I think those people are wrong, and a problem I see is that when you say
It is quit expensive to challenge something all the way to the Supreme Court, plus during such time you’ve possibly ruined people’s lives that felt strongly that it was unconstitutional.
Right. YOU (and of course some others) think the proposals are wrong, but, if that’s what the ppl want, oh well. But, if you’re right & what the ppl want ends up being unconstitutional, it will get sorted out in the end. In the meantime, those who want to see the legislation change, can advocate their to position to their elected officials.
If something I already legally own is outlawed, am I not now a criminal for merely possessing it? If I choose to keep it because it’s an heirloom with the hopes the courts work it out, then what? I’m made into a criminal.
You have an heirloom AR15?
A lot a firearms owners have guns that were passed down from generations. The vague descriptions for “Assault Weapon” can include many older firearms. The AK 47 was designed in 1947, and the AR15 in the late 50’s so it’s not a new rifle design. Why do you ask?
No I understand that. But, I am saying the argument that any or most proposed changes are unconstitutional is subjective. So let the legislative process take place & let the courts interpret if necessary.
Just curious. I assume that if those rifles were made illegal through legislation that any final decision where you would have to give up your weapons wouldn't happen until the Supreme Court finally weighed in. An injunction would be in place until he very end. If you chose not to follow the law once everything is said and done then yes, you would be a criminal. In that case, it would be your choice to ruin your life instead of being a law abiding gun owner.
Problem is I don’t think I would even be allowed to keep my property while the courts sort through it. Most jurisdictions would start confiscation way ahead of any ruling, and what am I suppose to do when an officer shows up at my door stating that he’s hear to collect my “illegal property”
Did they send officers to doors to collect AR-15s the last time they were banned?
They were grandfathered in with a sunset clause on the bill. So it’d be a slightly different scenario than banning them completely like some are calling for.
I don't believe for a second that the NRA lawyers would not have an injunction in place to protect you until it's clear that the law would be upheld.
I think they’d have to do the same grandfathering type thing if they were to ban anything. Anything else is just not practical.
I’ll take that as I’m sure you meant it (not the way it’s often used on here as an insult) because we both know personal attacks are a no no.
I would have look into it, I try not to make efforts to change laws without serious thought. It’s easy to see the possibility for any research to be politically or purposefully motivated which is if I’m remembering correctly is why then congressman Dickey proposed the bill.
