Legal what if question

[CK_32]

Some FUD got me thinking on this wet boring day.


If a law is passed on a firearm requiring it to be modified to fit the law. And grandfathering was not an option. Should/would the state/fed be responsible to pay for such a change/modification?

For example 80% lowers. Say it was required by fed or state law to be registered no excuses. Should that come off their dime? Is it even constitutional to force modification such as S/N on 80's?


Because technically your ruining a some what expencive finish and laser and other forms of engraving is not cheap by any means. What's the rebuttal if any to saying no or show me he money in that situation?

I'm sure if it were to happen grandfathering would be allowed. But what if they didn't? Again would that even be constitutional? Would we have a case to say sure after you pay for the S/N services?

Or would we just be stuck between a rock and a hard place?

[-hanko]

Google "ex post facto".

Though in California that's never made a difference.

I'm thinking rock and hard place.

[edgerly779]

You can go blind worrying about what ifs in kommiefornia. I have some 80%ers and I am not going to worry.

[CK_32]

Yea so do I, I also have 0 worries really.

Like I said it was a VERY along boring wet day. Just curious on peoples thoughts and discussion on the what if and how they think it will go.

In reality I think they could suck it with my grandfathered guns, but it is CommiF after all, with Obama and alike in the big chairs... So you never know.

[RickD427]

Google "ex post facto".

Though in California that's never made a difference.

I'm thinking rock and hard place.

Such laws are not "ex post facto." When the legislature makes such laws, they are careful to word them such that only post-passage activities are made illegal.

If they made a law that punished you for purchasing a particular type of firearm a year before the law was effective, that would be "ex post facto."

On the other hand if they passed a law that banned you from currently possessing a type of firearm that you possessed prior to the ban, that is not "ex post facto."

There may be a constructive "Taking" of your firearm since you can no longer enjoy its use. The Fifth Amendment requires compensation when your property is taken "for public use." For a long time, there was a common belief that a constructive taking required compensation under the Fifth Amendment, however some recent court cases have softened that view where the property was not taken "for public use."

[Quiet]

Back in the 1990s...

CA AWB of 1989 banned SKS with detachable magazines.

Several years later, an importer asked CA DOJ if that ban included the "SKS Sporter" (Norinco SKS-D/SKS-M), which was a SKS that used AK magazines.

CA DOJ said the ban did not effect it and for a few years, they were sold in CA.

After a few years, CA DOJ said they made a mistake and that the "SKS Sporter" was banned under the CA AWB of 1989.

Initially it was determined by CA DOJ that all current owners were now felons for possessing assault weapons (SKS with detachable magazines). Voters and pro-gun groups then pressured the CA legislature for relief, and the CA legislature passed laws that gave owners of the "SKS Sporter" a grace period in which they were granted immunity from prosecution and given the opportunity to surrender the assault weapon for compensation or sell it out-of-state or store it out-of-state.

The monetary compensation for surrendering the "SKS Sporter" was around $250, even though it sold in the $400-600 price range.

[tonyxcom]

I think the problem with grandfathering a non serialized firearm is just that, how can they enforce an unenforceable law.

So I don't see how it would be possible to grandfather them if you cant register them prior to such a ban taking effect.

[CK_32]

I think the problem with grandfathering a non serialized firearm is just that, how can they enforce an unenforceable law.

So I don't see how it would be possible to grandfather them if you cant register them prior to such a ban taking effect.

That's why I was asking, like pre ban mags I could see them making it by. But again this is CA and they do just about what ever they please. The more ludicrous it sounds, in CA the more plausible it seems to be.

[tonyxcom]

Yeah, the disposition of a firearm is a lot more troubling that the disposition of a magazine.