Gun-Banning Question

[Tecumsehsbones]

OK, let's say for a minute we ban "semi-automatic assault rifles," by whatever definition you choose to apply to that non-term, on a national level, and require owners of SAARs to turn them in to the government.

The Fifth Amendment says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, leaving aside whether or not a ban is "public use" (that's a whole nother debate), would the government have to pay for each SAAR turned in? Some of 'em are pretty pricey.

We might could have to borrow another trillion bucks from the Chinese.

 

[petros]

Fit them all with wooden stocks if they dont already have so they don't look scary.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Fit them all with wooden stocks if they dont already have so they don't look scary.

You are a master of the irrelevant and stupid answer.

 

[Kreskin]

I think it should be a longterm plan. Leave what is what is but stop retail production and sale.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I think it should be a longterm plan. Leave what is what is but stop retail production and sale.

This has upsides and downsides. It's not like rifles deteriorate like food, or get consumed like drugs. A reasonably-maintained (or even poorly-maintained) rifle is good for well over a century. So if we banned future sales only, there'd still be millions of the things in the country.

The upside is that, of those millions, the vast majority have been shown to be in safe hands, by virtue of the fact they haven't been used in mass shootings. Nikolas Cruz bought his rifle shortly before the shooting.

So maybe a compromise answer would be to ban transfers of SAARs as of a certain date. So if you own one, you have to keep it until you die, or until you turn it in. That might avoid the 5th Amendment thing.

 

[Twin_Moose]

OK, let's say for a minute we ban "semi-automatic assault rifles," by whatever definition you choose to apply to that non-term, on a national level, and require owners of SAARs to turn them in to the government.

The Fifth Amendment says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, leaving aside whether or not a ban is "public use" (that's a whole nother debate), would the government have to pay for each SAAR turned in? Some of 'em are pretty pricey.

We might could have to borrow another trillion bucks from the Chinese.

". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

You being a lawyer you probably could interpret it better, but the way I read that line the rifles can be confiscated to be destroyed in the public's interest without compensation

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You being a lawyer you probably could interpret it better, but the way I read that line the rifles can be confiscated to be destroyed in the public's interest without compensation

That'd be that "whole nother debate." Our Supreme Court decided 50 years ago that "public use" and "public purpose" are the same thing. Given that a policy decision is a "public purpose," I think they'd have a hard time dodging the compensation requirement.

 

[petros]

You are a master of the irrelevant and stupid answer.

It's all about the looks that freak out the meek. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's all about the looks that freak out the meek. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's what I mean by "irrelevant and stupid." Many, possibly most, Americans are aware that the key difference is the detachable box magazine. But because you want to think that anybody who opposes citizen ownership of rifles that take detachable box magazines, you convince yourself that the "ugly gun" narrative is the only accurate one, and undoubtedly are careful to limit your information input to sources that reinforce your prejudice.

 

[petros]

5 rounds works for me. If you need more than 5 to hunt or protect yourself you need a good pair of sneakers and sprint training not a gun.

 

[Twin_Moose]

That'd be that "whole nother debate." Our Supreme Court decided 50 years ago that "public use" and "public purpose" are the same thing. Given that a policy decision is a "public purpose," I think they'd have a hard time dodging the compensation requirement.

Ok thanks I think limiting clip sizes for gun owners will do more for stemming mass shootings than taking on the 2nd amendment head on. A 3 shot clip can be argued as enough for hunting and sport shooting, and enough of a discouragement for the unstable to say it isn't worth it. IMO

 

[Colpy]

OK, let's say for a minute we ban "semi-automatic assault rifles," by whatever definition you choose to apply to that non-term, on a national level, and require owners of SAARs to turn them in to the government.

The Fifth Amendment says ". . . nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now, leaving aside whether or not a ban is "public use" (that's a whole nother debate), would the government have to pay for each SAAR turned in? Some of 'em are pretty pricey.

We might could have to borrow another trillion bucks from the Chinese.

In Canada, they seize legally purchased and held guns the state decides are evil, and they do not pay compensation.

That is outrageous, as the right to your property seems to me to be basic in a free country.

And yes, you'd have to pay.

And yes, it would be expensive.

