Could the Government Take Our Gun Rights Away?

[Wildest Bill]

I guess this question is pointed to you real smart political process dopers.

I mean lets say the anti gun people cause such a fuss that the govt bans guns for everybody. What I am asking is it possible for the Govt to take away our guns since it was a written right in our constitution? I mean is there a process in the constitution they could manipulate to revoke the right to bear arms. Then come to our homes and get our guns?

[Nanook of the North Shore]

You realize I hope that this isn't really a general question? It is one of the granddaddies of great debates. There are a ton of em going on over in Great Debates as we speak. You should pop into there and take a look.

[Wildest Bill]

Oh ok know I will. But just to make sure that everybody clear on my question. I was wondering more on the lines if they could do it. Not if they will do it.

[UncleBeer]

I doubt it would be legal as the Constitution is now written. But, sure. There's a way. All ya gotta do is get the 2nd amendment repealed.

[kanicbird]

for anyone who wants to see the actual admendment, check the sig:

[Wildest Bill]

Uncle Beer,

First, thanks for answering. So it is written in the constitution by the forefathers that the gov't could repeal an amendment. Why? I mean what was the point of giving this right in the first place if you can let the current govt of the time repeal it?

[Punoqllads]

Ever hear about prohibition?

[kanicbird]

As I see it the founding fathers saw that the only way for this country to remain 'free' the gov't should not interfere with the peoples rights to own and carry firearms. A well regulated Militia is not the armed forces but a civilian force.

again the above is my interpertation. I think the goverment is very dishonest when it comes to this (to me very clear) admemdment. I think peace through strenght has worked for this country and would work on the personal level as well. And I think it's important that people realise what the 2nd admendment actually states (and how govt views gun ownership). That's why I choose it as my sig line

[friedo]

Originally posted by Nanook of the North Shore
You realize I hope that this isn't really a general question? It is one of the granddaddies of great debates. There are a ton of em going on over in Great Debates as we speak. You should pop into there and take a look.

No it isn't, really. The only way to legally ban all guns is to pass an amendment repealing the second. That would require a majority of both houses and a majority of the legislatures of three fourths of the states. Possible, sure, but not bloody likely.

[The Great Zamboni]

The bill of rights are not rights given by man, but rights man already had and the fathers guaranteed by decreeing they were "inalienable" meaning they could not be taken away by a government.

[BobT]

The Bill of Rights were not the same "inalienable" rights mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights was intend to explicitly list rights which all the states believed belonged to citizens and were fearful that the Constitution did not list.
Many states ratified the Constitution contingent on there being a Bill of Rights.

Some constitutional scholars have argued that you can amend just about anything in the Constitution with the exceptions of: 1) denying a state equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent and 2) abrogating basic human rights (e.g. elminating freedom of religion.)

Others disagree with these contentions. And that's why we have a Great Deabtes forum!

[Captain Amazing]

Well, once an amendment is adopted, it becomes part of the Constitution, right? Why would any of the amendments in the bill of rights have any special status over the rest of the constitution (other than the fact that we consider freedom of speech more fundimental than a bicameral legislature?

[Arnold Winkelried]

I would like to mention that interpretation of the second amendment also rests on court decisions. So for example I don't see it as inconceivable that courts could decide that laws forbidding gun ownership unless you're part of a state-organized militia (whatever the court would take that to mean).

Remember that slavery was legal in the United States for many years after the constitution and the bill of rights were adopted.

[Arnold Winkelried]

So for example I don't see it as inconceivable that courts could decide that laws forbidding gun ownership unless you're part of a state-organized militia (whatever the court would take that to mean) do not contradict the second amendment.

[Crafter_Man]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
I guess this question is pointed to you real smart political process dopers.

I mean lets say the anti gun people cause such a fuss that the govt bans guns for everybody. What I am asking is it possible for the Govt to take away our guns since it was a written right in our constitution? I mean is there a process in the constitution they could manipulate to revoke the right to bear arms. Then come to our homes and get our guns?

Yes, it is very possible, the Constitution not withstanding.

People seem to have this idea that bills, laws, ordinances, court decisions, etc. can't be unconstitutional, as if a bolt of lightening automatically atomizes them upon creation. Quite the contrary: there are many laws currently on the books that are patently unconstitutional. Would you like me to name a few?

