Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now wait for the moving of the goalposts: "Oh, but those guns were ruled illegal!"
Like that somehow makes it "not confiscation".
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you posted, but that article is in relation to seizing firearms that are owned by people who legally cannot own or possess firearms. Where is the problem?
The owners are illegal not the gun. This program, which you seem to think is tyranny, only confiscates firearms from people who have been convicted of felonies, domestic violence, etc. and legally cannot own guns at all. Once a person is convicted of a felony, the police check the database to see if they have any guns registered. If so, the police ask the person to surrender the guns and if the felon doesn't then the police come and take them. How can you think this is a bad idea?
The owners are illegal not the gun. This program, which you seem to think is tyranny, only confiscates firearms from people who have been convicted of felonies, domestic violence, etc. and legally cannot own guns at all. Once a person is convicted of a felony, the police check the database to see if they have any guns registered. If so, the police ask the person to surrender the guns and if the felon doesn't then the police come and take them. How can you think this is a bad idea?
If I pay $1,000 for a gun, and later on I am (for whatever reason) legally disqualified from possessing it, is it fair for the state to come and remove that possession without any compensation whatsoever?
I'm all for keeping weapons (ANY weapon, not just guns) out of the hands of violent criminals, but confiscation without just compensation is unfair. If the state wants to take the gun, they should be required to pay fair market value for it. If they don't want to pay for it, they should hold it in an escrow of sorts, until it can be sold with the proceeds going to the original owner.
The state doesn't come and take your car away forever and without compensation because you had your driver license suspended or revoked. Being disqualified from owning a gun should be no different.
No way, especially in that state. Sure some will leave but there are just too many granola eaters that think firearms are the root of all evil.
I already left, and that was years before the latest round of anti-gun nonsense started. Unfortunately, there are too many people who not only don't care how badly their rights are trampled, they actually welcome and invite it.
The primary reason I left was cost of living, but the insane political environment there was a not too distant second.
Please do more research before you create imaginary problems. You can sell your guns after your conviction. No one is stopping you. But these people spend months lying to the judge and the police saying they don't own any guns before it ever gets to the point of the police coming to their house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
If I pay $1,000 for a gun, and later on I am (for whatever reason) legally disqualified from possessing it, is it fair for the state to come and remove that possession without any compensation whatsoever?
I'm all for keeping weapons (ANY weapon, not just guns) out of the hands of violent criminals, but confiscation without just compensation is unfair. If the state wants to take the gun, they should be required to pay fair market value for it. If they don't want to pay for it, they should hold it in an escrow of sorts, until it can be sold with the proceeds going to the original owner.
The state doesn't come and take your car away forever and without compensation because you had your driver license suspended or revoked. Being disqualified from owning a gun should be no different.
Please do more research before you create imaginary problems. You can sell your guns after your conviction. No one is stopping you. But these people spend months lying to the judge and the police saying they don't own any guns before it ever gets to the point of the police coming to their house.
"Imaginary problems"?
I deal in reality, Fundman. This is happening - it's not imaginary. Now do you have anything substantive to add, or are you just going to keep creating excuses for the theft of private property?
State Rights!.. Until we don't like what they're doing...
I am all for state rights and honestly would prefer if we went back to state rights getting rid of all incorporation laws leaving each state constitution to be the authority as it once was.
That said, if we have to live with incorporation, then... well the states have to abide by that which means with the 2nd amendment being incorporated, states have absolutely no say about the issue, just as the federal government was designed to not have any say over the issue.
Let us be honest though, when has the federal government bothered with respecting the Bill of rights, much less the states? So in all truth, this issue means nothing, because none of the laws, rights, etc... mean anything because there are so many double standards with the way our governments work, nobody knows their head from their arse anymore.
This bill has 0% chance of passing; the sponsor has almost as good a chance of being re-elected.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
