Question about states banning "Assault Rifles"

[BB57]

That doesn’t answer the OP’s question but I can certainly see how your first sentence is operative. To get back to the point, the most common approach seems to be delay. They’ll “grandfather” you in, but your kids will be out of luck. When you croak it will be, “Turn them in, or we will come and get them.” They’re likely hoping by that time they will have created enough social stigma surrounding the rifles in question that the next generation will be willing to go along with it. The kids didn’t pay for the rifles, so why should they care? I think that’s the “mentality.” (Term used loosely.)

There are two related goals with that approach, particularly at the National rather than state level.

1) By grand fathering and allowing you to retain the banned weapon they do not have to get into justifying the taking of your property without compensation by proving it is a public safety concern, or deal with litigation to that effect.

2) Not allowing those grandfathered weapons to be sold or even transferred to anyone else is a more serious infringement. Yes, you can still possess it and use it, but that property immediately loses all cash value as it can no longer be sold or transferred, including to your heirs upon your death.

Since it cannot be transferred, even to your heirs, the banned weapons must eventually be destroyed after you die, so the numbers of weapons still in existence starts dropping immediately.

—-

In both cases since we are Americans who on average lack much of a sense of history, and generally suck at looking at where things are eventually going to go, these kinds of bans get more support and get less resistance as no one is losing anything *today*. The average American also doesn’t connect the dots to see how the kind of precedent set in a gun ban and watering down 2A rights can and will spread to other items and other rights.

In fact, at present, given that gun owners are a minority (about 40% of households have guns and about 32% of Americans actually own a gun) we currently rely on at least a third of the non gun owning voters out there opposing gun bans based on the recognition that it could be their rights next.

A big part of keeping those voters on our side is also presenting as normal people who just happen to own and shoot guns, as opposed to presenting as inconsiderate, and or ignorant, and or irresponsible people who should not own guns.

 

[max]

After reading the law, it appears I can have the rifle and magazines at home and at the range.

 

[Beemer-mark]

I'll probably get blow back for saying this, but why would anyone living in states like NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc. even considered buy anything resembling an "assault" firearm? Since President Clinton was in office the writing had been on the wall that states with one anti-gun party was going to outlaw these firearms sooner or later.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

I'll probably get blow back for saying this, but why would anyone living in states like NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc. even considered buy anything resembling an "assault" firearm?

That's actually an interesting question.

But I left NYC long before this became an issue for me and Texas is beautiful almost every day of the year.....

 

[mikerjf]

I wonder what happens if the gun-owning party outlives the tenure of the restricting government?

 

[Tu_S]

If they grandfather you in, do you have to register them at that time? How about your extra magazines?

I have not read the bill that passed the Senate yet, but it appears that we have until Jan 1, 2024 to get things registered, although the text in the House version says 300 days.

The magazine restriction has no specific timeline called out, so I would assume the timeline for compliance would be the same as for registration. However, looking at some of the other problems with the bill, when it comes to what they are trying to accomplish and then applying some common sense, I'm guessing it's an oversite by the politicians who wrote the thing, where they were thinking everyone would get rid of the things overnight.

There is also nothing in the text stating what a legal conversion of a magazine would be to lower it's capacity, something that they should have thought about given other states have already had to deal with the problem.

Of course it is all written in legal-ese, the language of lawyers and politicians that is designed to be vague and ambiguous, even to themselves, so they can justify their existence by giving themselves something to argue about, and a steady income.

Personally, with my father passing away last year I have been moving some of the Family Collection from WI to my home in IL, and it looks like some things are going back. There were already some things in the collection that were staying up north because they were already banned in IL so it's not a huge problem, but some of what I moved are in the collection for the sake of being collected, and will probably never get shot as long as they stay in the family.

 

[Tu_S]

After reading the law, it appears I can have the rifle and magazines at home and at the range.

You can have your properly registered if necessary rifle, and magazines that comply with the capacity limits, at home and at the range, and must transport them between the locations in the approved locked up/disabled and inaccessible condition

 

[Telecaster]

I recall that in CT, most gun owners did nothing, and nothing was done to them. A small percentage Fudded them in to the gubbermint, but the vast majority didn't.

 

[Golddollar]

[QUOT IE=Beemer-mark;141649723]

I'll probably get blow back for saying this, but why would anyone living in states like NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc. even considered buy anything resembling an "assault" firearm?

[/QUOTE]

One of the reasons I put the Maryland line in my rear view mirror back in 2005. First thing I did after moving to PA was to buy some 30 round magazines for my AR-15.

 

[retarmyaviator]

I was reading an article about Illinois becoming the 9th state to pass a law banning "Assualt Rifles".

I have a question for folks who lived in these states at the time the law was passed. What happens to your property? Does the state offer to buy them back at fair market value, or do you have to find a way to sell them out of state?

I know it will be difficult to keep politics out of this thread, but I'm genuinely curious about how this is handled.

Not knowing if posting links is allowed on the forum or not, I would suggest searching on YouTube for Washington Gun Law. It is a law firm in Washington state that often provides just such insight into new laws such as you are asking about.

 

[Thin Man]

Wow. Reading all this I like South Dakota more every day!

 

[prescobd]

Attention Michigan residents, this is happening here too. Now that the Democratics control both the state House and the state Senate as well as the writing is on the wall.