There is really nothing to prevent the federal government from taking our guns, for example. In fact, there is really nothing to prevent the government from doing anything it wants; after all, it's fantastically armed. The contract (i.e. the Constitution) is only as good as the bounded party/parties involved. If the government reneges on it, the contract is powerless to anything about - it's just a piece of paper. (It should also be noted that the contract is one-sided, in that it restricts the government, not the people. Thus only the government can renege on it, not us…)

Let's get specific: Congress can very easily pass a bill to ban the private ownership of firearms. There is absolutely nothing to stop it from doing this. Nothing. "But it would be unconstitutional," you say. So what?! Congress could simply say that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the National Guard to be armed. Or that it is strictly a "State right." Or that firearms are "dangerous consumer products" that must be strictly regulated. Or that we have a "living Constitution," and the 2nd Amendment must be "interpreted based on 21st century standards," etc. etc. etc. And a Supreme Court stacked with Gore-appointed judges would agree. Then it would be "good-bye guns, hello tyranny."

[manhattan]

What I am asking is it possible for the Govt to take away our guns since it was a written right in our constitution?

Given the State's lack of success removing those guns which are already illegally owned from their illegal owners, I'd have to say that the General Question answer to your question is "no."

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
Oh ok know I will. But just to make sure that everybody clear on my question. I was wondering more on the lines if they could do it. Not if they will do it.

Yes, they could do it. You can repeal the 2nd Amendment for starters. Or you could simply have various local, state, and possibly federal governments sue the manufacturers of firearms out of existence.

This isn't far fetched because the government has worked on eroding a few of our other rights thanks to the war on drugs. Your property can be confiscated without a trial and to get them back you must prove they are not ill gotten gains.

Marc

[ricksummon]

I am not a lawyer, but I have a D&D character who is one, so I decided to imagine what she'd say on the subject of the Second Amendment. Keep in mind she's Lawful Neutral and is a stickler for legal propriety. This is what I came up with.First of all, anyone who says that a "militia" is the same thing as the National Guard is barmy, unless they think the Founding Fathers were psychic. At the time the amendment was written, there WAS no "National Guard." The militia was a body of armed citizens who did not have formal military training; in short, it was basically any man who owned a gun. Besides, the amendment clearly states that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The bit about the militia is just a statement of the purpose of the amendment. It would be a lot clearer to say, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, some people will bring up the "well-regulated" part and say that this justifies gun control laws. I agree that it justifies regulation of gun ownership, such as background checks, permits, or gun safety courses. It clearly does NOT justify any type of outright ban, either directly or indirectly. If you require a permit for concealed carry, but then make the permit requirements so stringent that no one could possibly fulfill them, that's not regulation, that's a ban, just like the "literacy tests" used to deny black people the vote. Of course, if you banned concealed carry while allowing open carry, this could be considered regulation, since people would still be allowed to bear arms.

Finally, for those people who say the amendment is outdated and no longer applies to modern society, I say "repeal the amendment." The Constitution does provide a legal way for the people to get rid of "outdated" laws. Simply ignoring the law because it's not convenient anymore is not acceptable for any law-abiding society. If you want to change the law, you have to do it according to the law.

[techchick68]

What they said.

Scarey isn't it?

[techchick68]

or is that scary?

Sheesh I can't type today!

[kinoons]

Just curious, wouldnt ex-post-facto (spell check), state that all who owned a gun before it was illegal to own a gun would get to keep them, and no more could be purchased.

[Max Torque]

It's nigh-inconceivable, in my opinion, that any politician would attempt to modify or repeal any of the first ten amendments. There's too much tradition there, and too much esteem for the Bill of Rights in general.

The right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment might, however, be interpreted out of existence. It's entirely possible that, by making small steps and piling one law on top of another, Congress may eventually make owning firearms too difficult and/or costly for a typical citizen to deal with. Alternatively, as is happening at present (with cities trying to sue gun makers for the acts of criminals who use their products), it may become so expensive for firearms manufacturers to stay in business that they'll simply give up and shut down.

See, the anti-gun forces don't really have to repeal the Second Amendment to make firearm ownership next to impossible. They'd rather make ownership so burdensome that gun owners give up on the exercise of the right.

[brad_d]

Originally posted by kinoons
Just curious, wouldnt ex-post-facto (spell check), state that all who owned a gun before it was illegal to own a gun would get to keep them, and no more could be purchased.

IANAL, but I don't think so. Not quite, at least.

What has happened in California is a ban on possession of a particular subset of assault weapons, previously legal. After passage of the law, there was a well-publicized "buy-back" period, during which owners of said guns could sell them to the state. After a certain deadline, though, the guns became illegal even to possess, and you could be prosecuted for it.

