ARs- Worries & How Many Are Too Much?

Mr.Blue · Nov 15, 2018

I’m worried about the chance that the Government (most likely MD State Government) tries to take our ARs away, even HBARs. I can envision a situation where existing rifles are not grandfathered in.

So that brings me to the question of “how many ARs are too many?”. Do you buy more with the idea of a grandfather clause, or is there too much risk of losing a lot of money?

Clearly I would not give them up without a fight, but I have a young daughter to raise and cannot go to jail until she is older.

What say you?

Engine4 · Nov 15, 2018

What's an AR? I certainly don't have any of those.... :innocent0

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 15, 2018

While you can never predict what a court can do, the strongest argument is not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution's prohibition of ex-post facto laws and Bills of Attainder. The government cannot make illegal what was legal when you first purchased it...that would violate the prohibition on ex-post facto laws...but that has happened in the past and anti-freedom courts have upheld that. NYC did exactly that some years back. It demonstrates how important it is to have truly Constitutionally grounded judges on the local, state and federal benches and not political hacks. It's a constant fight that unfortunately will likely never go away. It's behind the state ban on previously owned"assault rifles" and 10+ magazines...the state couldn't ban previously owned examples due to such a Constitutional prohibition...no matter how much many would support that. That pesky Constitution simply keeps getting in their way.

As far as "too many"...it's none of the government's business how many you own as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

erwos · Nov 15, 2018

That isn't what an ex-post-facto law is, hence why NY got away with what they did... I don't even know where bills of attainder would come into this.

The government banning ARs and telling you to dispose of them by X date or be prosecuted is not an ex-post-facto law.

The government banning ARs and prosecuting everyone who's ever bought one would be an ex-post-facto law.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 15, 2018

erwos said:
The government banning ARs and telling you to dispose of them by X date or be prosecuted is not an ex-post-facto law.

That is exactly an ex-post facto law.

erwos said:
The government banning ARs and prosecuting everyone who's ever bought one would be an ex-post-facto law.

That would be an example of a Bill of Attainder.

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.

OLM-Medic · Nov 15, 2018

all jokes aside, have at least one to hide

Biggfoot44 · Nov 15, 2018

What is this " Too Many " of which you speak ?

teratos · Nov 15, 2018

Do you plan to comply?

You can never have too many.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 15, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
What is this " Too Many " of which you speak ?

Look at it this way...

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

You're just making up for those who won't own one.

Mr.Blue · Nov 15, 2018

TheOriginalMexicanBob;5388271 As far as "too many"...it's none of the government's business how many you own as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.[/QUOTE said:
I don’t mean too many in the eyes of the Government, but rather too many for it to be a huge financial risk. I mean, is it redundant to have more than 2-3? I know it varies by person, but trying to get some perspectives.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 15, 2018

Mr.Blue said:
I don’t mean too many in the eyes of the Government, but rather too many for it to be a huge financial risk. I mean, is it redundant to have more than 2-3? I know it varies by person, but trying to get some perspectives.

It can be redundant in terms of actual use, but it depends on your outlook. I have about a dozen AR-type platform rifles and carbines. No two are alike...5.56, 7.62, .22LR, 9mm, .45ACP. Each is a different configuration...long barrel target rifles...carbine length...whatever holds my interest for that particular one.

If someone wants to own even more or less...it's their decisions and their finances. I won't criticize them as there are those who will for whatever reasons. I know guys who collect Colt Model 1903 and 1908 Pocket Hammerless pistols...one owns over a hundred of them...one looks for those with police agency markings. I know one guy who collect Colt New Service revolvers...he has probably the finest and most complete collections anywhere. We all have our likes and desires...it doesn't have to be for self-defense or shooting them at all. It comes down to exercising our freedoms and desires.

It's less a matter of need and more a matter of wants and the freedoms to follow those wants and desires.

Biggfoot44 · Nov 15, 2018

Are your bills paid, food on the table, and your children have shoes ?

DutchV · Nov 15, 2018

Own what you want. If MD decides to go full Communist, I'll be moving on. Let the Demo-rats learn to feed themselves without my help.

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Nov 15, 2018

I can also add that there are two types of wives in this regard. My first wife understood only "I need" not "I want". The wonderful woman I call my "forever wife" says "If it makes you happy go ahead." Our bills are paid, our daughter is thorough college and married and doing well. Life is pretty good overall. That makes a big difference.

shootin the breeze · Nov 15, 2018

teratos said:
Do you plan to comply?

You can never have too many.

Getting to the point that I'm ready to die in a pile of brass.

Mr.Blue · Nov 15, 2018

Biggfoot44 said:
Are your bills paid, food on the table, and your children have shoes ?

Yes, I can afford them. I tend to like “high-end” rifles and 1911s. I just don’t want to lose the money if they are banned.

DaemonAssassin · Nov 15, 2018

Mr.Blue said:
Yes, I can afford them. I tend to like “high-end” rifles and 1911s. I just don’t want to lose the money if they are banned.

Stop buying "high end" rifles and build them yourself. They aren't very hard to build. You can also do a bunch of 80% lowers while you are at it, too.

Mr.Blue · Nov 15, 2018

DaemonAssassin said:
Stop buying "high end" rifles and build them yourself. They aren't very hard to build. You can also do a bunch of 80% lowers while you are at it, too.

I’m dain bramaged (brain damaged) when it comes to working with my hands.

Docster · Nov 15, 2018

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
While you can never predict what a court can do, the strongest argument is not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution's prohibition of ex-post facto laws and Bills of Attainder. The government cannot make illegal what was legal when you first purchased it...that would violate the prohibition on ex-post facto laws...but that has happened in the past and anti-freedom courts have upheld that. NYC did exactly that some years back. It demonstrates how important it is to have truly Constitutionally grounded judges on the local, state and federal benches and not political hacks. It's a constant fight that unfortunately will likely never go away. It's behind the state ban on previously owned"assault rifles" and 10+ magazines...the state couldn't ban previously owned examples due to such a Constitutional prohibition...no matter how much many would support that. That pesky Constitution simply keeps getting in their way.

As far as "too many"...it's none of the government's business how many you own as long as you are a law-abiding citizen.

Certainy states may attempt to pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional but unlikely to hold up and likely subject to restraining order before implementing, much like NJ's recent law immediately banning possession of home built guns

mxrider · Nov 15, 2018

TheOriginalMexicanBob said:
While you can never predict what a court can do, the strongest argument is not only the Second Amendment but the Constitution's prohibition of ex-post facto laws and Bills of Attainder. The government cannot make illegal what was legal when you first purchased it...that would violate the prohibition on ex-post facto laws...but that has happened in the past and anti-freedom courts have upheld that. NYC did exactly that some years back. It demonstrates how important it is to have truly Constitutionally grounded judges on the local, state and federal benches and not political hacks. It's a constant fight that unfortunately will likely never go away. It's behind the state ban on previously owned"assault rifles" and 10+ magazines...the state couldn't ban previously owned examples due to such a Constitutional prohibition...no matter how much many would support that. That pesky Constitution simply keeps getting in their way.

So, what about the bumpstock law that went into effect on 10/1/18....

ARs- Worries & How Many Are Too Much?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Living In A Bizarro World

Curmudgeon

Ultimate Member

The Hebrew Hammer

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Ultimate Member

Living In A Bizarro World

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Missed it by that much

Living In A Bizarro World

Why should we Free BSD?

Living In A Bizarro World

Ultimate Member

Former MSI Treasurer

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics