What happens if a type of gun you own becomes illegal?

[etrain16]

Look at Australia for an example of how the Antis want to go towards. Also the UK (Tac....). Hey Tac, is it true that there are technically no public lands over there, but Crown Land?

Australia still has a high rate of non-compliance with the gun ban. Problem is, like so many others, they simply don't have the will nor the resources to actually enforce a ban. They count on compliance to do most of the work, the rest is catching people in the act of owning them or using them, purely by happenstance or in the commission of a crime. Australia is a huge place, lots of spots to keep things out of reach of the man. The US is pretty much the same way - no where near enough officers or resources to truly enforce any ban.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

I would keep quiet about what I would do if a gun of mine showed up on a ban list.
Of course I would obey the law no matter how ridiculous , asinine , unenforceable , useless , worthless etc... it would be.
Andy

 

[etrain16]

I'm going to add one more consideration here - the more 'common' the AR's, etc. become, the harder it will be to ban them outright. Magazine restrictions, sure. Maybe some gizmo restrictions too, but an outright ban may not be possible except under the most extreme conditions - such as getting the SCOTUS heavily weighted with anti-gun justices (keep that in mind when you vote this November ).

But back to my point, some previous decisions in various court cases have made decisions based on how 'common' a particular gun happens to be. In 1996, when Clinton passed the first AWB, AR's were not that common, today, they are almost ubiquitous - you see them everywhere. And far more people own them. That is a good thing. It makes the attempt to remove a 'common' item so much harder. Not that it couldn't happen, but every new AR purchased is going to make it more and more difficult to take them away.

 

[HuckleberryFun]

"These are not the guns you are looking for."
Jedi mind tricks for the weak minded.

 

[etrain16]

"These are not the guns you are looking for."
Jedi mind tricks for the weak minded.

Man, if that really worked, we could really do something in Congress!

 

[HuckleberryFun]

Man, if that really worked, we could really do something in Congress!

For a Congress member it would be:
"I'm going to go home now and re-think my life."

 

[The Heretic]

What gun?

 

[nammac]

I dont trust the grandfather in idea either

Don't trust a government that you must seek it's permission to exercise a right, cause then it's not a right at all, but rather a privilege...

 

[tac]

Look at Australia for an example of how the Antis want to go towards. Also the UK (Tac....). Hey Tac, is it true that there are technically no public lands over there, but Crown Land?

Nope.

Please read, and like Jack Reacher notes, remember that you asked for this -

. The Forestry Commission
2,571,270 acres
Owned by the Government - which wants to privatise it - on behalf of the public, Britain's largest land manager leases 208,895 acres of the 2.5 million acres in its care. Created in 1919, the Forestry Com-mission looks after 1.4 billion trees and has helped to expand Britain's woodlands by an area more than three times the size of Greater London in the past 20 years.

2. The National Trust
630,000 acres
With more than 350 historic houses, gardens and monuments in its care, as well as tracts of coastal, farm- and moorland, the Trust remains one of our most important national institutions. Indeed, 14 million people visit its 'pay for entry' properties every year.

3. Defence Estates, for the Ministry of Defence
592,800 acres
More than two-thirds of Defence Estates' land is considered to be 'rural estate' and is held solely for the purpose of training the armed forces. Encompassing 3,600 sites, the land-which makes up 1% of the UK's land mass-includes 171 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), 700 scheduled archaeological monuments, 50,000 service homes and more than 800 listed buildings. It also has more than 700 rural tenants and licensees.

4. The Pension Funds
550,000 acres
Many of the UK's 2,800-plus major pension funds have invested in land for hundreds of years, attracted, no doubt, by a possible rental income of more than 7% per annum.

5. Utilities: water, electricity, railways
500,000 acres
Although it has proved impossible to break down the exact acreage of land owned by the UK's 18 energy, 22 water and 32 rail companies, we estimate the total acreage (think of huge power former stations such as Didcot, Ferrybridge et al reservoirs such as Bewl Water and water-treatment works such as the new Thames Barrage site) comes to about half a million acres.

6. The Crown Estate
358,000 acres
There is no other organisation in the world quite like The Crown Estate. With a portfolio worth more than £6.6 billion, it encompasses a wide variety of land, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to offices in the West End of London, from Portland stone mining in Dorset to forests in the West Country, as well as much of the UK's coastline and some of the sea bed.

