General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun owners sue Florida over 'bump stock' ban [View all]NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)None have been outright bans on ownership with immediate seizure. Some of the laws contained a grandfather clause; some contained only temporary bans; and some placed restrictions on the sale of assault weapons but did not ban their sale. Even the DC case allowed sale outside the district, which is the normal means to get around having to compensate. Some of the previous case law was based on interpreting the 2nd Amendment as not guaranteeing private ownership, but McDonald v. Chicago has closed the door on that.
I understand your opinion, and appreciate the civil discussion. While I do own firearms, I no longer take pleasure in it and haven't touched them in over 3 years. I never owned any considered assault weapons, but still I have also come to consider them a plague on our society, but have rationalized that guns locked away in a safe with me means they aren't out there being sold by the police (which is what they would do if you turned any in).
I do think that a seizure without compensation would do more to rally the hateful right than a just buyback. It would fill them with even more rage, make them even more anti-government, and could cause even more violence. Nor as a liberal do I think the government should take property without just compensation. It goes against a core belief of how government should operate with the people they govern.