How much would it cost...

Mesatchornug

Instructor
NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,369
Likes
12,993
Location
People's Republik
Well, if there's a buyout, and the person doesn't take it, then yeah, it's likely null, but up front there's still a takings issue. ATF deals with this all the time
when dealing with gun laws. For example it couldn't confiscate everyones entire aikins accelerator stock, so they only asked for the springs I think, or stated that the springs cannot be installed in the stock. Doubt anyone was going to take the ATF to court over 5 bucks or whatever they cost. But they still avoided stealing
the entire stock. In the past we got amnesty NFA registrations and stuff like that.

I don't think full out confiscation is ever a realistic prospect, I could easily see shitbirds trying to add semiautomatic rifles to the NFA
though, to phase them out over time, in a USC 922(g) hughes amendment type of law.

-Mike
The point Len refers to, that's been upheld since at least the 18th Amendment, is that once a thing is declared contraband, there's no taking involved. So, IFF they actually succeeded in any outright ban, the state has no responsibility to reimburse you for the things you have no legal right to possess. See: opiates...
 

Glockster30

NES Member
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
8,714
Likes
4,011
Location
Milky Way
With all due respect to the OP, I see this as an exercise in mental masturbation. As shown in CA, CT, and even Canada, people are not going to comply. Canada estimated it would cost $2 million to register all the guns there. The Canadian government quit once the registration scheme hit $1 billion dollars and still had poor compliance. Registration of guns and mags in CT are estimated to be 10% or less. CA's assault weapon registration in the early 1990s estimated that out of 300,000 AW as they defined them, only 7,000 were registered.

A direct comparison cannot be made with Australia's gun confiscation since its citizen's had no Bill of Rights or anything equivalent to the 2nd Amendment. And, as others posted, the costs associated with rebellion and states threatening to secede, cannot begin to be estimated in terms of money and deaths to confiscate guns from an estimated 150 million Americans. Other than the 2nd Amendment, the 5th, the 4th, and possibly even the 1st would need to be violated by the government (not that this would stop them).
 
Last edited:

namedpipes

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
40,972
Likes
37,023
Location
The foothills of Monadnock
The point Len refers to, that's been upheld since at least the 18th Amendment, is that once a thing is declared contraband, there's no taking involved. So, IFF they actually succeeded in any outright ban, the state has no responsibility to reimburse you for the things you have no legal right to possess. See: opiates...

I understand and repudiate the premise.

"shall not be infringed" is followed by a period, not by a comma and a list of exceptions.

It was heartening to hear that only "two or three" people complied.
 

wahsben

NES Life Member
NES Member
Rating - 100%
36   0   0
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
12,117
Likes
6,175
Location
Ma.
I understand and repudiate the premise.

"shall not be infringed" is followed by a period, not by a comma and a list of exceptions.

It was heartening to hear that "two or three" people complied.

Yes the govt. is constitutionaly barred from the gun control business. Although they just don't seem to understand the words "Shall not be infringed" or they choose to ignore them which is the reality.
 

JayMcB

NES Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
16,332
Likes
53,375
Location
Assachusetts when necessary. NH when possible
I understand and repudiate the premise.

"shall not be infringed" is followed by a period, not by a comma and a list of exceptions.

It was heartening to hear that only "two or three" people complied.

they can take their virtue signaling #oneless and stick it up their #oneass
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
82,830
Likes
70,555
The point Len refers to, that's been upheld since at least the 18th Amendment, is that once a thing is declared contraband, there's no taking involved.

That's funny, considering that BATFE generally behaves as though there is a takings issue in play, otherwise they wouldn't tiptoe around various bans and that kind of thing, and would demand surrender of (whatever). It's rare that they will run right out and just take (whatever) if it was something that had been previously determined as legal.

IMHO it's not quite so clear.

The Second Amendment and the Takings Clause - The Volokh Conspiracy

So, IFF they actually succeeded in any outright ban, the state has no responsibility to reimburse you for the things you have no legal right to possess. See: opiates...

How many times has this actually been tested, though? Consumable banned substances not a really good example, as the time window for such
substances is pretty short, whether it was drug laws or 18th amendment, or illegal fireworks (banned in the 60s) I doubt anyone held on to enough "pre ban" product long enough that it could raise any kind of a substantial takings issues via the 5th. Some relative handfuls of booze or drugs are pretty much mouse milk compared to 100 million guns that cost a minimum of $600 ea. IMHO even a liberal court would consider this a takings issue.

.gov "stealing shit because people let them get away with it" doesn't make the act legal precedent.


-Mike
 
Top Bottom