They do it legislatively, obviously, because they know there is NO possibility of doing it via amendment. At least until they are further along in the purple migration plan.
Okay, kind of a loaded question (pun intended). 1994 There was an "assault weapons ban" and what did everyone do? Held on to what they had, let it increase in value, sold in some cases. Because of grandfathering all it changed was what could be sold as new. Before you can really ask the question you need to ask will their be confiscation? Will possession be a crime? Will there be registration. Regardless of the specifics I found out a few years back that a Tracker Pro Team 175 and a firearms safe don't go together so well.
Last edited:
lol. it took you longer to type that than it would have to click the back button on your browser.
you can spin the hypothetical out in many ways, but in this situation the issue is different than the 1994 ban as (at least as i tried to articulate) there isn't a grand father clause per se. I didn't explore confiscation, etc, because it would easily derail the overall discussion.
I guess i could have been more exact and said 'guns and possession are illegal', but i was more focused on the 'next' rather than the 'how we got there'
Needless to say I get your point. The saddest part is where would one move too? As far as I know no other nation has the freedom to own firearms like Oklahoma, Texas and other states share. Anyone know of a place?
i'm glad i'm not totally incoherent!
And yes, i had that same thought. But with so many 'if you don't like it you should leave' types here i thought i'd at least include it. I'm sure there are many permutations of options. I just was trying to distill them down to simple choices to pick from for the sake of clarity.
If that were to happen I think every gun owner or anyone thinking about gun ownership in the state should march on the state capital and make sure that laws are passed IGNORING the federal law and stating that we will not comply. This is a STATE, let's treat it as such.
The Constitution does not create rights. It is only a recognition and physical manifestation of pre-existing natural rights. The Constitution is by its nature incapable of protecting anyone’s natural rights. It is incumbent on each individual to claim and declare their rights. Each situation and its participants determine the limits of prosecution and defense. The turning over of U.S. vs John Bad Elk was in itself bad law. When there exists no recourse then inevitably there is only one outcome.
Good luck in getting any major level of support on that view. In actuality, the Constitution is the "Law of the Land".
And look how well that went.
Similar threads
