states won't agree to. Well thought out stuff!

 

[Dick]

I know this is a most likely a rhetorical question . . .

Yes, it was, but thanks for making it clear to everyone what the process is and how unlikely it is (about as unlikely as repealing the law of gravity) that the 2nd could be nullified.

I would just add two things, which I suspect you already know, but others may not . . . There has never been an amendment ratified or even proposed via the "second" route, the national constitutional convention (talk about opening a can of worms!). And as a lesson in how difficult it is to amend the Constitution, consider that there have been several thousand amendments proposed, yet only 27 (and really only 17 if you count the Bill of Rights as a special case) have been ratified.

 

[FlexibleDogma]

...There has never been an amendment ratified or even proposed via the "second" route, the national constitutional convention (talk about opening a can of worms!). ...

Indeed, there hasn't even been a convention since the one in Philadelphia in 1787. (It's just a little famous for folks who know their US history.) The few times the states have come close its been considered a swift kick to the butt to Congress so the states get what they want. Congress, no matter what year it is or what party is in power, does NOT want states cutting them out of the loop!

 

[Yelena]

I think it is going to be a slow and steady process. Which is worse that something happening all the sudden.
To be honest, I'd prefer someone just trying to come and grab my stuff, because at least it is a clear situation.

 

[jcr]

this is a most likely a rhetorical question. But it's worth pointing out how UNLIKELY it would be that this could happen,...​

What is unlikely is that it would pass, not that it isn't unthought of.

With each new Congress every two years until he retired at the end of last session, the idiot Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) submitted a bill to repeal the Second Amendment.

His bill never even got to the committee hearings stage, but he felt morally superior for having filed it.

 

[Chris]

The sad thing is that the Congress has enacted so many things that were never given as powers to them and were reserved to the people or the states by the 9th and 10th amendments that to actually expect the Socialists to actually follow the rules is just as laughable as having 3/4 of the states elect to do away with the 2nd.

 

[sig shooter]

they cant ban it outright but the only possiblity of a ban would be through extream regulation like all of obamas anti gun ideas.

 

[Dick]

this is a most likely a rhetorical question. But it's worth pointing out how UNLIKELY it would be that this could happen,...​

What is unlikely is that it would pass, not that it isn't unthought of.

With each new Congress every two years until he retired at the end of last session, the idiot Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) submitted a bill to repeal the Second Amendment.

His bill never even got to the committee hearings stage, but he felt morally superior for having filed it.

OK, let's try this one more time. It's not possible for Congress to amend the Constitution, or "repeal" an existing amendment (which is, of course, to say the same thing), or in fact to change, add, or delete a single word of the Constitution (which is to say the same thing yet a third way). Doesn't matter how the bill is worded, how many times it's submitted, or what the vote is. Congress does not have that power, period. Nor does the President. FlexibleDogma described the process a few posts ago.

 

[jcr]

Let me try one more time.

Rep. Owens would submit a bill to Amend the Constitution. Everyone knows the rules. It would take 2/3 of both houses, and then it would need 3/4 of the states.

But it all starts with a bill submitted in Congress (how else would they get to vote on it). And such a bill was repeatedly filed by Owens.

 

[highlander]

In my humble opinion the President elect has more to worry about than an AWB. If you have today's Herald read the piece on the op/ed page by Dick Morris. And AFAIK there are still several states that haven't declared a winner in the Senate race. Even with a Dem majority Obama isn't going to get everything he might want passed. There are some Dems on our side so there is still hope.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States recently affirm that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual's right to posess a firearm for private use?

They certainly did. And if our elected officials decide that each citizen who is not an unsuitable person may be allowed to possess (one) revolver in a caliber no greater than .38 with no more than 5 rounds of ammunition, have they kept up their end of the deal?

 

[Dick]

Let me try one more time.

Rep. Owens would submit a bill to Amend the Constitution. Everyone knows the rules. It would take 2/3 of both houses, and then it would need 3/4 of the states.

But it all starts with a bill submitted in Congress (how else would they get to vote on it). And such a bill was repeatedly filed by Owens.

Fair enough. We got into this question of amending the Constitution because someone was concerned about Congress passing a law nullifying the 2nd. If Owens was in fact trying to start the amending process rather than simply passing a law, then you are correct.

 

[mikem317]

Not going to happen anytime soon unless they can figure out some way to overturn Heller, which isn't going to happen until Obama is able to change the balance on the Court, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, and likely won't be possible even if he has 8 years to work at it.

Didn't the Supreme Court of the United States recently affirm that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects an individual's right to posess a firearm for private use?

Under what scenario do you see this future law being passed? Do you see trying to push through such a law as a number one priority of the Obama Presidency? If so, you think that he would prioritize such a ban ahead of fixing an economy in a freefall, fighting a war on two fronts, dealing with the prospect of North Korea and Iran with Nukes, figuring out how how to deal with Pakistan, trying to fix social security, our schools, etc.?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. But it is fun to play the what cool toys should I buy because the world as we know it is coming to an end. Perhaps to save a little bandwith, we could just dig up some of the "Oh no, Deval Patrick is going to grab all our guns threads".

Heller didn't say that there was an unlimited individual right to keep and bear.

Heller only said that you have a regulated right to keep and bear for purposes of self-defense within the home.

 

[BOBKATT]

Heller only said that you have a regulated right to keep and bear for purposes of self-defense within the home.

No.

The wording followed along the lines of "such as self-defense within the home"

What you said would limit the purpose to self defense in the home and that is something that Scalia did not do, purposefully.

 

[Dick]

Heller didn't say that there was an unlimited individual right to keep and bear.

Heller only said that you have a regulated right to keep and bear for purposes of self-defense within the home.

You are largely correct, but both ranger 4-7 and I were responding to the original post in the thread, which dealt with the question of a total ban and confiscation of all firearms. I think even the most narrow interpretation of Heller would conclude that a total ban is unconstitutional.

 

[mikem317]

No.

The wording followed along the lines of "such as self-defense within the home"

What you said would limit the purpose to self defense in the home and that is something that Scalia did not do, purposefully.

You are largely correct, but both ranger 4-7 and I were responding to the original post in the thread, which dealt with the question of a total ban and confiscation of all firearms. I think even the most narrow interpretation of Heller would conclude that a total ban is unconstitutional.

But you're also going to have to wait for the case on "incorporation". Without the application of incorporation, Heller is essentially meaningless unless you live within the confines of Washington D.C. So yes, a confiscation could in theory be executed, but Obama is more likely to follow in the hoplophobic path of Clinton: Attacking existing FFLs over simple paperwork errors, adding a federal tax on ammo and autoloading pistols, etc.

They'll just make it completely unaffordable for the "middle class" that they like to rant and rave about. In actuality, they're going to ensure that higher earners will be the only ones that will be able to lawfully protect themselves using a firearm.

 

[Skald]

Need to remember the whole gun things. Dems have FINALLY found out that its the kiss of death in places outside of CA, MA and NY for the most part. Many of the dems who got elected last election cycle to give the Dem's the majority ran on pro-gun platforms or heavily downplayed their stance.

Short term I am not worried.
Long term is very much another matter.

As gun owners we HAVE to break ourselves from automatically assuming D = Enemy and R = Friend in the gun debate. We have enemies and allies in BOTH parties.