Manufacturing, buying and selling, or owning certain semiautomatic rifles could become illegal in Michigan if a recently introduced House Bill passes.

Democratic Rep. Jeffrey Peppers introduced House Bill No. 6544 on Dec. 1, 2022. The bill would effectively ban the manufacture, possession, purchase or sale of firearms with certain characteristics, which would identify them as "assault weapons."

According to the bill, an assault weapon means a semiautomatic rifle with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:

A pistol grip or thumbhole stock
Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand
A folding or telescoping stock
A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.
If the bill is passed as it is written, it would prohibit the possession, manufacturing, purchasing or selling of firearms fitting the definition beginning Jan. 1, 2024 with a few exceptions.

If someone owned and possessed the firearm before the effective date of the act, and if they register it with the Michigan State Police and renew the registration every five years.

If the act becomes a law and it is violated, they would be guilty of a felony that could be punishable with up to five years in prison.

The bill was introduced and read Dec. 1, 2022 before being referred to the Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security.

After the bill was introduced and read, it was referred to the Committee on Military, Veterans and Homeland Security, which is chaired by District 108 Republican Rep. Beau LaFave. The committee is comprised of five Republicans and five Democrats.

It is unclear when the bill will return from committee, or what the committee's recommendations will be.

 

[Hasbeen1945]

We have come a long way from Shotgun News. You could by firearms and have them shipped to your home.

 

[Beemer-mark]

We have come a long way from Shotgun News. You could by firearms and have them shipped to your home.

I can remember when you read a paper newspaper to get the news. In the want ad categories there was a category for firearms. I lived in a lot of states and that category was always in any major newspaper. Bought many a gun face to face that way. Now even in red states that category is gone ( of course so is much of the local news).

 

[LostintheOzone]

I'll probably get blow back for saying this, but why would anyone living in states like NY, CA, IL, NJ, etc. even considered buy anything resembling an "assault" firearm? Since President Clinton was in office the writing had been on the wall that states with one anti-gun party was going to outlaw these firearms sooner or later.

No blowback from me. I live in a mag restricted state. I saw it coming 3 years ago. I also see semi-auto weapons restrictions coming. Actually I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

I own restricted rifle magazines, not illegally because I've owned them awhile before the restrictions were in place, but they can no longer be sold here.

I also own a few semi-auto rifles, but again, I've owned them for awhile and so far there have been no restrictions. I know they're coming though. I might sell them before the restrictions are in play or I might not. I guess I'll figure that out when the time comes.

As far as buying items you know will become restricted in a year or two, I wouldn't do that. I'm not betting on the USSC to come forward with a sweeping decision that dismantles any state laws. If they don't you're holding contraband unless you register it or the law grandfathers it. Chances are good you or your heirs won't be able to sell it. That isn't a good deal IMO.

I haven't purchased any pistols that use >10 rd mags in years. I knew the mag restrictions were coming and now they're here.

 

[Doug M.]

I do not see the mag restrictions surviving federal court review, and the same with a lot of the other "Good Idea Fairy" garbage. It's been a while since I read Bruen, but it seems to have been pretty broad in its rejection of a lot of restrictions.

 

[Muley Gil]

Thanks 2152hq. Sounds like at some point there'll be so many complex laws that I'd have a more difficult time selling my stuff online. North Carolina seems unlikely to pass any of these types of laws within my lifetime (not that much left, statistically speaking ), but there could be a glut of guns on the market that can't be sold nationwide. I don't worry overly much about money, just hate to see my stuff destroyed.

Decision, decisions, decisions.

You know where I live, Bob.

 

[Golddollar]

I do not see the mag restrictions surviving federal court review, and the same with a lot of the other "Good Idea Fairy" garbage. It's been a while since I read Bruen, but it seems to have been pretty broad in its rejection of a lot of restrictions.

That doesn't stop them. Look what happened in New York when the ink wasn't even dry on the Bruen decision.

 

[Baltimoreed11754]

Shoot them while you got’em comes to mind. Already done two sbr’s, what’s another. Just a lot of aggravation for nothing. Restrictions on stocks and mags are not going to make us safer. I feel much safer with my edc.

 

[Tu_S]

I do not see the mag restrictions surviving federal court review, and the same with a lot of the other "Good Idea Fairy" garbage. It's been a while since I read Bruen, but it seems to have been pretty broad in its rejection of a lot of restrictions.

To give you something to think about, and this is from the perspective of being Devils Advocate and know your enemy and know yourself, the anti-gun lobby has finally figured this out and their new argument, the magazine is not a gun, and therefore not protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Looking at my enemy on this and understanding what they are trying to do to us, as Sun Tzu taught around 1500 years ago, they do have a valid point. The interesting thing though is they seem to be smart enough to realize that banning all magazines would make a firearm useless, and be a problem for them since it would conflict with the 2nd Amendment since making it useless could be interpreted as taking it away, so they decided to go after capacity for now.

With the recent changes in IL I have a bunch of problems I need to figure out when it comes down to magazines and various things my father and I have collected and want to keep as a set and complete, but something that I find humor in is because of the recent changes I'm going to accelerate my timeline for getting a Ruger Security-9, and bring another firearm into the state. I have a Ruger PC-9 which as a rifle is now restricted to a 10 round magazine, but if I have a Security-9 that uses the same magazines as the PC, the 15 round ones I already have are no longer a problem, although the 17 round ones will have to be moved to my parents home in WI