If I've got this wrong, I'd appreciate a correction.

I assume that this withstood some kind of constitutionality test, and the way it passed was giving people the opportunity to rid themselves of the soon-to-be contraband.

[UnEasyRider]

Everyone has their favorite ammendment. What seems to be the problem is there are those who don't understand that without the second the rest aren't worth spit.

[Chronos]

Just a reminder from your friendly neighborhood moderator: In this thread we aren't (or at least we shouldn't be) discussing the merits or the proper interpretation of the Second Ammendment: Both of those discussions belong in Great Debates. Nor should we be smearing specific politicians, which is a topic for the Pit. This thread is asking about whether it is possible for the government to outlaw guns, and if so, how it could be done. This is a general question.

Can we please keep it on topic? It would give manhattan and myself great joy to not have to move a Second Ammendment thread out of GQ.

[Flymaster]

Just to clarify things, they couldn't repeal the second ammendment. It would remain in the constitution, just as the
18th ammendment is still in the constituion.

Instead, they would have to ADD another ammendment which would state that the second ammendment was null and void. Really it's just an issue of semantics, but I just wanted to clear up the fact that nothing can be removed from the constitution.

[brad_d]

Flymaster, you are right in that the 2nd Amendment would not just vanish. I assume, though, that the language of an amendment "canceling" it would be similar to that of the 21st, which states in the first clause:
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
You do make a valid point, but I think the term "repeal" is a legitimate one.

[techchick68]

Maxxy said:

It's nigh-inconceivable, in my opinion, that any politician would attempt to modify or repeal any of the first ten amendments. There's too much tradition there, and too much esteem for the Bill of Rights in general.

That's not germane to the discussion, the question is, could the 2nd amendment be taken away by our government.

The simple answer is yes it could.

With the ability to change the Constitutional Amendments in Congress comes the ability for politicians to dink around with it. They can toy with any Constitutional law they want as it's done before. Add, change, destroy, they have the power...

Would they do it? I sure as heck hope not but the fact remains that it is an option for congressional concerns and American society, it is highly likely, given today's climate that this could be a reality for them to alter the 2nd amendment.


< not to GD this but, be aware folks very aware of this >

[SPOOFE]

To expand on Techchick's above answer... yes, "Government does have the potentiality to repeal the 2nd Amendment and take guns away", but that doesn't mean it would any time soon. As it is with anything that's deeply ingrained, you can't just yank it away without large amounts of force. So while it's possible, it would require a certain amount of foresight and patience on the part of those who wish to remove such rights... that is, any campaign dedicated to the removal of guns from private hands would need to take years in order to succeed, so as to properly steer public opinion.

[Milossarian]

What's the required majority to approve a Constitutional amendment? The likelihood of it ever being reached on the gun issue is virtually impossible.

I suppose you don't even want to go to the area of, "OK; we've made guns illegal. Now let's go get 'em!" How exactly would that work? As Manhattan pointed out, we can't get hardly any of the illegal guns. And they are a tiny minority of all guns in the U.S.

Short of increasing the size of prisons ten-fold and throwing decent, regular people in them; and short of a very bloody civil war, it is almost a certainty that disarming the American citizenry cannot occur. It is too important of an issue to too many people.

I'd like to make some comments about why some people continue to focus on taking away guns from the well over 90 percent of owners who use them safely and legally, which would still do nothing to take them away from illegal gun-owners, and would do nothing to stop gun-related violence from illegal gun-owners. But that would be GD-ish or IMHO-ish, now wouldn't it? ;)

[Robbespiere]

The "government is going to take away our guns" issue was created by Republicans to corral the support of working class white men who enjoy hunting. These people's economic position would normally cause them to vote Democrats. It is a complete myth that hunters could lose their guns. I have guns and like to hunt deer and ducks and always have but the stuff the NRA is dishing out is bullshit.

[Crafter_Man]

Originally posted by Milossarian
What's the required majority to approve a Constitutional amendment? The likelihood of it ever being reached on the gun issue is virtually impossible.

I suppose you don't even want to go to the area of, "OK; we've made guns illegal. Now let's go get 'em!" How exactly would that work? As Manhattan pointed out, we can't get hardly any of the illegal guns. And they are a tiny minority of all guns in the U.S.



Remember when the government banned the private ownership of gold? The government didn't make raids - it simply told everyone to "turn it in."

It will be the same way with guns. I highly doubt the government will knockdown every door and perform searches. It will simply tell everyone that they have 1 year to turn in their guns, and anyone caught with a firearm afterwards in any capacity will be subjected to a $10,000 fine and a minimum 2 year prison sentence.

