No - ownership of firearms wouldn’t transfer that way. It would be considered property of the estate if the person has died, and the executor would need to follow the state and federal transfer laws to transfer the firearms to the beneficiaries. Going through an FFL is the safest bet to ensure all laws are followed. In the case of a person becoming prohibited, depending on the nature of the prohibition the person would have some limited time to surrender possession of the firearms through gift, sale, surrendering to police, destruction, etc. A caretaker could take possession, but would not be the owner. If in the same house, multiple people could be considered to be in possession.
Thank you!
Nothing firm. Anything would be just a guess based on general statistics around gun ownership, but we couldn’t really be certain that those general stats are indicative of the subset of people that are affected by this rule. In general, something like 35-40% of households own guns.
BTW, reading back through this thread, I realized that I omitted something that’s probably important. My post #115 should have included the word “per year” at the end. Here is the Obama administration’s fact sheet on the rule:
Yes, and a similar program started under GW Bush.
however, “so crimes would be committed in order to gin up opinions against guns in America.” is unsupported by the facts.
That’s a good point, and we also shouldn’t infer that, say, 225,000 would be affected by the end of three years. Some percentage of these individuals would be expected to pass away, like if an indidivudal was dealing with dementia due to old age. It is reasonable to think that some would have been judged possible to resume taking care of their own affairs if they were suffering from a temporary incapacity, as the rulemaking proposed a mechanism to do so:
Yes, but the final rule applied only to individuals 18-65 years of age (which is why it was 10’s of thousands rather than millions of individuals), so that percentage would have been relatively small, at least in the first few years after being prohibited.
I agree that these seem like restrictions on your 2nd amendment rights. But these are all state laws, correct? As such, how does this apply to the 8 years of the Obama presidency as alluded by Trump?
The assault weapons ban was pretty clearly an Obama effort, at the federal level. Here are a couple of examples:
January 2013 - Obama calls for assault-weapons ban, background checks
June 2016 - Obama calls for ban on assault weapons in weekly address
Every time there was a school shooting with such a weapon there were calls for such.
And in fact Trump was in favor of such a ban.
So yeah, it’s stupid, but it’s also popular and goes back long before Obama.
So far, no one really has come up with anything that even close close to a Obama “eight year assault”. A few minor thing- all pretty useless and stupid i agree.
And yes, some states, CA being the leader, have continued their *decades long * nibbling at the 2nd Ad.
Does public advocacy through the form of a few speeches (words) advocating for a particular law equate to an assault? If so, then Trump’s public advocacy through a few speeches of expanding libel laws to more easily sue media outlets over stories he does not like must then be an assault on the First Amendment.
Recently DNC Chairman Tom Perez made a statement that garnered him some headlines. He said:
I suspect if I looked I could find people claiming there was an assault on the First Amendment too. What’s your point though?
ETA: here is one from the NYT:
As it was already explained, Obama’s desires were tempered by Congress. And that’s the difference between destruction of the Second Amendment and an assault on it.
Again, you say "Obama’ while a whole host of leaders pushed for Assault weapon bans of some sort- including Trump himself.
Even if Obama had gotten everything he wanted, I’m still not feeling the “assault” (though I suppose in that case, it moves on to “battery”), but of course that’s personal opinion about the importance of the Second Amendment and where its reasonable limitations are, as all amendments have them.
Are you “feeling” the assault on the press, or the war on science, or the war on women?
Those are off-topic, so I hadn’t thought about them within the context of commenting in this thread, and am not likely to start any time soon. If I’ve already commented along those lines in this thread, I’ve forgotten about it.
Personally, I like laws to have purpose, so if there’s an “assault” (if one wishes to call it such) and 1% of the U.S. population can’t get guns, there better be at least a 2% drop in gun violence or what was the point?
What if there’s a 5% drop in people’s fear of gun violence with no actual drop in violence, is that sufficient?
At a minimum, I appreciate your desire for actual results, not just feel-good measures. Too often I feel like liberals pursue gun control measures without any actual thought to the real-world effects of the proposal.
To be blunt, the pro-gun side makes any reforms to gun laws whatsoever a binary problem: if the law actually does anything, it is unacceptable because it has real world effects. If it doesn’t do anything, then it is pointless and we should just enforce the laws we have.
My friends on the liberal side have decided that fighting the first fight is totally pointless because it cannot be won; so they fight the second fight which might be won but is largely pointless.