• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confiscation: The First Attempt

Exactly,

This is why I said, the first attempt, at confiscation.

The legal battle will brew, and probably the US Supremes will have to decide
since the 9th Circuit always sides with the most radical left on just about
anything they want. I have little hope in the CA supreme court.

There would be no search warrant or confiscation unless you would be
caught with a hi cap magazine - like at a range or outdoors in the wildnerness
areas shooting.

We all know its impossible to tell a 10 round Glock 17/19 magazine from a 15.
Its impossible to tell my 10 round Ruger P series magazines from 10 vs 15.
So if police see a 10 round magazine on these types of hand guns they will
enjoy "probable cause" to search further for the hi cap criminal. I suppose the
same is true with 10/30 magazines for the AR though I never understood or
wanted one - don't own one.

I'm thankful my dad had the for sight to buy land in Nevada and that he
taught me so many things - I was able to build my own home there. All of
my personal property is now out of that horrible state. I still have real estate
in CA and that's bad enough the taxes I pay on that, but my belongings are
safe (for now).
I have 30 30rnd mags for my ARs. Plus 2 ten rounders for the range.
I wish I had bought property up in North Florida a few years ago and built my personal range.
 
The California legislature moved ahead with a measure Friday night that will require CA gun owners to turn in any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can't be "fixed" to hold only 10 rounds. The legislative act will provide a 90 day window starting Jan. 1, 2014 and concluding near the end of March for gun owners to comply. Failure to comply and end up in possession of a hi cap magazine will result in a misdemeanor "gun" charge. A few misdemeanors with a specific "gun" relation bar the convicted from future ownership of firearms. The legislative action does not call for door to door collection of hi cap magazines but does mandate anyone with a business license (IE shooting ranges) turn over offenders or face termination of their license.

I'm sure the LA street gangs will line up to comply. Glad I was able to relocate all my hi caps to the lake front property in NV before this quagmire kicks in.

Add to that legislation moving to the floor (SB-53) that requires people to obtain a permit to purchase ammunition to register with the state. Of course the "bullet button", and redefinition of "assualt weapon", are also closing in on a vote with the Progs in Sacramento.

California, violating individual rights, one day at a time.
 
Exactly,

This is why I said, the first attempt, at confiscation.

The legal battle will brew, and probably the US Supremes will have to decide
since the 9th Circuit always sides with the most radical left on just about
anything they want. I have little hope in the CA supreme court.

There would be no search warrant or confiscation unless you would be
caught with a hi cap magazine - like at a range or outdoors in the wildnerness
areas shooting.

We all know its impossible to tell a 10 round Glock 17/19 magazine from a 15.
Its impossible to tell my 10 round Ruger P series magazines from 10 vs 15.
So if police see a 10 round magazine on these types of hand guns they will
enjoy "probable cause" to search further for the hi cap criminal. I suppose the
same is true with 10/30 magazines for the AR though I never understood or
wanted one - don't own one.

I'm thankful my dad had the for sight to buy land in Nevada and that he
taught me so many things - I was able to build my own home there. All of
my personal property is now out of that horrible state. I still have real estate
in CA and that's bad enough the taxes I pay on that, but my belongings are
safe (for now).

All I can say is good for you!
 
sorry no, you cannot charge me with a crime, becuase i have a product, even though at the time of purchase it was legal.

the founders are clear on this in the notes of the constitutional convention.

no expost facto laws cannot be passed if it is of a criminal nature.

James Madison--Col: Mason moved to strike out from the clause (art I sect 9.) "No bill of attainder nor any expost facto law shall be passed" the words "nor any ex post facto law". He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature--and no Legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in Civil cases.

Georage Mason--Both the general legislature and the State legislature are expressly prohibited making ex post facto laws; though there never was nor can be a legislature but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them; which will hereafter be a breach of all the constitutions in the Union, and afford precedents for other innovations.

Look, alcohol was once banned, confiscated, and destroyed, and I assure you that included alcohol purchased before the ban.

I don't know how else to put it, you're just wrong. There's nothing historical to support your opinion that that's what ex post facto means, because clearly as I've pointed out the government has the power to do such things in some cases.

Let me lay it out one last time: It would be a violation of ex post facto if you were charged with purchases a magazine before the law went into affect. It would not be a violation of ex post facto for you to be charged with owning that magazine after the law went into affect. It would be a violation of ex post facto if they charged you with owning that magazine prior to when the ban went into affect.

Its really pretty damn simple.
 
