Police Wonder If They値l Need To Confiscate Assault Weapons In Event Of Ban

[former-republican]

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Amid talk of reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired eight years ago, police departments nationwide are thinking of ways to confiscate such weapons



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-wonder-if-theyll-need-to-confiscate-assault-weapons-in-event-of-ban/

[doc03]

1. It is not going to happen so why wonder about it? n/t

[spin]

7. I feel Doc03 is just being realistic. ...

A bill requiring the banning and confiscation of all firearms or just "assault weapons" will go nowhere in the Republican controlled House and most likely would not pass in the Senate as the pro-gun rights Democrats from the Red states and the Republicans would vote it down.

A bill to tax people who own over one million dollars a year at 95% of their income would have a better chance of passing and that's not going to happen either.

Some minor changes to our gun laws can and probably will pass.

[doc03]

21. Thanks that's all I was saying. The Republicans control the House,

the SCOTUS and are able to filibuster everything in the Senate. I'm being realistic nothing meaningful can be done with guns nationwide. Myself I think all semi-autos should be treated like a full auto is today and any magazine over 10 rounds be illegal. I suppose states could pass such a ban but couldn't that be challenged in the SCOTUS.

[spin]

38. We might disagree over how to handle semi-auto firearms but we both understand reality. (n/t)

[rwilson32zoom]

14. Violence

Man what are you thinking?!?!?!? Even if they could possibly obtain every gun in the world that wouldn't solve anything. There still will be those violent people who would kill people with forks if that's all they had available.

[morningfog]

24. Link to any mass killings by fork?

[freshwest]

47. He took the DU holiday special:

[wendylaroux]

55. Hmmm,hadn't thought of that!!

We're all forked!I need someone to spoon with.

[realgreen]

2. Why are they talking about it instead of doing it?

Because they know if they get those things off of the streets, they'll be less need for cops. Taking them off of the streets is bad for business.

[ElbarDee]

18. The second and fourth Amendment gets in the way. nt

[Ter]

29. And 10th

Federal bans of any kind violate the 10th Amendment, and it's times Justices see this.

[ElbarDee]

49. Ture. nt

[slackmaster]

34. Talking rather than doing is standard behavior for people who live in dream worlds

There will be no broad confiscation of firearms in the USA.

[freshwest]

48. Whoa, please. When you say:

Why are they talking about it instead of doing it?

The answer is in how the process of government works. The cops don't make the laws, only the legislatures make the laws, a well-known fact.

Because they know if they get those things off of the streets, they'll be less need for cops.Taking them off of the streets is bad for business.

Police forces across the country are suffering cuts in funding and some don't even come out to some towns because they are being disbanded and crime has gone up when that's happened. Those threads are on DU.

There is no benefit to the police to have assault weapons all over the place. Those weapons being in the hands of the public lessens their chances of going home alive. Cops don't want that and most support the Brady Bill.

You might want to re-think how you come to the conclusion that cops can enforce laws not yet written and why they'd enjoy more people being able to gun them down along with the rest of the public. Perhaps you'd change your views.

BTW, I want those all of those guns taken away. The military is the only ones who need them. Just my particular view.


Peace Out.

[Logical]

4. It will never happen! Will not pass house or senate! Bookmark this! The...

Best we can hope for is stopping sales of stuff or fixing private sale loophole!

[Keefer]

5. Please...

...define "assault weapon."

[former-republican]

6. Looks scary and It can fire lots of bullets , they must be stopped

[TheCowsCameHome]

19. Couldn't stay longer?

Gee, we'll miss you.

[atreides1]

31. Legal Definition, if you please?

All the personal definitions are pretty much useless...the only definition that matters is the legal definition of what an assault weapon is.

[bettyellen]

39. the legal definition WILL BE what ever the legislation makes it to be. Just like last time, but

hopefully updated.
No need to go off into the weeds with the gun geeks, but thanks for your concern!

[Angleae]

46. Full definition by federal AWB (per wiki)

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
* Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
* Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
* Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
* Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
* A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
* Detachable magazine

[spin]

8. Okay ...

Assault Weapon

Assault weapon is a term which has been given many different meanings. In common parlance, the term is used to describe any of various automatic and semi-automatic military and military-style firearms, often utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge and is frequently conflated with assault rifle (a firearm with full-automatic capability). Unlike the term assault rifle, however, the term 'assault weapon' has no consistent or specific definition and is, therefore, subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military firearms.[1][2] In the United States, there is a variety of statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws that define them by a set of characteristics they possess, sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[3] Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[4]

***snip***

United States Federal Assault Weapons Ban


The term assault weapon was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[9] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines for both pistols and rifles capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.[9]

State law definitions

Although the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004, several states have their own assault weapons bans, which sometimes differ from the former federal law. For example, in California, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 bars a number of specific firearm models as well as firearms that have one of a number of features.

According to the State of Connecticut judicial branch under Connecticut law an assault weapon is "Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user" (i.e. with fully-automatic capability) plus other specific semi-automatic firearms plus other semi-automatic firearms with certain attributes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

[Kaleva]

10. Any semi-automatic weapon that...

fires a rimless, semi-rimmed, or rebated rim cartridge that has a bullet of less then 6.5mm in diameter or a case length of less then 50.8mm.

[former-republican]

13. 6.8 SPC

[Kaleva]

16. Having a case length of 42.6 mm, it would fall under my defination.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Oh the technical definition diversion. NRA debate strategy play book.

[bossy22]

42. it's not

That's what a law is- you have to be precise. Just google how many laws are struck down due to vagueness.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. It still works, evidently -

the NRA whores use it when they have nothing constructive to offer.

[OldDem2012]

35. Please define hunting rifle. nt.

[bluestateguy]

9. Most likely there will be a grandfather clause as in the old law

Without a grandfather clause it will not pass.

[Angleae]

15. It won't pass with the grandfather clause either.

House current makeup: 245 R, 190 D, 5 vacant
Next month: 234 R, 201 D

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. See? See? See?

That black guy in the White House is gonna come get every one of yer gunz. And he ain't a-goin' to stop there. Nosiree.

We TOLD you so! Stock up NOW!

What pure unadulterated crap........

[L0oniX]

22. Stop having sex with cows!

[SecularMotion]

20. Buy back programs will get many assault weapons off the street

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Only if they offer at least market value.

That value as almost tripled since the renewed talk of a ban on these weapons. There are c. 3.5-4 million so-called "assault weapons" in current circulation, with an average market value of probably about $1800 at present (and rapidly rising). Do you really think there's funding available for any such plan that would actually make an impact?

Moreover, would it actually be money well spent given that there weapons are used in only a tiny minority of gun crimes? Wouldn't it be better to dedicate resources to dealing with the proliferation of cheap, concealable handguns...the weapon used in the majority of gun-related violence?

[former-republican]

26. They usually pay $50 to $100 for a buy back

Average price for a factory stock AR15 sold is $850.00 to $1000.00

[SecularMotion]

32. Either turn your assault weapon in at a fair price

or face a fine of double or triple the value for illegal possession.

[bossy22]

43. what's the fair price?

Just because you offer some form of compensation doesnt mean you won't run into constitutional issues in regards to property.

Fair price is set usually by a combination of the market and MSRP in this case- which means $200 isn't going to cut it.

[Robb]

45. Australia beat market prices with its buy back.

And eminent domain is a powerful tool.

[aikoaiko]

28. Buybacks are unlikely to flush out many ARs or semi version AKs

Especially with prices going thru the roof.

[Hoyt]

54. True, owners of such guns are not as law-abiding or responsible as we have been told.

[warrior1]

23. I think with bill boards with the faces of the victims of gun violence where placed across America

might make the gun buy back more successful.

[slackmaster]

27. Here's the Russian La La La La La guy's comment

[former-republican]

30. I love this video

[backscatter712]

36. My bet is that one of the compromises of upcoming legislation would include a grandfather clause.

People with high-cap magazines may be required to put in dummy-rounds or magazine plugs to limit the capacity to ten rounds or whatever the limit would be.

[-..__...]

37. They should be wondering...

what the potential backlash, repercussions and response will be if they were to attempt something like that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. Exactly.

The higher ups (Chiefs, mostly...who are often more politician than cop) need to be asking themselves if their rank-and-file will even obey orders to carry out aggressive confiscation.

[farminator3000]

41. Police Want to Confiscate Guns From People Who Want to Shoot Police

because they are trained professionals who know what they are talking about.

unlike you.

if you can't explain to a cop why you need to have a certain gun....not just any cop..a GOOD cop

THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE IT

that's my sentiment

[Poll_Blind]

44. LOL! Confiscate guns? Not. Gonna. Happen.

Period.

There are only two groups who seriously believe the government will confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens:

1. Rabid gun nuts

2. Rabit anti-gun nuts

That this is even being discussed in a mainstream news article is...absurd. To say the least.

PB

[riverbendviewgal]

51. I do not think the Oath Keepers will comply

Read about them in Mother Jones in March /April 2010 issue. They are scary.

[no_hypocrisy]

52. 1. Very few owners will relinquish their assault weapons even with a voluntary buy-back program.

2. Police will need warrants to search the homes of registered owners. Time and expense issues along with the weapons will be moved and/or hidden when the warrants are effected.

3. Same thing with ammo.

[Hoyt]

53. They should worry. Assault weapons owners are not as "law-abiding" as they want us to believe.

[farminator3000]

56. did they last time?

3 guns, 20 bullets.

no gun holds more than 8 bullets. you can have whatever you want. except automatic of course.

anything more, explain why you need get, and get a federal license, or don't bring it out of your house. ever. if you do, and get caught, at least big ass fines