What happens when a gun that was once legal is put on the Federal ban list? Does the gun become grandfathered if owned prior to it being put on the list? Is it allowed to be kept by the owner, but not sold?? Can it be left in a will?

Interesting question.

There is no Federal Ban List

True Paul, But wasn't there one once before?

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act)

 

Why could it not happen again?

Sure there was. No one can predict what would be in a new ban, if there is.

 

That being said, the prior Federal Ban grandfathered firearms and mags. It restricted newly manufactured items. Possession of pre-ban was legal.

Sure there was. No one can predict what would be in a new ban, if there is.

 

That being said, the prior Federal Ban grandfathered firearms and mags. It restricted newly manufactured items. Possession of pre-ban was legal.

Would the same apply to New Jersey, I mean if a weapon was placed on the New Jersey banned weapons list or if magazine capacity was reduced from 15 to 10?

Would the same apply to New Jersey, I mean if a weapon was placed on the New Jersey banned weapons list or if magazine capacity was reduced from 15 to 10?

 

Not if Lou Greenwald had his way.

 

This is what got me involved in NJ2AS and politics. It was the straw that broke the Camel's back.

 

About 18 months ago, Lou Greenwald tried to institute a bill called A3807. I visited the office to explain why a magazine ban was a Bad Idea. I asked the Assemblyman's staff what I would do with the magazines I already own since there is no Grandfather provision.

 

One aide, and her name was Jade ( I have all of this written down), said :"You would have to turn those magazines over to the police."

 

And I thought: "Oh hell no... I'm a Jew. I saw this movie..."

 

So In a place like NJ that has little respect for gun or private property rights, I think there is a very good chance that you would have to turn in your firearm or magazine with no compensation to the police, unless you were able to sell it out of state.

What would happen is that there would be a date the ban goes into effect. You would have to sell them or turn them in before that date.

What would happen is that there would be a date the ban goes into effect. You would have to sell them or turn them in before that date.

 

The law could be written any way. But it would most likely just make stuff illegal with no grandfather clause. After all, this is the state of NJ. When I was a kid, my neighbor had to get rid of a Mini-14 w/ a folding stock, etc. because it was made illegal in this state. I guess there was a time frame in which to dispose of it if I remember... It was sold out of state at a loss many moons ago right after the law went into effect. Banning certain mags, firearms, etc. would be just one more step in the continuing agenda to disarm the public by a government that is afraid of the people because of the Schumer that is it is doing to them.

 

And, you cannot say that the government wouldn't act... Look at Katrina. That's why our officials and uniformed personnel need to take the pledge... http://oathkeepers.org/oath/

 

All over, but particularly in NJ there is no respect for individual rights or property. We get what we deserve when we elect this fecal matter and its further appointed fecal matter.

One aide, and her name was Jade ( I have all of this written down), said :"You would have to turn those magazines over to the police."

 

And I thought: "Oh hell no... I'm a Jew. I saw this movie..."

 

Shoulda told her that.

holy heck, Another reason to haul out of here. Why dont they just assign ever body a color coded arm band.......The more I learn about this state the more I hate it.

The eventual ban on firearms will come in stages. It will probably start out as a mandatory registration of all firearms. It will be a "common sense" law that will be explained to the sheep that it's for safety and security.

 

Then they will start making certain guns or aspects of guns illegal. Maybe it will be semi auto rifles with a pistol grip, maybe it will be rifles with magazines that are removable or magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Next it might be semi auto pistols and so on and so on.

 

This will happen over a course of years so you dont have mass uprisings. Each generation will have less than the one before it.

 

This is only my opinion mind you but it's what I see in the future. Then again they might just use a disaster as an excuse to take em. Who knows. I do feel that it wil happen one day.