I did. Papers were filed to change residence some time ago. My permanent residence is now NV. In fact I have a DMV apt tomorrow for my new DL.
You have to make an appointment for that?
 
The California legislature moved ahead with a measure Friday night that will require CA gun owners to turn in any magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds that can't be "fixed" to hold only 10 rounds. The legislative act will provide a 90 day window starting Jan. 1, 2014 and concluding near the end of March for gun owners to comply. Failure to comply and end up in possession of a hi cap magazine will result in a misdemeanor "gun" charge. A few misdemeanors with a specific "gun" relation bar the convicted from future ownership of firearms. The legislative action does not call for door to door collection of hi cap magazines but does mandate anyone with a business license (IE shooting ranges) turn over offenders or face termination of their license.

I'm sure the LA street gangs will line up to comply. Glad I was able to relocate all my hi caps to the lake front property in NV before this quagmire kicks in.

Ahh yes, and we see again the infinity punishment by State government in this case to prevent free exercise of right should one run afoul of the tripe they call laws.
 
The rogue Obama Administration will continue trammeling individual rights until challenged. That is how Socialist/Communist governments advance.

Must have taken that lesson from Bush.
 
It would be a retroactive law if they charged you for purchasing the magazine when it was legal to do so, however its not retroactive to charge you for owning something after its made illegal.

Wow.....kind of a stretch there slim. It is retroactive because they purchased something when it was legal to do so, and then are being punished later for having something legally purchased. That's why grandfather clauses have to exist. If you made a legal purchase, you made a legal purchase. But we'll see how this goes in the courts, making laws after the fact and then charging people with crimes for the new law when they didn't violate a law when action was made is clearly ex post facto.
 
And when these laws go into force, gun owners will bend over and lube up.
 
Speak for yourself.
No one's going to shoot the first cop who tries to enforce these laws, that means gun owners are just going to take it. Waite and watch.
 
No one's going to shoot the first cop who tries to enforce these laws, that means gun owners are just going to take it. Waite and watch.

I don't know about that. people shoot cops all the time. but the cop isn't the proper target
 
No one's going to shoot the first cop who tries to enforce these laws, that means gun owners are just going to take it. Waite and watch.

Really? The first cop through the door will not make it home.
 
I don't know about that. people shoot cops all the time. but the cop isn't the proper target

The cop, just like every other public servant, has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If he's at any citizens home, trying to take that citizen's rightfully-owned arms, in blatant violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, then he's a legitimate target. No different than any other armed home-invasion robber, and no deserving of any better treatment.

Although I would agree with you that ethically, it is better to go after the corrupt politicians and judges who are responsible for enacting and upholding these unconstitutional laws, rather than the cops who are attempting to enforce them, but as a matter of practical issues, it is the cops who will most likely wind up being used as cannon fodder by the higher-ups. But the cops have the same choice that the higher ups have—obey their oath to the Constitution, or violate it and face the consequences. Any cop who chooses to obey the Constitution, and to obey his oath thereto, is in no danger of being shot by a citizen who is defending his rights thereunder.
 
The cop, just like every other public servant, has taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. If he's at any citizens home, trying to take that citizen's rightfully-owned arms, in blatant violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, then he's a legitimate target. No different than any other armed home-invasion robber, and no deserving of any better treatment.

Although I would agree with you that ethically, it is better to go after the corrupt politicians and judges who are responsible for enacting and upholding these unconstitutional laws, rather than the cops who are attempting to enforce them, but as a matter of practical issues, it is the cops who will most likely wind up being used as cannon fodder by the higher-ups. But the cops have the same choice that the higher ups have—obey their oath to the Constitution, or violate it and face the consequences. Any cop who chooses to obey the Constitution, and to obey his oath thereto, is in no danger of being shot by a citizen who is defending his rights thereunder.
I think, and I hate it, but its what it is coming to if actual door kicking starts.
 
Really? The first cop through the door will not make it home.
See that's just tough-guy talk. If a cop tries to arrest you at a range, or while you're out hunting, or if they find something during a legal serch of your car, you aren't going to shoot him, especially since if he's smart he'll have back-up there before approaching you.
 
I don't know about that. people shoot cops all the time. but the cop isn't the proper target
No one is going to shoot anyone else over it either.

We like to talk the big talk, that guns are for keeping the government in check, but we don't do it. "Law abiding" by definition means going along with any rule the government dreams up, including gun bans. In order to keep the government in check with a gun, one has to at some point be disobeying a law, such as possessing a 30rnd mag in CA, because it is that law which is the problem. Then you have to stop the cop from enforcing that law, which is a felony, and then you have to remove the lawmakers who wrote the rule in the first place, which is a list of more felonies. That makes keeping the government in check a criminal act.

