Would a new assault weapons ban affect rifles I already own?

Just wondering. If congress passes a new ban on AR type rifles will it affect rifles I already own? Would this be an ex post facto law?


From everything that I’ve been hearing from ALL of the Democrats is they that to take all assault weapons. That means that they want to take ALL AR’s and AK’s and the likes. So it means that YES it would affect your already owned AR type rifles. Even though it was found out that the ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN from last ban DID NOTHING TO STOP MASS SHOOTINGS. During the 10 years that it was in effect. Yet the ANTI-GUN PEOPLE/GROUPS keep thinking that it will. And that is why they keep pushing a new one thinking that this time it will work. WRONG


I’ve listened to the gang of Democrats who are spouting off anything they think will get them a vote. However, my question is much narrower in scope. If a new ban on AR type rifles is passed would it be legal to outlaw currently owned AR type rifles or would that be an ex post facto law which violates the Constitution? Any lawyer out there with a reading on this?


It will depend entirely on how the law is written. If passed and signed I’m sure that many factions will file suit against all or parts of it. Then the courts will get their say, etc, etc, etc. Some years later us lowly citizens will finally find out what it means to us.

Both the oligarch and the tyrant mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of their arms.----Aristotle


would this ban include the AR pistol?

1 Like

The mantra of the current group of blue presidential candidates is that they will not be satisfied until all guns are confiscated. It may start out like, you can keep your current health insurance but the long term goal is global disarmament. Only the government will have guns.


Of all the nonsense they are spouting, this is the most dangerous and more than sufficient reason by itself to vote against the eventual candidate.

Remember, there may not be anyone you want to vote for, but there’s always someone you want to vote against.


Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotism. .Aristotle


Not a lawyer, but…

Enactment of ex post factor law is currently being done, and has been done in the past. My hubby and I have had this conversation over and over in the last 20 years. He says, they can’t do that. I say, they are doing it. He says, it’s not constitutional. I say, tell that to the people are who are in jail for doing it.

The difficulty is that constitutionality is evaluated after the law is put in place. It is done by legal challenge after enforcement is enabled. By then some people have already suffered the penalties. Usually there is no redress for them in terms of compensation for lawyers fees, lost property, personal losses, or Their time.

Personally, I think it would make a lot of sense to require constitutionality of a law before it can be acted on. Even if that means testing of its constitutionality In court before it can be used.

I’m sure I’m going to be told that’s not practical.

Sometimes a legal challenge can be made and enforcement is stayed until after the challenge is evaluated. Sometimes a work around is put in place like amnesty periods or buybacks, and that is used to circumvent the legal question of constitutionalities.

@MikeBKY is right, constitutionality will balance on how the law is written.

Whenever a law serves to limit the options or rights of those who are uninvolved with the problem it’s trying to solve, I think it’s very clear what the real agenda is. It’s about control, and getting votes, and not about solving any real problem.


Yes, they can simply by regulation make all prior owned "assault weapons " covered under the NFA requiring a class III license essentially making you a felon on the spot.

All of the proposals I’m seeing though are that they are going to outlaw them outright give us a grace period to turn them in through some sort of by back program.

The dem’s seem to feel today they can do anything and it’s legal right up to the point the Supreme Court rules otherwise. They are essentially trying to make the constitution irrelevant one case at a time through the courts.

1 Like

I disagree. If we listen to what they are saying and balance it against the last democratic administration all bets are off.

Constitution be damned, pass it and fight it through the courts counting on the slow pace of the courts to get what they want.

Even if in 3, 4, 5 years the SCOTUS rules against it what will that accomplish? The guns would have already been taken off of the streets for the most part and the manufacturers bankrupted and long gone.



1 Like

The new mantra from the dem’s starting circa 2010 is that everything is constitutional until the SCOTUS rules otherwise even if they’ve already ruled in similar cases it’s unconstitutional.

Look how they’ve tied up much of Trump’s agenda taking the opposite tactic of judge shopping in friendly courts to get favorable judgments and nationwide stays against Administration implementation of EO’s and statutes.

I don’t think people realize just what a perilous time we live in or that we’ve essentially replaced The Constitution with the Judiciary.


Until she passed my mother spent the better part of my life telling me that I think too much. I understand, I fear, and I wonder just how many law abiding citizens will say

1 Like

Sorry don’t know what happened. Anyway, wonder how many will say " Come Take Them ". And what will happen if that is a very large number.


even though they say rifle and the AR pistol considered, sold, and by law a pistol. How would they categorize that as been an assault rifle to ban but not when its sold and by law.


Because of the specific criteria they set with AWB’s. It’s not just about rifles, it’s “assault weapons” which is anything the designate as one.

The last bill offered up by CA’s Diane Feinstien would have put over 900 currently available models on the “illegal list”, and that was about ten years go. You can probably double that number because of the expansion in the industry since.


With so many companies making so much money I wonder when they will get in on the fight.


Protection against ex post facto laws prohibits the government from prosecuting a person for conduct that was legal when the it was done but has since been made illegal. It basically means you cannot pass a retroactive criminal law. Cocaine used to be legal but possession has since been made illegal and people are regularly prosecuted for possession of cocaine today. So, relating that to firearm bans, the state can pass a law prohibiting possession an item that was legal yesterday but, after enactment of the law, is no longer legal. That is not an ex post facto law. This happens all the time. The big question is what happens with the stuff that is then banned. The public has a duty to dispossess themselves of the banned item.
Then we need to ask if the Fifth Amendment requiring compensation for is required. Technically, it seems it would IF the property was being taken for public use. If not for public use, there is no right to receive compensation, for instance, if they planned on destroying everything collected.


You’re right constitutionally and legally for certain Mike but that is just fundamentally wrong on every level and I think if they tried to enact it there would be grave consequences.

I’m also fairly sure that the current court would overturn it should it make it that far.


I hope you are right and believe they would overturn a law. I just wanted to correct peoples notions that a law that makes an activity illegal today that was illegal yesterday is not an ex post facto law and it happens all the time. An ex post fact law is one passed today that makes an activity you did yesterday illegal yesterday.