It also boasts significant holdings in London's Regent Street, Regent's Park and St James's, as well as agricultural estates of 265,000 acres (made up of 780 tenancies), including the 15,600-acre Windsor estate. Although the rural land holding estate amounts to 358,000 acres, if the acreage of the sea bed, foreshore and urban estate were factored in, the land-ownership figures could stretch to millions of acres.

The Crown Estate 'belongs' to the reigning monarch, but it is not the private property of The Queen or the Government. It is independently managed, and its surplus is revenue that is paid to the Treasury. The monarch receives a fixed annual payment in return, which we call the Civil List.

7. The RSPB - The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
321,237 acres
The RSPB is not only mighty in terms of its one million-plus membership, its 200 nature reserves cover about 321,237 acres of UK land. Founded by volunteers 121 years ago, the organisation-which is now one of the UK's richest charities-is continuing to grow at a rapid rate of knots. Last year, The Scotsman reported that RSPB Scotland's landholding had increased to 124,000 acres from 87,000 acres in 2000, making it the eighth biggest landowner in Scotland.

8. The Duke of Buccleuch & Queensberry
240,000 acres
Queensberry and Langholm estates in Dumfriesshire, Bowhill in Selkirk-shire, Boughton in Northamptonshire and Dalkeigh Palace, on the outskirts of Edinburgh.

9. The National Trust for Scotland
192,000 acres
The National Trust for Scotland has, in the past, acquired large areas of land that are bequeathed to it. However, due to recently exposed financial difficulties, it is expected to limit the amount of land it takes on in the future.

10. The Duke of Atholl's trusts
145,700 acres
The Atholl estate in Perthshire.

Read more at Who owns Britain: Top UK landowners - Country Life

The Church of England owns large amounts of land, as does the Mormon Church of the Latter Day Saints. Both own very productive and lucrative farming enterprises in all four parts of the United Kingdom.

So I guess it's fair to say that somebody or other owns all of it.

tac

PS - just like to point out that by comparison, the tac homeland of Ontario occupies 266,000,000 acres of land, and 39,000,000 acres of water. On the other tentacle, adjacent Quebec is a mite bigger, at just under 338,000,000 acres. Texas is just under 172,000,000 acres - substantially less than half the land area of Quebec. Mind you, most life in Quebec is made of wood...

 

[tac]

BTW, folks, I'm not the one to ax about owning guns that are suddenly and irrevocably become 'illegal'.

Y'know what I'm saying here, right?

tac

 

[PaulB47]

is it true that there are technically no public lands over there, but Crown Land?

A distinction without a difference. The owner is whoever has a say on what happens there. Government land is government land; some just doesn't have quite as many restrictions on it, as other examples have. "The public" owns none of it.

What happens if a type of gun you own becomes illegal?

Nothing. A few idiots might knuckle under, but Sam Adams had a comment about that type:
"...No people ever yet groaned under the heavy yoke of slavery, but when they deserv'd it. ...The truth is, all might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they ought. ...If therefore a people will not be free; if they have not virtue enough to maintain their liberty against a presumptuous invader, they deserve no pity, and are to be treated with contempt and ignominy."

 

[308]

Nammac is 100% correct! As has been seen in other states where Bans have happened, nothing can "force" you to turn in any thing! Heck, we had the Mag Ban where I live a few years ago, and besides a few folks that got popped, nothing actually happened as far as confiscation or mandated turn ins. They cant do much of any thing or maintain the ability to keep doing any thing long enough to make any sort of ban stick! And besides, many of us will not comply, so it's a moot point!

Criminals do not comply and are not concerned about enforcement...obviously.

But I have found it interesting that some people have home made F/As and suppressors because they are not concerned about the risk. One friend showed me the holes in his body from the two way range in Vietnam and his response to owning a F/A was, what could the alphabets do to him that hasn't already been done...he said its all about risk and he really doesn't have anything to lose.