And allow me to recapitulate from my previous post (above): The government can (and will) ban the private ownership of firearms. There is nothing stopping it from doing so. While a Constitutional amendment to ban guns would obviously make the government's job easier, it really doesn't need one; Congress can just go ahead and ban guns, the Constitution not withstanding.

[Milossarian]

It will be the same way with guns. I highly doubt the government will knockdown every door and perform searches. It will simply tell everyone that they have 1 year to turn in their guns, and anyone caught with a firearm afterwards in any capacity will be subjected to a $10,000 fine and a minimum 2 year prison sentence.

Bull.

The end result would go right back to what I said. Eventually, you'd have to start putting millions of "regular people" into prisons. It can't happen without civil war; without an attempt to overthrow the government that is trying to perpetrate it.

And if there is no prison sentence initially attached to it, just a fine, it will still end up with throwing millions in jail, because these people won't pay it. If they attach it to their wages, they would strike.

So, if it is without penalties, and there is no knocking door-to-door to round up the guns (which also wouldn't work, BTW), the guns ain't going anywhere. And guns have a tendency to last.

[Crafter_Man]

Milossarian: I don't disagree with you that banning firearms could cause a civil war. But the truth is, no one really knows what the response of the people will be, correct?

The original question asked if it was possible for the federal government to ban the private ownership of firearms. My answer is a resounding yes. There is absolutely nothing to stop the government from doing so. Nothing.

As far as "throwing millions of people in jail": This depends on how many people comply. Let's face it, an overwhelming majority of people complied when the government told them to turn their gold over to the Federal Reserve, correct?

The unfortunate fact is that anti-gun sentiment in this country grows every year. It is only logical, then, to assume there will come a time in the future when a majority of the people no longer think we have a personal right to keep and bear arms. When this time comes, Congress and the states will attempt to pass an amendment to the Constitution. If the amendment fails, Congress will simply pass a prohibition law anyway, claiming that "only the National Guard has right to keep and bear arms." A "progressive" Supreme Court will agree, and the rest, my dear friend, is history.

If you think I'm being overly pessimistic, then please answer the question: Do you think Americans will still be allowed to practice their right to keep and bear arms 100 years from now? Or 200 years from now?

[Crafter_Man]

Note to moderator: As you can see, I'm trying real hard to answer the original question, and not debate the issue of gun control. It's tough to abstain, but I think I'll pull through O.K... ;)

[wring]

I believe what may be happening is a question of semantics.

is it possible ? well, it's possible for Ronald Reagan to be elected president again. All it would take is for the Constitution to be changed, and then, and then.

I think what the others are saying is that:

What it would take is for a majority of them to be willing to commit political suicide, ALL at the SAME TIME, AND in both houses as well as each state government AND the president. Since all of the above are elected officials who want to keep their jobs, it's unlikely to the point of absurdity to believe that it would happen.

AND, even if you believe that those rotten SOB's we elected have this agenda in mind and will enact it accordingly, keep in mind that each would be subject to recall (probably within seconds) AND that any such legislation would have legal wrangling to go through before it became enforceable law (if it DID go into law, I'd think it would be only seconds again before some one got a court challenge going on it), so in addition to the colusion by all these legislators, you'd also need the judges to all stand in line in agreement. And by the time court challenges would wind their way, new public officials could be voted in to repeal such legislation.

So, given all of the components that would have to go into effect before it happened, you're probably better off worrying about some thing else.

[jab1]

Originally posted by Crafter_Man
It is only logical, then, to assume there will come a time in the future when a majority of the people no longer think we have a personal right to keep and bear arms.Or the majority could come to believe that there is no need to keep and bear arms and stop buying them.

[Wildest Bill]

Ok now this might be a dumb question but I thought the constitution doesn't care about the majority. It is to protect the rights of the minority.

Am I wrong on this?

[Milossarian]

wring and I agree on a topic that involves guns and bullets?

If I were dead right now, I'd be doing a triple sow-cow in my grave. :)

Crafter Man:

I don't disagree with you that banning firearms could cause a civil war. But the truth is, no one really knows what the response of the people will be, correct?

Perhaps you don't. I, however, have no doubt whatsoever as to what the response would be. Doesn't take great prognosticative skills; just common sense.

As far as "throwing millions of people in jail": This depends on how many people comply. Let's face it, an overwhelming majority of people complied when the government told them to turn their gold over to the Federal Reserve, correct?

Millions of people, you can be assured, wouldn't comply. And comparing this subject to gold might win the "Apples and Oranges of the Year Award."

Are you saying that private citizens stopped possessing gold at any time? When?

How many people had gold bars around the house that they turned in to the federal reserve?

If you're talking about what I think you might be talking about, people may have had dollars that indicated they were worth a certain amount of gold. Those dollars were replaced with other dollars of an exactly similar value, just not based on gold.

The constitution doesn't mention gold. It does mention the citizenry's right to keep arms.

To give a more General Question-like answer to the OP: Could the government take our gun rights away? On paper, it is theoretically possible for the government to amend the Constitution and abolish gun rights. The things that would have to happen, socially and politically, for this to occur, however, are so unlikely as to make it an impossibility in practical terms.

And I'm only talking about the elimination of the public's gun rights. You move into a whole other realm of impossibility when you discuss the actual implementation of this gun rights removal, and actually undertake to remove firearms from the populus.

[wring]

Originally posted by Milossarian
wring and I agree on a topic that involves guns and bullets?

If I were dead right now, I'd be doing a triple sow-cow in my grave. :)



yea, I suspect that it's a sign of the apocolypse. better get them generators a -runnin' ;)

[Crafter_Man]

Originally posted by Wildest Bill
Ok now this might be a dumb question but I thought the constitution doesn't care about the majority. It is to protect the rights of the minority.

Am I wrong on this?

It's a little bit over simplistic, but you're right for the most part.

Our Founding Fathers were fearful of monarchies; everyone knows that. But what most people don't know is that our Founding Fathers were also very fearful of democracies. And I would have to agree with them on both counts. In fact, given the (only) choice, I'd rather live under a monarchist form of government than a pure democracy. (With a pure democracy, a society will often become a "mobocracy", i.e. "mob rules," wherein the minority has no protection whatsoever.)

As some others on this board have already pointed out, we are technically not a "democracy," though we incorporate some of its elements such as elective representation and delegation. Instead, we are a constitutional republic. In theory, our Constitution could care less what the polls say, and rightly so. But there is a sneaky way around it: Just say the Constitution is a "living document" that is "open for creative interpretation." My stock reply to anyone who claims our Constitution is a "living document is this: Why even have a Constitution, then?

[ExTank]

It wouldn't be a Gun Control Topic without me tossing my two-cents into the machine, so here goes:

I agree with just about everything everyone has so far said; I'm seeing degrees of difference in their answers, rather than differing viewpoints (a subtle distinction, but heck, I can slice the baloney pretty damned thin).

So I'll instead encapsulate and summarize, with what I perceive as a "chance of happening" blurb.

1. Amend The Constitution.
Probability:<.000001

Yes, the mechanismes are in place to add an amendment repealing the 2nd. This doesn't automatically equate to a gun ban, but if the repeal-the-2nd-amendment amendment were to be passed, there would certainly be no obstacle to a total gun ban law.

However, as has already been pointed out (and I wholeheartedly agree), to do so would require a massive, unprecedented act of mutual political suicide at the State and Federal level, not to mention a severely "packed" Supreme Court.

And actual implementation would be as problematic as has already been noted. Door-to-door "John Doe" searches would result in a nation-wide massive "Blue Flu" epidemic from almost every level of law enforcement. Activating the military to take over the job of door-to-door confiscations may cause massive desertions; at least the officer corps would mutiny, especially the Marines (who take their jobs, their country and particularly their Constitution very seriously. I am not kidding!).

Now at this point, conspiracy theorists will chime in and tell you about the "U.N. Peacekeepers" who are poised and ready to invade Amerika to enforce the Satanic Rule of the the "New World Order" one-world government. One of the itemds supposedly on their agenda is to go house-to-house searching for guns, confiscating them, and arresting and imprisoning the now former-gun-owners.
Probability: Check the Thermometer in Hell.

Believe as much or as little of the last paragraph as you choose.

2. Incremental Infringement.
Probability: >50%

This method, so far has been the preferred (and somewhat successfull) tactic of the gun-control people advocating total gun-bans. They attempt to throw legislative, regulatory and financial roadblocks into the path of gun-owners, they demonize and disparage gun-owners with offensive stereotypes.

