Ummm Heard something about class 3 today

LongRange · Feb 1, 2009

So i was speaking to a friend of mine with CSS, and he says that the class 3 weapons would have to be destroyed if they pass the ban they are proposing and the ATF will be required to confiscate them. So im wondering why nobody is trying to dump their class 3 stuff cheaper?

Man id hate to be holding 200k worth of class 3's when that **** passes,lol.

LACamper · Feb 1, 2009

Never happen. Guys that have 200K of full auto weaponry also have tons of money and are friends with lots of politicians. They know ATF will never show up at their homes. ATF will be too busy hitting the guys who inherited Grandpa's tommy gun...

Vigilante Sniper · Feb 1, 2009

My Son is a class 3 dealer and he didn't say anything about it. I don't think it will ever happen, and if it does, we'll just be criminals cause they ain't gettin our guns.

LongRange · Feb 1, 2009

well theres no bill in legislation right now for it, cuz i checked, but the buzz is theres about to be one introduced.

jmcrawf1 · Feb 1, 2009

Im sure it's just buzz....

TDH · Feb 1, 2009

Load mags, load more mags, screw on suppressor, load more mags, load more mags, prepare strategic locations to perch in your home, load more mags, buy body armor, load more mags.

LongRange · Feb 1, 2009

Well i cant imagine the anti's wanting to stop semi sales but leave the full autos alone, what i understand as the Buzz is that they will give the option of doing the British thing and allowing you to leave the class 3 weapons at an approved range but they wont be able to leave the property. 2nd choice is give them up for "assimilation into the melted metal collective".

TDH · Feb 1, 2009

LongRange said:
Well i cant imagine the anti's wanting to stop semi sales but leave the full autos alone, what i understand as the Buzz is that they will give the option of doing the British thing and allowing you to leave the class 3 weapons at an approved range but they wont be able to leave the property. 2nd choice is give them up for "assimilation into the melted metal collective".

They couldn't just melt it without paying you for the rifle. The takings clause of the constitution won't allow them to take it unless their is a legitimate government interest and they give you just compensation. I have a feeling a competent class action law suit arguing what is just compensation for rifles that you rarely see below 15k would bring a good challenge for the government. In addition a legitimate government interest would be hard to prove. The government would argue it falls within the police powers of the government and that it was regulatory and would probably win that part of the battle but the bill would be hefty. With the current supreme court based on the Heller decision I don't think now would be the time for the liberals to fight this battle until some aging people on the Supreme Court are replaced.

The takings clause can be a blessing and a curse and something, unfortunately our brethren across the pond didn't have.

With that being said I personally believe if you have ever worn a uniform and have no criminal record you should be able to have whatever you want.

GrumpyOldMan · Feb 1, 2009

TDH said:
They couldn't just melt it without paying you for the rifle. The takings clause of the constitution won't allow them to take it unless their is a legitimate government interest and they give you just compensation. I have a feeling a competent class action law suit arguing what is just compensation for rifles that you rarely see below 15k would bring a good challenge for the government. In addition a legitimate government interest would be hard to prove. The government would argue it falls within the police powers of the government and that it was regulatory and would probably win that part of the battle but the bill would be hefty. With the current supreme court based on the Heller decision I don't think now would be the time for the liberals to fight this battle until some aging people on the Supreme Court are replaced.

The takings clause can be a blessing and a curse and something, unfortunately our brethren across the pond didn't have.

With that being said I personally believe if you have ever worn a uniform and have no criminal record you should be able to have whatever you want.

California made everyone register their SKS sporters charging them a $200.00 registration fee. Than the state ban them and bough them for $200.00 each.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution about have to have worn a uniform. It does say the right of The People shall not be infringed though.

Richard in LA · Feb 1, 2009

LongRange said:
Man id hate to be holding 200k worth of class 3's when that **** passes,lol.

Wanna know who I'd hate to be even more? The poor underpaid LEO who gets told to go "take" that guys 200K worth of machine guns.

I seriously think that what you "heard" is just B.S., because as previously mentioned, too many extremely wealthy, powerful people have SERIOUS money tied up in CIII collections. Have you ever seen Reed Knights freaking INSANE collection? Google it and be amazed.

Also, not to mention that most Class III stuff is kinda unknown to the politicians. Hell, Just ask Teddy how many times he has been asked "Isn't that ILLEGAL?" by law abiding, GUN OWNERS, nonetheless.

The last ban did not affect CIII stuff anyway whatsoever, so I wouldnt be concerned about it now, in fact, if you are somewhat interested, I'd hurry up and get into the game now, while you still can.

LongRange · Feb 1, 2009

Yea but you are assuming that those people have any control on the vote, and if they did, Obama wouldnt be president now would he? Hey i hope its a bunch of bull, but this guy has always been right on the mark.

Richard in LA · Feb 1, 2009

LongRange said:
Yea but you are assuming that those people have any control on the vote, and if they did, Obama wouldnt be president now would he? Hey i hope its a bunch of bull, but this guy has always been right on the mark.

Well, I guess only time will tell what CIII stuff has in store for it, but almost everyone in the know agrees that CIII stuff is so highly regulated and expensive, that not much will be done about it. I could see them saying "no more SBR's or Suppressors, kinda like the '86 machine gun ban, but not rounding them up and destroying them.
If it does come to that, I stand by my original comment of "not wanting to be a LEO on that day".