But heck, you owe 21 trillion now......so what?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ok thanks I think limiting clip sizes for gun owners will do more for stemming mass shootings than taking on the 2nd amendment head on. A 3 shot clip can be argued as enough for hunting and sport shooting, and enough of a discouragement for the unstable to say it isn't worth it. IMO

I agree it's a good step, but it has been weakly applied here. For example, I live in Maryland, which has banned the transfer (i.e., buying or selling) of any clip over 10 rounds. Problem is they didn't ban possession of high-capacity clips. Which means I have to drive all of six miles (10 km) to get to Virginia, where I can buy all the 30-round clips and 75-round drums I like. You can buy 'em on the internet, no checks on anything except that your credit card or PayPal account is valid, and have them shipped to a friend, relative, or gun shop in Virginia, go in, and pick 'em up.

Any such law would have to be national, and/or would have to flat-out ban 'em, without grandfathering currently owned clips.

I have a couple dozen of them.

In Canada, they seize legally purchased and held guns the state decides are evil, and they do not pay compensation.

That's what you get for making up your own constitution instead of just copying our perfectly serviceable one.

That is outrageous, as the right to your property seems to me to be basic in a free country.

And yes, you'd have to pay.

And yes, it would be expensive.

But heck, you owe 21 trillion now......so what?

Ironic that we'd be borrowing the money to disarm Americans from the Chinese, eh? Talk about a win-win (for China)!

 

[Twin_Moose]

Yeah I was thinking nationally for limiting clip sizes the same as up here

 

[Jinentonix]

That's what I mean by "irrelevant and stupid." Many, possibly most, Americans are aware that the key difference is the detachable box magazine. But because you want to think that anybody who opposes citizen ownership of rifles that take detachable box magazines, you convince yourself that the "ugly gun" narrative is the only accurate one, and undoubtedly are careful to limit your information input to sources that reinforce your prejudice.

To be fair, from a Canadian perspective that's exactly what Liberals and Dippers did up here. There are models of rifles that have been placed on the restricted list simply because of the way they look. Take your "stereotypical" semi-auto hunting rifle, like something you'd find over a farmer's fireplace mantle for example. Perfectly legal in Canada. But add some after-market cosmetics to it to dress it up to look like a tac rifle and it makes the restricted list. Despite the fact the muzzle velocity, firing rate or any other performance characteristics haven't been altered.

I do think magazine limits are the way to go though. If you like using your AR-15 to hunt, that's fine. But if you need a 30 rnd mag for hunting then you're probably a friggin' menace and should take up gardening or something.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

To be fair, from a Canadian perspective that's exactly what Liberals and Dippers did up here. There are models of rifles that have been placed on the restricted list simply because of the way they look. Take your "stereotypical" semi-auto hunting rifle, like something you'd find over a farmer's fireplace mantle for example. Perfectly legal in Canada. But add some after-market cosmetics to it to dress it up to look like a tac rifle and it makes the restricted list. Despite the fact the muzzle velocity, firing rate or any other performance characteristics haven't been altered.

Fair point. Petros, I apologize for unfairly criticizing you on this subject. We still got plenty of things we don't like about each other, but Jin's right. Your comments were fair, and my criticism wasn't. Sorry.

I do think magazine limits are the way to go though. If you like using your AR-15 to hunt, that's fine. But if you need a 30 rnd mag for hunting then you're probably a friggin' menace and should take up gardening or something.

The nice thing about hunting with an AR-15 is you can kill, clean, and mince your deer in one easy step!

Kinda hard on the hide, though.

 

[petros]

After a 2 shot burst when hunting with semi auto you've lost aim.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

After a 2 shot burst when hunting with semi auto you've lost aim.

That's why I like to get nice and up-close before I let 'er rip.

 

[petros]

That's why I like to get nice and up-close before I let 'er rip.

Perhaps with mule deer but white tail is a different game.

Same with elk. They aren't called "the spirit of the forest" for nothing.

 

[Walter]

5 rounds works for me. If you need more than 5 to hunt or protect yourself you need a good pair of sneakers and sprint training not a gun.

Cuz nobody ever customized their ammo cartridge once they got it home.