Question about states banning "Assault Rifles"

[Bill Lear]

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.

Why the debate? At this point everyone knows post-Bruen that no so-called "assault weapons ban" is going to survive challenge. Even the clowns who passed the law know it will be struck down by the district court and on up.
The question to be asked is why are "we the people" continuing to be okay with our elected officials entering office only to immediately start trying to abridge our rights? Did THEY not take an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION?

What needs to happen next is those who gain office and start attempting to subvert the Constitution need to be subject to criminal penalties. If we the people ever seriously want our elected officials to stop trying to steal our Civil rights we need to begin by criminalizing such behavior.

 

[Doug M.]

Given the other rulings related to magazines, including post-Bruen, those won't survive. It is pretty clear that the moonbats are just trying to make gun stuff as much of a pain in the backside as they can, and make us spend a lot of money litigating. Judges need to pull up their Huggies and start hammering them with various sanctions, especially contempt findings and financial terms (unlikely); Bar licensing folks need to start imposing discipline (even less likely), and in any state in which a recall or other form of removal is possible, they should be pursued (not all that likely to succeed without far more obvious discipline beforehand.)

 

[ladder13]

Why the debate? At this point everyone knows post-Bruen that no so-called "assault weapons ban" is going to survive challenge. Even the clowns who passed the law know it will be struck down by the district court and on up.
The question to be asked is why are "we the people" continuing to be okay with our elected officials entering office only to immediately start trying to abridge our rights? Did THEY not take an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION?

What needs to happen next is those who gain office and start attempting to subvert the Constitution need to be subject to criminal penalties. If we the people ever seriously want our elected officials to stop trying to steal our Civil rights we need to begin by criminalizing such behavior.

….…A M E N……

 

[hittman77]

Nothing to do until the lawsuits are settled would be my guess.

 

[9mmPatriot]

When it happens......

 

[STORMINORMAN]

Ignore the man behind the curtain! I am the Magnificent Wizard of Oz!

Please immediately register all your illegal firearms (and evil magazines) because we are only here to help you. This web site is 100% secure (until we notify you that it has been hacked) and you still have thirty days in which to do so...

 

[Puller]

{snip} Did THEY not take an oath to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION?

"They" lie. They lie every day, they lie about everything. They have no moral fiber and taking an oath and defending the Constitution means nothing to them.

"They" are afraid of armed law abiding Americans. It's not about crime and armed criminals, they are afraid of us.

 

[ispcapt]

"They" lie. They lie every day, they lie about everything. They have no moral fiber and taking an oath and defending the Constitution means nothing to them.

Here's an example of the IL legislature and governor from a few years ago.
The state constitution prohibits reducing or diminishing the pensions of public employees.The legislature passed a bill doing just that. They said at the time they knew the bill was unconstitutional but they felt they had to do something so they passed it anyway.
The bill went to the governor for his signature. During the signing Gov Potatohead said he felt the bill was unconstitutional but he was going to sign it anyway.
Within hours there was a suit filed by the public employees union and the IL Supreme Court fast tracked hearing the case. The IL Attorney General had not even finished his arguments supporting the law when the ILSC shut him off, ruled it unconstitutional. The ILSC then went on about the legislature passing the bill even after saying they knew it was unconstitutional and the governor signed it even while saying he knew the bill was unconstitutional.

 

[CalifEd]

Attention Michigan residents, this is happening here too.

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.

This bill seems to be along the lines that California has concerning assault weapons.

California exempts .22's from the AW definition but adds the magazine capacity restriction of 10 or less for everybody, unless you are LEO or some first responders, then you are exempt.

Splitting hairs, California does not register guns per se, they require you to submit an application to purchase the firearm through a licensed dealer to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). THEN the state keeps a record of you, your gun and its serial number.

Existing AW's with their evil features were required to be registered as of 2018 and if you did not register it, or you found/acquired it after then congrats, you are a felon.

By no means is this an exhausting list of California' goofy gun laws but use California as an example of what a slippery slope looks like and what can happen if these ideas/laws are not vigorously opposed.

BTW, VP Kamila Harris was California AG when this bill and law was passed.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

I'm more interested in hearing how they designate what an "Assault Rifle" actually is? Sorta like "assault hammer"?

"assault" is a verb........meaning "make a physical attack on".........Funny in 60 years of handling those things. None have ever bitten me/shot me or ever threatened me....They are as doctile as a dead stick.

I read a quote somewhere that a man said. "I am the weapon. Everything else is accessories".