They continuously try to have the bar raised a bit higher every year, with:

waiting periods: hoping prospective buyers become impatient and give up;

mandatory trigger locks: trying to drive up prices and discourage buyers;

mandatory storage laws: same;

mandatory liability insurance requirements: same;

"special" taxes on guns and ammo: same;

gun-owner licensing: to make the licensing process so incredibly byzantine as to make it impossible to obtain

raising minimum age requirements: to break the "generational" cycle of the "gun culture"

Bans on certain types of weapons: with more and more weapons being added over time, until eventually they're all banned

There are more, but you get the idea.

I'll point out that not all gun-control advocates are pushing for total bans; I believe that quite a few (maybe as high as 60%, IMHO) merely want an end to violence, and since gun violence is such an attention grabber, guns are quite naturally a focus for them. They seem to want more regulation, but not an outright ban.

The problem with this is that the total-ban faction (the most vocal and visible) would gladly sieze upon any reasonable compromise on the part of gun owners as a springboard for more and more restrictive regulation.

Which is why the NRA (and many other gun-owners) are so adamantly resistant to any further compromise.

I'll readily admit to mud-slinging and fear-mongering on the part of both pro- and anti-gun sides; but the pro-gun side does seem to have a better handle on the math (statistics), history, law and technical aspects [of firearms] than the anti-gun side.

For instance: "Cop-Killer" Armor-Piercing Bullets

The categories of bullets that the gun-control crowd included would have virtually eliminated hunting in America (and animal-rights activists would be happy to see it go, but that's another Question).

Technical: Bullets specifically designed to pierce armor are rare. They are manufactured in very limited quantities for law enforcement, and not sold to the general public, for reasons described below.

And there is no practical thickness of body armor capable of being worn that will protect a person from a standard hunting round from a medium-caliber, single-shot hunting rifle.

Math: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reprted to Congress that no law enforcement officer has ever been killed or even injured because an armor piercing bullet penetrated a bullet-resistant vest.


Law: Armor piercing bullets are already illegal, and have been so since 1986, and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of special, hard metals and (in a 1994 amendment) specially-jacketed lead bullets.

Another example: "Plastic Guns"

Supposedly "detection-proof" guns made from synthetic materials, used for nefarious purposes.

Technical: The entire issue was raised in response to reports concerning a particular firearm, the Glock 17. The Glock 17-constructed of more than a pound of hardened steel, about 83% of its total weight-was fully detectable by airport security systems when it was approved for importation by BATF.

Math and Law: As there are zero instances of any criminal activity with an "undetectable" gun, there are no laws against any particular, non-existent "undetectable" firearms.

The above statements are not meant to engender debate, but to illustrate my point that the gun-ban faction of the larger gun-control crowd will use any tactic to get their agenda of total gun-bans advanced.

And with what appears to be rampant voter apathy, a media that doesn't bother to get their facts straight in the interest of a few ratings points (it seems fear is the #1 Bestseller in America nowadays) and politicians all-too-willing to jump on the whatever popular band-wagon come along, I give it slightly better-than-even odds of individual, private gun ownership in America completely disappearing by the end of this century.

ExTank
"Mostly Harmless :p"

[jab1]

I assume you mean the end of the 21st century, since the 20th doesn't end until December 31st.

[Johnny L.A.]

I wanted to comment on the "assault rifle" ban in California, and the ex post facto laws regarding ownership. When many specifically-listed firearms were banned in California, owners were allowed to keep them if they registered them with the state. I not only registered my Colt AR-15 (which was listed), but also my two non-Colt AR-15s that were not. I have a document that says they are registered and that I may own them in California.

When the National Firearms Act was passed in the 1920s(?), machine guns were banned. But people who owned them already could still own them after registering them and paying a $200 tax to the BATF (a lot of money at the time). As long as your state permits it, you may still buy a machine gun manufactured before a certain date by undergoing a background check (which I've heard could take months) and by paying the tax.

Can California declare an outright ban and confiscate registered guns? Yes. And those of us who are law-abiding citizens who registered our guns will be easy to find. But only a minority of us complied with the law. I have heard nothing in the news about unregistered "assault weapons" being used in crimes. The perpetators of the North Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago used AK-47/AKM-type machine guns that were banned by federal law decades ago. Anyway, while the state can ban guns outright, they have so far been unsuccessful confiscating the guns they've already banned.

If the federal government banned all guns, or even hand guns, the people behind the ban would probably soon be without jobs. Better to take "baby steps" to incrimentally strip people of their rights, rather than to make a bold move.

Don't we also have an Ammendment that says, "Just because we didn't list a specific right, doesn't mean you don't have it."?

[BobT]

I've seen armor-piercing bullets kill a cop. It was in "Lethal Weapon 3". It must be true if I saw it in that fine film.