TDH · Feb 1, 2009

GrumpyOldMan said:
California made everyone register their SKS sporters charging them a $200.00 registration fee. Than the state ban them and bough them for $200.00 each.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution about have to have worn a uniform. It does say the right of The People shall not be infringed though.

That's because the spinless liberals in California didn't put up a decent fight. I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying their is a valid argument that they would have to give a fair asking price for the rifle if they took it. I'm just saying this would be a case that would land on the desk of the Supreme Court and with the current conservatism of the court I would lean toward the gun owners winning, but then nothing in the law is predictable.

And as far as the uniform goes I never implied it was in the Constitution. I know what's in it and what isn't.

LongRange · Feb 1, 2009

TDH said:
I know what's in it and what isn't.

Bet ya a box of handgun ammo, i can tell ya something thats in it that you didnt know,lol.

Richard in LA · Feb 1, 2009

TDH said:
That's because the spinless liberals in California didn't put up a decent fight. I'm not saying it won't happen I'm just saying their is a valid argument that they would have to give a fair asking price for the rifle if they took it. I'm just saying this would be a case that would land on the desk of the Supreme Court and with the current conservatism of the court I would lean toward the gun owners winning, but then nothing in the law is predictable.

You mean that NIB Colt M16A2 that you just paid almost $20K for?
Fair market value would, IMHO, be priced at what a LE/.Gov agency pays for them from Colt, so basically a civilian would be SOL and get about $6-700

rockmup · Feb 1, 2009

GrumpyOldMan said:
California made everyone register their SKS sporters charging them a $200.00 registration fee. Than the state ban them and bough them for $200.00 each.

I don’t see anything in the Constitution about have to have worn a uniform. It does say the right of The People shall not be infringed though.

Where in the world did you hear that ? lol

They didn't buy jack.

You had a certain amount of time to reg. your stuff and after that it was considered illegal to have in your possession.

TDH · Feb 1, 2009

LongRange said:
Bet ya a box of handgun ammo, i can tell ya something thats in it that you didnt know,lol.

That's a bet I'm not willing to take LOL. I don't know it perfectly but I do like to brag that I got A's in all the Con. Law class in law school. I am far from an expert.

They could very well ban them and take them. The government has the regulatory ability to do so and the courts interpretation of the police power afforded to the federal government allows them to do so.

Richard in LA said:
You mean that NIB Colt M16A2 that you just paid almost $20K for?
Fair market value would, IMHO, be priced at what a LE/.Gov agency pays for them from Colt, so basically a civilian would be SOL and get about $6-700

I honestly don't believe they'll get 20k for one. But I think they would get what one would retail for now. I was just trying to prove the point that it would be expensive for the government to have to buy everything back. From what I've seen even the government contract M16's are over 1000 now.

I guess what I"m trying to say is none of you are wrong. It would just be very expensive and hard to justify when their are practically no class 3 weapons used in crimes and the government would be shoveling out a huge amount of cash in the middle of an economic crisis.

Ammo taxes are more than likely the next thing we'll see. But I've been wrong more times than I can add up on a calculator so who knows.

Richard in LA · Feb 1, 2009

TDH said:
I honestly don't believe they'll get 20k for one. But I think they would get what one would retail for now. I was just trying to prove the point that it would be expensive for the government to have to buy everything back. From what I've seen even the government contract M16's are over 1000 now.

Yeah, it would be expensive for them to "buy back" all the class III stuff, thats why I dont think they would, but rather try to "take" them.

GrumpyOldMan · Feb 1, 2009

TDH said:
And as far as the uniform goes I never implied it was in the Constitution. I know what's in it and what isn't.

And that is my point. Would that be just another “sensible” gun law… if you didn’t or don’t wear a uniform you get infringed upon. Get my point? :dunno:

TDH · Feb 1, 2009

Richard in LA said:
Yeah, it would be expensive for them to "buy back" all the class III stuff, thats why I dont think they would, but rather try to "take" them.

It would really turn into a constitutional law question on the 5th Amendment and eminent domain. The takings clause is the last portion of the 5th amendment and says that private property can not be taking by the government for public use without just compensation. Private property can not be taken for private use at all as in for a 3rd party private organization etc.

Public use has been interpreted not to mean that it is taken for the people and their use, but for public welfare or public interest.

They could argue the public welfare/interest benefits by removing all of the full auto weapons.

I don't see a way around paying without stomping on the constitution but you are always 5 votes away from reinterpretation of the amendment and the clauses within. If 5 of the justices agree with the position take by the Fed the issue is solved.

The bad thing is everything is registered and you'd be up **** creek without a paddle if ATF showed up to get it and you magically couldn't find it.

Ummm Heard something about class 3 today

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

Weatherby...no Substitute

oldbie

Guns are my crack!!

Weatherby...no Substitute

Well-Known Member

FFL/Class 3 NFA Dealer

Weatherby...no Substitute

FFL/Class 3 NFA Dealer

Well-Known Member

Mag Whore

Weatherby...no Substitute

Mag Whore

FFL/Class 3 NFA Dealer

Weatherby...no Substitute

Mag Whore

Please be my friend

FFL/Class 3 NFA Dealer

Mag Whore

Well-Known Member

FFL/Class 3 NFA Dealer

Log in

Forum statistics