Assault weapons ban of 2018.

[BugI02]

Lex, I should know this it seems, but I actually don't. In states that limited magazine capacity, I believe no compensation was offered for non-compliant mags. I am not aware of any successful legal challenges to the rules based on this point, however (although I don't believe they tried to restrict the sale of said non-compliant mags already possessed to individuals residing in freer states)

So, would the Florida law's lack of a compensation offer and restriction on transfer or sale give a reasonable legal issue for challenge, or have those sorts of legal issues already played out elsewhere

 

[T.Lex]

Lex, I should know this it seems, but I actually don't. In states that limited magazine capacity, I believe no compensation was offered for non-compliant mags. I am not aware of any successful legal challenges to the rules based on this point, however (although I don't believe they tried to restrict the sale of said non-compliant mags already possessed to individuals residing in freer states)

So, would the Florida law's lack of a compensation offer and restriction on transfer or sale give a reasonable legal issue for challenge, or have those sorts of legal issues already played out elsewhere

Yeah, I've wondered about that myself, but haven't taken the time to research it.

Generally, I'd say that there are 2 strategies to avoid a "takings" issue: grandfathering (with or without some kind of registration) or payment. I knew a guy in Cali who was caught up in the thing where they first said certain long guns were exempt from registration, but then changed an interpretation and said they were not exempt. As I recall, no compensation or grandfathering was offered there.

Under the AWB, as I recall, you had to be able to vouch for mags being "pre-ban." If you couldn't document it, you were at risk of running afoul of the law.

ETA:
Especially in a post-Heller America, I do think there would be a legitimate angle for litigation on the matter. No way to predict how it would play out, but it wouldn't be frivolous.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

With the one item making it an "assault weapon", and threaded barrels being one of those things. What would this do to the suppressor market?

 

[T.Lex]

Not linking (because the whole thing sucks) but it looks like the Florida House passed the provisions, including a straight up ban on bumpstocks.

Now its going to come down to Gov. Rick Scott's signature. He's a Republican.

 

[IndyTom]

On the other hand, I just saw this morning that FL passed legislation to allow teachers to be armed.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

On the other hand, I just saw this morning that FL passed legislation to allow teachers to be armed.

Same bill. Both sides are trying to "poison pill" it against the other.

3 day waiting period is supposedly the poison pill against (R), armed teachers pill against (D).

 

[Expat]

I think it was Col. Alan West I heard on the Kilmeade radio show this morning that said he would sign this Florida bill if he got an exemption on the under 21 law for military and police personnel.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Not linking (because the whole thing sucks) but it looks like the Florida House passed the provisions, including a straight up ban on bumpstocks.

Now its going to come down to Gov. Rick Scott's signature. He's a Republican.

LOTS of republicans want to be seen to be on "the right side of history". There's a perception out there that there is a groundswell of support for this sort of stuff.

In true FB fashion, when I go to look for a story I'd seen on my feed, I can never find it again but a few days ago I'd read an article about a gun show in IL (I think it was) that had banned the sale of ARs. The comments the article quoted from gun owners was jaw dropping. It's no ****ed wonder our GOP politicians are caving in when gun owners all around us are succumbing to the "just do something" movement.

 

[BugI02]

Why is it they can never just do what they think is right without consulting their pollsters first. The career politician's desire to keep a place at the trough above all else [STRIKE]will be[/STRIKE] is our downfall

 

[actaeon277]

LOTS of republicans want to be seen to be on "the right side of history". There's a perception out there that there is a groundswell of support for this sort of stuff.

In true FB fashion, when I go to look for a story I'd seen on my feed, I can never find it again but a few days ago I'd read an article about a gun show in IL (I think it was) that had banned the sale of ARs. The comments the article quoted from gun owners was jaw dropping. It's no ****ed wonder our GOP politicians are caving in when gun owners all around us are succumbing to the "just do something" movement.

But, is it a case of them interviewing 100 people, then just presenting the ones that are "okay" with it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But, is it a case of them interviewing 100 people, then just presenting the ones that are "okay" with it.

Could be. Definitely. But I've seen a number of purported gun owners elsewhere, not being quoted by media, saying much the same thing. I do believe it's different this time. I don't know if it will stick or if some overton window has been moved. Time will tell about that.

 

[Expat]

And that is why it is important to communicate with your elected officials. They are being told that most gun owners are now for taking away their gun rights to one extent or another. Social media is full of "gun owners" (who knows if they are) cutting up their ARs or turning them in. Based upon the general reaction here on the INGO, I don't detect that groundswell.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

I think it was Col. Alan West I heard on the Kilmeade radio show this morning that said he would sign this Florida bill if he got an exemption on the under 21 law for military and police personnel.

If true, **** him too! Trump, Graham, and Rubio are all on board with this crap and it is COMPLETELY unacceptable. I think it's time to panic stockpile. Our legislators are going to bone us.

I admit I'm eating crow now, thanks Trump!

 

[BugI02]

And that is why it is important to communicate with your elected officials. They are being told that most gun owners are now for taking away their gun rights to one extent or another. Social media is full of "gun owners" (who knows if they are) cutting up their ARs or turning them in. Based upon the general reaction here on the INGO, I don't detect that groundswell.

Possibly propaganda meant to demoralize us so we believe resistance is futile.

 

[T.Lex]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rick-scott-wont-say-sign-gun-control-bill

Governor still "unsure" whether he'll sign, but he's going to talk to the victims' families.

@Bug - going back to your question, it occurred to me that it is a bit like the Indiana legislature passing a law banning the CBD oil (or whatever). Like they did with the Spice/synthetic marijuana stuff a few years ago. There's no grandfathering or buyback with those (as far as I know).

 

[jamil]

That's just a phat grip for someone with a phat hand and stubby fangers. It would take me much practice to get to $hooting that well enough that I'd want to carry it.

Have fun carrying a revolver.

In honor of the bill, I'm going to start carrying my five seven again.

 

[BugI02]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/rick-scott-wont-say-sign-gun-control-bill

Governor still "unsure" whether he'll sign, but he's going to talk to the victims' families.

@Bug - going back to your question, it occurred to me that it is a bit like the Indiana legislature passing a law banning the CBD oil (or whatever). Like they did with the Spice/synthetic marijuana stuff a few years ago. There's no grandfathering or buyback with those (as far as I know).

Would that scenario be subject to challenge in the subject at hand, though. I gather people did not have an affirmative right to the CBD oil/Spice etc that the legislature was taking away, rather the lack of a specific ruling of law had people exploiting a gray area. That is not the case with bump stocks etc

Also, many of the proposed statutes I've read also make them illegal to possess or dispose of except by destruction, either by the individual or by surrender to authority (with the same end, I assume). I was under the impression the law cannot make something retro-actively a crime

 

[T.Lex]

No, it wouldn't be retroactive because the behavior prior to the effective date of the law isn't criminalized. Only possession AFTER the effective date would be.

And, to answer the implicit question, yes - litigation would surely follow the enactment of a bumpstock ban. The more it looks like a "taking" - no grandfathering/no compensation - the higher the chance of success.

 

[luger fan]

I have always owned a few 'wheelies' and when carrying one have never felt under gunned. EVERYONE should own at least one and get familiar with it.

 

[BugI02]

That's just a phat grip for someone with a phat hand and stubby fangers. It would take me much practice to get to $hooting that well enough that I'd want to carry it.

I was under the impression the caliber's raison d'être was, up close and personal, it would defeat some body armor (types I and II)