Walther Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 61 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Now that we know who will occupy the White House, we know that in the debates Harris said she favored a mandatory buyback program. Beto O’Rorke (“hell yes I’m going to take your AR-15 “) was floated as the “gun safety “ Czar...is it time to sell your auto loaders?

I‘m sure there will be plenty of people wanting to get one while they still can. Used prices will necessarily skyrocket. If confiscation or mandatory buybacks happen you probably won’t be able to sell them except to the government for bargain prices only for them to be destroyed ...

Your thoughts?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
Now that we know who will occupy the White House, we know that in the debates Harris said she favored a mandatory buyback program. Beto O’Rorke (“hell yes I’m going to take your AR-15 “) was floated as the “gun safety “ Czar...is it time to sell your auto loaders?

I‘m sure there will be plenty of people wanting to get one while they still can. Used prices will necessarily skyrocket. If confiscation or mandatory buybacks happen you probably won’t be able to sell them except to the government for bargain prices only for them to be destroyed ...

Your thoughts?
You do what you think is right old_duckman.

Perhaps if you want to maximize your profit, you have a point.

For me though, this about principle and not profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
287 Posts
All I know for sure is that some will be willing to give up God-given, guaranteed liberties quicker than others. I also know that there will be plenty of Elmer Fudds who will want us to give up anything that is semi-auto or high capacity, as long as they get to keep their (insert any bolt action rifle or non semi-auto shotgun here).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
278 Posts
I wouldn't get too worried about it yet. Buy Back programs to date have been mostly a joke.They offer $XXX for turn ins and basically only get guns that would be unsellable at a fraction of the buy back amount. Majority are probably not even operable. To try it on a national level would be so expensive in actual and legal costs, it probably won't be going anywhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
Keep in mind that recent SCOTUS rulings make a ban on semi-automatic rifles difficult.
In Heller the ruled that arms in common lawful use were protected.

(The problem was they didn't give a number of what common lawful use is)

They also stated that it may be legal to ban dangerous and unusual weapons which maybe you can claim a semi automatic rifle is dangerous (all firearms can be dangerous) but they are certainly not unusual.

However, in Caetano v Massachusetts they ruled that the common use threshold was 200,000 of that item.
There are over 20-30 million semi automatic rifles in America.

According to the FBI’s UCR data in 2019 all rifle deaths totaled 364, so it stands to reason it can't be proven to be more dangerous than other firearms and again, they are not unusual.

The last few years SCOTUS has refused to hear gun cases and it's Chief Justice Roberts that has been the unknown as to how he would rule, but with Amy Coney Barrett the scales are tipped for liberty and any ban would be challenged with a good chance to be deemed unconstitutional.


So, in addition to the courts and my personal beliefs, I'm not giving up $*it.


Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
705 Posts
So I take it a lot of you seriously believe the elections are officially over because the media declared a Biden-Harris victory?

What happened “it ain’t over until it’s over?” If this is the attitude we’re going to have moving forward then we deserve a loss.
Maybe it's over, maybe it's not, but I'm not going to change my life one bit either way.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
The SCOTUS decision in the Heller case. Note highlighted clauses:

Decision[edit]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion.
The Supreme Court held:[46]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
So I take it a lot of you seriously believe the elections are officially over because the media declared a Biden-Harris victory?

What happened “it ain’t over until it’s over?” If this is the attitude we’re going to have moving forward then we deserve a loss.
Well you see....

Too many gun owners give up raise that white flag.

I support the President challenge to the suspect ballots.

Yet again I never give up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I think that selling right now would give me a nice chunk of cash, which I can always use....

But, alas, a tragic boating accident has recently occurred.......
 
1 - 20 of 61 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top