I personally have too much at risk to play that game

 

[tac]

Hold on there, there ARE some areas where historic 'ownership' lies in the original rights of the so-called 'common man'. These areas are called 'Commons' and are determined by the right to graze cattle, breed horses and so on. Our local town, Huntingdon, has a Common, and has cattle grazing on it right in the middle of a busy town of about 60,000 people. The New Forest in Hampshire has traditional 'Verderers' whose rights to ownership of the feral New Forest Ponies is enshrined in law dating back to WTC. Any place called a 'Commons' may be grazed on by 'commoners', although you are unlikely to see such things happening in the middle of the cities that have grown around them. Clapham Common in SW London is just another example, as is Wimbledon [once the location of the burgeoning National Rifle Association of UK].

I would argue that the public DOES own a lot of land in UK. I am a member of the public, and if I chose to spend my hard-earned $$$ buying land, I would own it, just that the GENERAL public could not access it without my say-so.

tac

 

[PaulB47]

Certainly, you can buy land. That is not "public land", but private land.

Any land called by the euphemism "public land" is really government land. Grazing cattle on "commons" is just a temporary privilege granted by the true owner, government. Try building a house there, and see what happens.

Actually, some people argue that there is no private land at all; the taxes you pay on it makes it government land too. You are just a renter - look at what happens when you stop paying the rent. There is a lot to that argument...

 

[oknow]

What people say online (meet at FFL, for example) and what they actually do can be very different things. Why would anyone publicly advertise something they know is against the law? I am pretty certain many people are ignoring SB941, they're just not stupid enough to post it on a public forum for all the world to see - kind of the definition of a 'black market'.

I agree with not posting ftf with no bg check (that would be asinine) but at the same time meeting at ffl to do a ftf when it is illegal, but when it was legal everyone said no ftf at a gunshop/ffl.
I could see something like meat at ****** to check the gun out and then we will go to ffl if I like it.

 

[tac]

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo, who owns 'merica?

Can YOU just go build a house where you like?

'course not.

Up until 1534 the land encompassing the village I live in was owned by the church, after that, it belonged to the local lord whose latest descendant is John Fellowes, AKA Lord de Ramsey, or these days, the Mormons...That Brigham Young guy as a lot to to answer for.

When settlers moved into America, there were no landowners as we understand them, Jim. If you could hold on to it, it was yours. No lords, no church, no nothin'.

I think it's high time that you guys accepted that things here in Europe are not like America. Here, somebody or some organisation, usually the church or the aristocracy has owned land for ever - well, at least 1066 in THIS country.

It's YOU that does things differently, not us.

tac

 

[etrain16]

I agree with not posting ftf with no bg check (that would be asinine) but at the same time meeting at ffl to do a ftf when it is illegal, but when it was legal everyone said no ftf at a gunshop/ffl.
I could see something like meat at ****** to check the gun out and then we will go to ffl if I like it.

Well, again, I can't speak for other folks, but if I were planning to offer the option of a FTF instead of FFL, it would only be with someone I already know. Too much risk just meeting someone you don't know - what if they're trying to set up a sting? While I don't think that's happened yet, and may not happen, what if they start doing it? Are you willing to risk that with someone you don't know?

Just last week, I had someone call me on an item I have on AL. My ad said we would use an FFL. Once we started talking I asked if he had a preferred FFL to meet at, he said he didn't so I said I'd look. I get back to him with a location, then he pops on me that he wanted to do a FTF, no FFL. I have no idea who the heck this guy is, why would I trust him and put myself at risk for such a transaction (if I were someone inclined to do such a deal)? So I told him no deal and he went his way. Likewise, if I wanted to try and buy off the books, I wouldn't be looking at ads by people I didn't know - who do you trust?

No, I think there are plenty of private deals going on in Oregon and Washington, but they're not being openly advertised in any way on sites like this or AL. Nobody really wants to be that guy that got caught in a sting op.

 

[oknow]

Well, again, I can't speak for other folks, but if I were planning to offer the option of a FTF instead of FFL, it would only be with someone I already know. Too much risk just meeting someone you don't know - what if they're trying to set up a sting? While I don't think that's happened yet, and may not happen, what if they start doing it? Are you willing to risk that with someone you don't know?

I agree completely.

 

[Blackhawk357]

The damn goat ate em

I was shooting fish and it fell out of the boat.

 

[oknow]

I was shooting fish and it fell out of the boat.

Just empty the barrel.