Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Father Kit Cool Gun Garth

How does this affect gun owners?

Recommended Posts

My wife raised a question, I did not have a definitive answer to, so I told her that I would put it on the SASS Forums.

Florida is trying to push through a bill that would ban assault style rifles.

Notwithstanding their definition of what an assault style rifle is, the question my wife has was pretty generic in principle.

If a homeowner has purchased and is legally in possession of any firearm that get banned by their state, what rights does the owner have left?

For example:

 

  1. Will the firearm be confiscated?
  2. Will the owner be able to take the firearm to a range and shoot it?
  3. Will the owner be allowed to sell said firearm?

 

If I missed anything, please elaborate.

Thanking you in advance.

 

Share this post


Link to post

In NY when the instituted the SAFE act it included a ban on “assault” rifles.  If you had one at the time you could register it with the state and continue to use it.  But you can only sell it out of state and if you die the state will take it without compensation.  Your estate cannot own the rifle or sell it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

Florida ballot measure on assault weapons ban proposed

A political committee has formed to propose the constitutional amendment. Hundreds of thousands of valid petition signatures are needed to get the measure on the 2020 ballot.

 

Military and law enforcement employees using semiautomatic weapons in their official capacity would be exempt. People who lawfully own assault weapons currently would get an exemption on the ban for a year but would have to register the gun with the state. Violating the ban would be a third-degree felony, though the Florida Legislature may designate a greater criminal penalty, according to the proposal. 

The proposal also codifies a mandatory three-day waiting period, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery of any handgun.

To get on the 2020 ballot, the proposed amendment would need valid petition signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the last presidential election. The 2018 threshold was at least 766,200 signatures, and that number is expected to go up for the 2020 election.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

@Charlie T Waite,

        How does this relate to Q's 1 & 2 above. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

At the present time this is all the information available - but from the way the proposal reads it appears that ownership is grandfathered in so no to question 1 and for the same reason yes you could take it to the range.  Understand that this is only a proposal at this point. they need to get the required signatures to get it on the ballot and then the required votes to get it passed.  I don't have anyomre information than that.

 

Charlie

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post

California has banned assault weapons, and so far they have not confiscated all of them. Yes, I could take mine to the range, as it is registered. But we can not use any magazines larger than 10 rounds in it. Well, maybe we could, as that is being debated in court, but best not just to be safe. Originally the larger capacity mags were grandfathered in, but then they changed their minds and banned them all, with no compensation if you turned them in. Police don't always keep up with all the laws. And no, I cannot sell it in California, nor will it to my family if they live in California.  Other state laws may differ.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless you own an assault rifle, a select fire M4 for example, I would not worry about it.

 

An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon.

 

No such thing as a "high capacity" magazine either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2019 at 12:21 PM, Dantankerous said:

Unless you own an assault rifle, a select fire M4 for example, I would not worry about it.

 

An AR15 is NOT an assault weapon.

 

No such thing as a "high capacity" magazine either.

 

 

In states like CA where they restrict civilian purchases & or possession of AR-15 rifles & pistols.  The statutes don't define "assault rifles".   The define assault weapons by features & may ban some firearms by mfg & model no.  The definition includes pistols like the semi-auto version of the Miami Vice MAC 10.  A barrel shroud makes them an assault weapon.  Those supporting AWB's will drop references to "assault rifle" by someone who knows that an assault rifle is clearly defined by the world's militaries.  The German WWII weapon the StG 44 "Sturmgewhr" was the 1st "Sturmgewhr" English transition "assault rifle".  Rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge (more powerful than a pistol caliber & less than main battle rifle cartridge) with select fire; semi-auto & burst &/or full auto.  By the internationally recognized definition an M14, BAR, AR10 is not an assault rifle; because, they are chambered in full size (power) calibers.  Also, an M4/M16 lower with a pistol caliber upper isn't an assault rifle, it's a machine pistol.  I would disagree that there is no such thing as "high capacity magazines".  AR 15 magazines over 30 rounds are high capacity; because, 60 round stick & drum magazines are available for purchase however, they aren't standard with firearms mfg's.  I don't recommend the Magpul 60 round drum because; it is a PITA to load.  I wish I hadn't spent $100 on one.  I can load 10 30 round milspec mags using stripper clips in less time it takes to load one 60 round drum magazine.  I also haven't heard good things about the 60 round stick mags.  I would think the reason to not load 30 round mags to capacity to avoid 1st round misfeeds doubly applies to 60 round mags.  The clock spring in the drum mags avoid the issue; because the force the spring force doesn't vary much for 1st to last round. 

Share this post


Link to post

Lots of good info there.

 

I'm going to disagree with you however on the high capacity magazine thing.

 

Exactly what numerical quantity defines high versus low? How can one possibly ascribe a random number of quantity to determine whether something is high or low or dangerous or not dangerous? (Besides cholesterol or high BP ;))  I reject the notion of an arbitrary number as defined by an anti-gun liberal politician determining whether or not a capacity of a magazine is high or low or dangerous or not. That's just ridiculous. I realize that certain state's law might contradict me and that common sense but there's not a whole lot of common sense in the anti-gun liberal-hyper-emotional-lack of thought process. 

 

If something is mass produced for decade upon decade,  exists in the hundreds of thousands if not millions and is held in common possession and common usage, (20, 30 rd mags) at very least that should be considered a standard of something, not extra or in this case determined to be "high". Especially for the purposes of a political agenda that has everything to do with an emotional knee jerk reaction and nothing to do with reality. 

 

:D

 

I will concede that 30 of something is less than 60 of something and that 60 is a higher numerical value than 30 but that's for the sake of a math discussion and nothing pertaining to weapon's magazine capacity perversely determining inherent danger of an inanimate object.

Edited by Dantankerous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The common 10 round limit is an arbitrary number.  The NY Safe Act was passed wo/debate.  It was rushed through; because, they had to do something following Sandy Hook.  10 round limit was too high because several mass shootings had been committed with 10 round magazines.  So, the pols in NY picked 7, I suspect they picked the 1911 as the standard.  the problem is there are no 7 round mags for Glocks, Sigs, S&Ws, etc.  Also, the law didn't allow modified higher capacity mags to be acceptable.  When the governor was told that this rendered thousands of firearms owned by NY residents useless he said loading with no more than 7 rounds is OK.  He new that if NY enforced the law that it would be bounced by the Federal district court; because, it would be an effective ban on arms in common use. 

Re. the gun grabbers in Sacramento know their incremental tweeks haven't been effective in preventing mass shootings; because, the features that matter are detachable magazine & semi-auto operating system.  They know that banning these features would make it more difficult for the judges in the 9th Circus to uphold & if they did SCOTUS would grant cert. or instruct the 9th to use "strict scrutiny" when weighting the law against the Heller v. DC "common use" std.  I hope that some time in the future when there is a solid 6-3 constitutional majority that SCOTUS will get ride of the vague "common use" std. by adopting the 1939 Miller test.  Is it a weapon used by a soldier?  In 1939 those were bolt action & semi-auto rifles.  In 2019 all the world miltaries equip their soldiers with Sturmgewhr's "assault rifles".  This would gut the 1934 NFA & render state laws restricting possession of assault rifles moot.  It would also render state laws banning night vision & thermal sights.  It would also make moot the NFA that covers SBR's.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.