testtest

AR15s and High Capacity Mags

DeploraBill

Operator
I was just wondering for those people that own AR15s with High Capacity magazines, what are they planning on doing when Biden's goons come to your door to charge you the $200 tax on each gun and mag? I personally do not own any of those. I thought about buying an AR15 but now that I know Biden wants to charge a tax for it, I am holding off on it. If we ever get a Republican in office again, doubtful, I may consider buying one.
 
"Normal" capacity magazines are those that can hold 30 rds or less in Modern Sporting Rifles, as well as their pistol equivalents, based on how they were orginally designed.

The term "high-capacity" was ginned up like other terms like "assault weapon", "Saturday Night Special", etc., to scare the general public, and unfortunately been adopted fro general use by the general public.

If you have concerns I suggest you get a "California-spec" firearm.
 
Last edited:
I was just wondering for those people that own AR15s with High Capacity magazines, what are they planning on doing when Biden's goons come to your door to charge you the $200 tax on each gun and mag? I personally do not own any of those. I thought about buying an AR15 but now that I know Biden wants to charge a tax for it, I am holding off on it. If we ever get a Republican in office again, doubtful, I may consider buying one.
Man, none of those items are going to become law. They probably won't make it onto the House floor, let alone into the Senate. Don't go getting worked up. Also, since this is your first and only post and it uses a good bit of hyperbolic language, I have the suspicion you're here to whip something up. Please take that elsewhere.
 
I was just wondering for those people that own AR15s with High Capacity magazines, what are they planning on doing when Biden's goons come to your door to charge you the $200 tax on each gun and mag? I personally do not own any of those. I thought about buying an AR15 but now that I know Biden wants to charge a tax for it, I am holding off on it. If we ever get a Republican in office again, doubtful, I may consider buying one.
I’m not going to do anything, because it's not going to happen.

Then again, I have a pretty solid grasp on reality, and don’t buy everything that I read on the internet.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was a gun forum for people to ask questions and such. But you're right. This WILL be my only post since I can see that freedom of speech doesn't apply here either. You really believe that Biden won't just sign an executive order making it law? Let's see, how many EOs has he done so far? Excuse the F out of me if I offended you. Okay, on the possibility of Biden signing it into law, what will people do? Pay up? Sell their guns? Honest questions!
 
I thought this was a gun forum for people to ask questions and such. But you're right. This WILL be my only post since I can see that freedom of speech doesn't apply here either. You really believe that Biden won't just sign an executive order making it law? Let's see, how many EOs has he done so far? Excuse the F out of me if I offended you. Okay, on the possibility of Biden signing it into law, what will people do? Pay up? Sell their guns? Honest questions!
I’ll bite for the sake of it:

do you own a pistol currently ?

if so, what are YOU going to do in your stated question when it pertains to YOUR pistol ?
You tell me what you think you will do
 
Okay, I was wrong. Biden is not going to be taxing gun owners. I do not remember where I heard it, but I thought I heard it said he was going to charge a tax on "assault weapons and more than 10 round mags". Since 3 people here are pooh-poohing the idea saying I am totally out in left field, I looked it up. On the internet. They are right. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/01/does-joe-bidens-plan-tax-semi-automatic-firearms/
I stand corrected. And I apologize for bringing it up.
 
You really believe that Biden won't just sign an executive order making it law?

Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch, and have the effect of law. They are issued in relation to an "existing law" passed by Congress, or based on powers granted to the President in the Constitution and must be consistent with those authorities.

Wih the sunset of the 1994 AWB there is no existing law that the POTUS can apply an "executive order" to enact infringements on the ownership and production of firearms and associated components. However, an executive order can be applied to the existing NFA to control items that alter conventional MSRs into the NFA category.

Therefore, a new law would ned to be passed by Congress, but it would likly infringe on the 2A as well as state's with RTBA Constitutions. That would bring into effect the 10th Amendment, as well as go straight to the SOCTUS, especially when a new law under the the current Congress is already recognized as purely political.

All this is why states have individually enacted firearms ownership laws vs. at the Federal level.
 
Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch, and have the effect of law. They are issued in relation to an "existing law" passed by Congress, or based on powers granted to the President in the Constitution and must be consistent with those authorities.

Wih the sunset of the 1994 AWB there is no existing law that the POTUS can apply an "executive order" to enact infringements on the ownership and production of firearms and associated components. However, an executive order can be applied to the existing NFA to control items that alter conventional MSRs into the NFA category.

Therefore, a new law would ned to be passed by Congress, but it would likly infringe on the 2A as well as state's with RTBA Constitutions. That would bring into effect the 10th Amendment, as well as go straight to the SOCTUS, especially when a new law under the the current Congress is already recognized as purely political.

All this is why states have individually enacted firearms ownership laws vs. at the Federal level.
good to know. thanks.
 
Okay, I was wrong. Biden is not going to be taxing gun owners. I do not remember where I heard it, but I thought I heard it said he was going to charge a tax on "assault weapons and more than 10 round mags". Since 3 people here are pooh-poohing the idea saying I am totally out in left field, I looked it up. On the internet. They are right. https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/01/does-joe-bidens-plan-tax-semi-automatic-firearms/
I stand corrected. And I apologize for bringing it up.

Beyond the existing "excise tax" on sporting goods, due to the Commerce Clause; the Constitution gives the fedral government no authority to tax or license an unalienable right in the Bill of Rights (First 10 Amendments).

Also, Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution prohibits the making of ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is a law that makes illegal an act that was legal when committed, increases the penalties for an infraction after it has been committed, or changes the rules of evidence to make conviction easier.

Since existing proposed gun control laws will have no effect on existing criminal activity and the use of firearms for suicide (both which makes up ~88% of firearms mis-use) these proposals are a direct infringement on law-abiding 2A rights under the Constitution,
 
Last edited:
I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt that an Executive Order can suspend a Constitutional right.

No it can't in practice. But various govts have implied that emergency actions (natural disasters, etc.) may require constitutional rights to be suspended. But that hasn't been challenged in the courts.

In that circumstance, at least one state has a right-to-bear-arms requirement in order..."to aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question"
 
I was just wondering for those people that own AR15s with High Capacity magazines, what are they planning on doing when Biden's goons come to your door to charge you the $200 tax on each gun and mag? I personally do not own any of those. I thought about buying an AR15 but now that I know Biden wants to charge a tax for it, I am holding off on it. If we ever get a Republican in office again, doubtful, I may consider buying one.
You're coming off kinda strong for a first time poster maybe you should read some of the current threads & posts here and get a feel for the climate before jumping in with such a controversial topic. I'm sure if you get to know a few guys and gals here you'll see most of the members are pretty respectful and are open to discussion.

Statements like this typically put people on defense as they don't know if the person is trolling so you probably won't get the responses to your questions you are asking.

Anyway welcome to the forum!
 
I thought this was a gun forum for people to ask questions and such. But you're right. This WILL be my only post since I can see that freedom of speech doesn't apply here either. You really believe that Biden won't just sign an executive order making it law? Let's see, how many EOs has he done so far? Excuse the F out of me if I offended you. Okay, on the possibility of Biden signing it into law, what will people do? Pay up? Sell their guns? Honest questions!
Following up on what Talyn said, the President cannot sign anything into law. Only Congress can make laws, the Executive Branch merely executes the law, in other words, makes sure the laws are followed. Biden can sign whatever he wants, but something like this will be challenged in court and will likely be struck down.
 
1st post or not I feel the poster asked a valid question and some members kinda jumped down his throat.
I don’t believe it will become law as it has been discussed multiple times on the forum. Even if it does it will most likely be up to individual states to act on and many states are stepping up and saying don’t bring that nonsense this way.
I have also said many times that with the amount of those guns in the hands of law abiding citizens it will be a logistical nightmare to enact.
All that being said, the times they are a changing.
 
Following up on what Talyn said, the President cannot sign anything into law. Only Congress can make laws, the Executive Branch merely executes the law, in other words, makes sure the laws are followed. Biden can sign whatever he wants, but something like this will be challenged in court and will likely be struck down.
The president is the only one who can sign a bill into law. The alternatives are a veto or pocket veto. He can direct federal agencies on how to enforce the law as written but you are correct that he cannot make law on his own. He cannot decide certain magazines or rifles are illegal. You are correct that only Congress can write a bill like that, which the President could sign into law and enforce or veto it.
 
Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch, and have the effect of law. They are issued in relation to an "existing law" passed by Congress, or based on powers granted to the President in the Constitution and must be consistent with those authorities.

Wih the sunset of the 1994 AWB there is no existing law that the POTUS can apply an "executive order" to enact infringements on the ownership and production of firearms and associated components. However, an executive order can be applied to the existing NFA to control items that alter conventional MSRs into the NFA category.

Therefore, a new law would ned to be passed by Congress, but it would likly infringe on the 2A as well as state's with RTBA Constitutions. That would bring into effect the 10th Amendment, as well as go straight to the SOCTUS, especially when a new law under the the current Congress is already recognized as purely political.

All this is why states have individually enacted firearms ownership laws vs. at the Federal level.
I'd be curious to see how the conflict between the state and federal constitutions and laws would go. We could very likely find that the federal law, if found constitutional, would trump any state constitution based on one of the types of preemption.
 
The president is the only one who can sign a bill into law. The alternatives are a veto or pocket veto. He can direct federal agencies on how to enforce the law as written but you are correct that he cannot make law on his own. He cannot decide certain magazines or rifles are illegal. You are correct that only Congress can write a bill like that, which the President could sign into law and enforce or veto it.
You are correct, I should have said the President cannot make law. He can only sign into law that which Congress has passed. But, that was my meaning...
 
SCOTUS just upheld that the leftist states, cities, etc. can declare themselves as "Sanctuarys" for illegal immigration and that the Fed cannot withhold federal funding in order for them to cooperate/enforce federal laws against illegal entry into the USA.

While this "sanctuary process" violates the federal reponsiblity under Article 4, Section 4 and Article I, Section 8, it sets precedence that the states, municiplaities can also establish themselves as "Sanctuarys" for other over-reaching federal edicts that violates states rights as per the 10th Amendment.

Since the 10th Amendment..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", clearly gives the states the authority to reinforce the Federal Second Amendment; while tiering state constitutions to it, and in some aspects expand upon it.

Since the USA is "not" a democracy" but a "constitutional federal republic" that follws democratic principals, where the states have the powers not delegated to the Federal Government. Therefore, the states have the right to manage their more local right-to-keep & bear arms rights more so than the Feds do under the Comerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution), which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,... That's why past Federal laws (AWB) could not absolutley ban firearms since it would violate the Constitution.

So, simply the States, muncipalities have every right to declare themselves as "Sanctuarys" for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms under both their state constitutions, and in reference to the Second Amendment.

Proposed ligislation is clearly un-Constitutional under several Amendments. But the powers proposing this either don't believe in the Constitution, are inept and ignorant of it, or complicent in tearing this country down, or all of the above.
 
Back
Top