If the US or my state create a law that restricts my ability to own a particular gun and I own that gun what are my options? Can I refuse to forfeit the particular gun based on the greater authority of the 2nd amendment? What will USCCA coverage do for me in the case of arrest or confiscation?
They are burning the constitution as we speak! Aim for the head! Metaphorically speaking!
If such a law is made, your options are totally up to you to decide. Weigh them carefully with thought of the future.
USCCA is there for your financial aid should you need it after a self defense event. There are other organizations that you should support that fight the last topic.
NRA. Your states NRA Affiliate. Your state also most likely has another political chapter. Gun Owners of America. Second Amendment Foundation, etc etc.
I am in Arkansas but that doesn’t keep me from supporting the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Get the picture?
In the new world there is NO one that has our backs anymore! If they can break all the laws, why should the law apply to me? This is the new game in town, it’s called Nazism!
They didn’t have the backs of LEO when burning down cities, who’s really going to have the little guys back? Bad guy wins good guy loses, always!
There’s one simple way to answer your question…what are you prepared to live with? If you choose to ignore the laws because you deem them unconstitutional, you could face any number of headaches in your personal and professional life and it will certainly come at a cost. Are you prepared to endure this?
Keep in mind, I live in California and we’ve had cases in court that have been fought for years like our roster of approved handguns, magazine capacity, AR limitations, ammo background checks, and more. THEY HAVE TAKEN YEARS SO FAR AND WHO KNOWS WHEN THEY’LL EVER BE RESOLVED. That’s my point, it won’t be short and easy. You need to be aware that whatever you choose to do, could last a long while.
I wish you the best.
I guess I am implying by my post that I am willing to tolerate what it takes to live out what I believe is the ultimate law of the land. My question was specifically about what USCCA legal council is responsible for helping with.
Example: If >10 magazines for weapons are outlawed with a US gun control law and I defend my home with one would USCCA provide legal council to defend me?
@MikeBKY may be able to answer but, I would think not as you have broken a law by the use of that mag.
So basically you’re asking whether USCCA wants to take on fighting unconstitutional laws if you force them into it by ignoring those laws and getting caught?
Probably not the way they or anyone would like to start.
Todd, I get the feeling that you are inquiring so as to determine if USCCA membership is right for you, as your profile doesn’t show you as a member. Am I correct?
Welcome to the community @Todd81. My understanding of the protection provided by USCCA and Delta Defense is that it would not cover possession of prohibited items. You need to refer to the Membership Agreement and the Self Defense Liability Policy to get specific terms of the agreements. Links are included below. But in general terms, USCCA provides protection for an “occurrence” which is defined as:
“Occurrence” means the use of a “legally possessed” firearm or other “legally possessed” weapon in an “act
of self-defense” by the insured.
By that definition, if the weapon were outlawed, it would not be a legally possessed weapon. Although this would apply only if were outlawed at the federal , not state level.
“Legally possessed” means the insured’s possession of the firearm or other weapon is in compliance with 18
U.S.C. § 922, or other applicable federal law.
Likewise, Protection is not provided for the possession of a weapon, it is provided for the use of a weapon in an “act of self defense.” Presuming a government entity were confiscating weapons, it would be difficult to claim that it would be considered an act of self defense.
“Act of self-defense” means the act of defending one’s person or others by the actual or threatened use of a
firearm, or other weapon, that is “legally possessed”, against an unlawful, unprovoked, and imminent threat
of death or serious bodily harm by an aggressor, but only if: (a) any force used is both reasonable under the
circumstances and proportionate to the threat; and (b) the act is permitted by applicable law.
I’m getting the distinct impression, if Harris/Biden tear up the constitution, there is no recourse and we’re toast?
Should we fight for our constitutional rights?
If Biden actually does use his executive power to enact the gun control laws outlined and hinted at, then most firearm owners will likely have illegal guns and/or parts.
This is on his election website: "“Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.”
Of course it leaves off the TAX which can be applied to registered weapons and parts. Likely to be $200 for each one. It might even include your pistol mags since ‘high-cap’ is not defined in his statement. Many people will simply not be able to afford to keep their currently legal firearms.
I suggest as one of the first courses of action should be a massive march/protest into DC by firearm owners and those who support it. I have never been to a protest, but this I would attend.
Here’s the fun part, we’ll be the bad guys & we’ll still lose
Welcome to the community, @Todd81
How/why is it that Ex Post Facto laws do not prohibit this?
Both federal and state governments are prohibited from enacting ex post facto laws,1931 and the Court applies the same analysis whether the law in question is a federal or a state enactment. When these prohibitions were adopted as part of the original Constitution, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to “embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether . . . of a civil or a criminal nature.”1932 But in the early case of Calder v. Bull ,1933 the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, was a term of art that applied only to penal and criminal statutes. But, although it is inapplicable to retroactive legislation of any other kind,1934 the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal.1935 Every law that makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution.1936 A prosecution under a temporary statute that was extended before the date originally set for its expiration does not offend this provision even though it is instituted subsequent to the extension of the statute’s duration for a violation committed prior thereto.1937 Because this provision does not apply to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country, it is immaterial in extradition proceedings whether the foreign law is ex post facto or not.1938
Because it is not an ex post facto law. Cocaine used to be used in the manufacture of Coca Cola. Possession of cocaine was at some point in history prohibited by law. It did not make past possession of cocaine illegal, only possession following the enactment of the law. It did not criminalize or punish any activity prior to enactment of the law which is what the prohibition of ex post facto laws prevents.
There are those who want to pass laws prohibiting all kinds of firearms and accessories for firearms. If those laws are passed, it will not make the prior possession a crime but make your continued possession a crime.
That said, it bothers me as much as anyone else. As far as 2A goes, I would probably be considered libertarian. If someone wants fully automatic weapons, have at it. Tanks and bombers, good for you if you can afford it. Live and let live.
You can find more on this issue in the following thread Bill of Attainder
It is my opinion that Biden will enact, much the same as what Trump did with Bump-Stocks , as strict as possible new gun control measures. After that the question will be one of will American firearm owners comply or not. If one refuses to comply the Biden administration will hold mostly all the cards. How many Americans will be willing to face fines, jail time, financial ruin, to stand on principal. How will those charged with enforcement react? Will they agree that their enforcement would be against their oath of office? This is where the action of civil disobedience, so often used by the left, must become a tool for firearm owners. I believe it will take huge numbers who simply refuse to comply that actions against us becomes so repugnant to the nation that his orders are withdrawn. Violence and destruction will NOT be the answer. We have never been the problem and we most continue to show we are not the problem. I will not comply and I will be willing to face the consequences of my action. Buckle up for 2021…
Your gun tragically fell overboard and was lost at sea.
Just a thought. Not all executive orders are ruled constitutional. The Supreme Court has had to rule on several of the current administrations Executive orders. So it is more than possible that because of the court Ruling in District of Columbia Vs Heller and McDonald VS City of Chicago any order dealing with Magazines and possession of a type of Weapon would be kicked over to the Supreme court before being enacted? At least that is how I hope it would work out.
It will go to the Supreme Court but only AFTER being enacted. My bigger fear is new ATFE regulations that seem to change with the wind.