The 94 ban grandfathered. All subsequent ban bills had no grandfather clause. At the federal level, I would argue the odds of a bill with no grandfather clause being passed is nearly zero because they would have to compensate you for your property. I doubt the SCOTUS would let them skirt that. AT the state level you get things like NJ where there was an effectively inaccessible registry to keep them, and you could always dispose of them in another state, so they could argue they were not denying you the value of your property, just limiting the avenues by which you can realize the value of your property.

If you look at the case of Robert Merrill the court basically said the law was unconstitutional because he owned the high cap magazines prior to the ban's enactment and even though the law made possession of high caps illegal it did not provide a mechanism to grandfather magazines possessed prior to the ban. This is only technically precedent in Monmouth county because the state was fearful of the ruling being upheald in a higher court if appealed which would have caused problems for them statewide but it provides a good indication of how a court would rule if not politically predisposed to finding a politically correct judgement.

After the shooting a few days ago in midtown Manhattan, I saw a newspaper article (I think it was in the Daily News) that referred to the .45 the gunman used as a "powerful handgun" with some non-sensical quote from a police officer to the effect that a hit from a .45 is virtually always fatal. In other words, yet another attempt to demonize the particular gun used, notwithstanding the fact that the magazine only held 8 rounds, which i thought all of the gun banners thought was a-ok.

 

My point is that, yes, these numbnuts will always find some reason to seek to ban any firearm and yes, I believe that if an "assault weapons ban" and mag capacity restrictions went into place, they'd soon move along to the next target. Why does anyone "need" a .45 or a .357? Those calibers are too powerful -- no one needs more than a 9mm! Then a .38, then a .22, etc.,etc. I used to think dialogue with these people might be possible, but I came to realize that unfortunately isn't the case.

After the shooting a few days ago in midtown Manhattan, I saw a newspaper article (I think it was in the Daily News) that referred to the .45 the gunman used as a "powerful handgun" with some non-sensical quote from a police officer to the effect that a hit from a .45 is virtually always fatal. In other words, yet another attempt to demonize the particular gun used, notwithstanding the fact that the magazine only held 8 rounds, which i thought all of the gun banners thought was a-ok.

 

My point is that, yes, these numbnuts will always find some reason to seek to ban any firearm and yes, I believe that if an "assault weapons ban" and mag capacity restrictions went into place, they'd soon move along to the next target. Why does anyone "need" a .45 or a .357? Those calibers are too powerful -- no one needs more than a 9mm! Then a .38, then a .22, etc.,etc. I used to think dialogue with these people might be possible, but I came to realize that unfortunately isn't the case.

 

This reminds me of the libtards crying and whining about so called "pocket rockets" in the late 90s. When the '94 assault weapon sham took effect many gun makers took stock of their product lines and realized that taking capacity out of the equation they could either make guns smaller or make guns with larger calibers. In some cases both. When the Glock 26s / 27s and the Kahr compacts and sub compacts started to gain popularity the libtards cried foul but they created the environment in which the regulations drove the dynamics of the industry. Dumb asses, all of them!

The 94 ban grandfathered. All subsequent ban bills had no grandfather clause. At the federal level, I would argue the odds of a bill with no grandfather clause being passed is nearly zero because they would have to compensate you for your property. I doubt the SCOTUS would let them skirt that. AT the state level you get things like NJ where there was an effectively inaccessible registry to keep them, and you could always dispose of them in another state, so they could argue they were not denying you the value of your property, just limiting the avenues by which you can realize the value of your property.

 

I wouldn't put your faith in the SCOTUS. It has a less than steller track record.

thats what happened last time..many of us did Just that, Sold them out of state.....and some of us are regretting now that we didnt just Register what we had when we had the chance, but at the time most of us believed that the Registration would be followed by a Complete ban and Turn-in with no chance to get rid of them withint a year or two.

 

 

I wouldn't put your faith in the SCOTUS. It has a less than steller track record.

 

But a nearly perfect political record.

 

Disgusting, isn't it?

But a nearly perfect political record.

 

Disgusting, isn't it?

 

Upsetting..