No one on this forum is going to do that.
 
No one is going to shoot anyone else over it either.

We like to talk the big talk, that guns are for keeping the government in check, but we don't do it. "Law abiding" by definition means going along with any rule the government dreams up, including gun bans. In order to keep the government in check with a gun, one has to at some point be disobeying a law, such as possessing a 30rnd mag in CA, because it is that law which is the problem. Then you have to stop the cop from enforcing that law, which is a felony, and then you have to remove the lawmakers who wrote the rule in the first place, which is a list of more felonies. That makes keeping the government in check a criminal act.

No one on this forum is going to do that.

There are many sheep
 
There are many sheep
We have had perfectly valid occasions to stage an armed revolt. I previously cited Vietnam and the rounding up of Japaneses citizens. We did nothing. We sat back and watched it happen.

IMO...American citizens, for failing to act, lost our right to personally own firearms on that day. We had a civic and humanitarian duty to protect ourselves from tyranny, and we did nothing. Since we aren't ever going to use our arms for what the Founding Fathers intended, we should just go ahead and pass a total gun ban and be don with it.

As a people we are not mature enough to own firearms.
 
See that's just tough-guy talk. If a cop tries to arrest you at a range, or while you're out hunting, or if they find something during a legal serch of your car, you aren't going to shoot him, especially since if he's smart he'll have back-up there before approaching you.

So what would YOU do?
Just hand them over and beg for forgiveness?
 
So what would YOU do?
Just hand them over and beg for forgiveness?
There's not going to be a civil war. There has never and will never be an armed public keeping the government in check. When Chicago banned handguns, regular citizens should have carried anyway, and when police tried to arrest them for illegal possession, the police should have been shot. But that didn't happen. That's not ever going to happen. So what would I do in the event of a total ban? I would sell. There's one handgun which I may have disabled and display, but I'd sell everything off.

We have already lost the gun fight (GCA of 1936 and FOPA of 1987), it just takes time to bleed out and die.

So now I return the question to you: the Hughes Amendment gutted the Second, what are YOU doing about that right now?

You're not doing a damn thing about it. Every day, you just let it slide.
 
Last edited:
There's not going to be a civil war. There has never and will never be an armed public keeping the government in check. When Chicago banned handguns, regular citizens should have carried anyway, and when police tried to arrest them for illegal possession, the police should have been shot. But that didn't happen. That's not ever going to happen. So what would I do in the event of a total ban? I would sell. There's one handgun which I may have disabled and display, but I'd sell everything off.

We have already lost the gun fight (GCA of 1936 and FOPA of 1987), it just takes time to bleed out and die.

So now I return the question to you: the Hughes Amendment gutted the Second, what are YOU doing about that right now?

You're not doing a damn thing about it. Every day, you just let it slide.

What do I do, I support groups that are waging the fight to protect our rights. I also am pretty much a single issue voter. How who I vote for depends on their record on the 2A.
But you bend over and hand over your guns. I will not. I will die in a pile of my own brass before handing them over.
 
Look, alcohol was once banned, confiscated, and destroyed, and I assure you that included alcohol purchased before the ban.

I don't know how else to put it, you're just wrong. There's nothing historical to support your opinion that that's what ex post facto means, because clearly as I've pointed out the government has the power to do such things in some cases.

Let me lay it out one last time: It would be a violation of ex post facto if you were charged with purchases a magazine before the law went into affect. It would not be a violation of ex post facto for you to be charged with owning that magazine after the law went into affect. It would be a violation of ex post facto if they charged you with owning that magazine prior to when the ban went into affect.

Its really pretty damn simple.

do you not see the word......criminal nature......meaning no criminality (at all) can be tied to any retro-active law.

according to you logic, any product i but ,which would be legal when i purchased it, when its banned, i can go to jail or pay fines over it if i dont surrender it.....

James Madison--Col: Mason moved to strike out from the clause (art I sect 9.) "No bill of attainder nor any expost facto law shall be passed" the words "nor any ex post facto law". He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature--and no Legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in Civil cases.

Georage Mason--Both the general legislature and the State legislature are expressly prohibited making ex post facto laws; though there never was nor can be a legislature but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them; which will hereafter be a breach of all the constitutions in the Union, and afford precedents for other innovations.

so you are not arguing against me........you are arguing against Madison and George Mason
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom