"Amends the prohibition on certain assault weapons to include assault rifles, assault shotguns, .50 caliber rifles, and assault weapon attachments. Modernizes the prohibition on assault pistols to include pistols with one or more prohibited feature. Expands the ban on pistols with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity to any firearm with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity. Prohibits persons from bringing or causing to be brought into the State an assault rifle or assault shotgun. Prohibits the sale or transfer of an assault rifle or assault shotgun in the State, unless the assault rifle or assault shotgun is sold or transferred to an authorized individual. Creates exceptions for the acquisition and possession of prohibited firearms for members of law enforcement and the military."

also bans semi-auto pistols with threaded barrel (for brakes, comps, thread protector, whatever).  bans all AK's, all AR's (incl. AR-15, AR-10, AR-types), a whole bunch of semi-auto shotguns, and on and on.  bans "any firearm with a detachable magazine with over a ten round capacity;", also .50BMG rifles.

"(f) After July 8, 2024, except as provided by section
134-8(e), no person shall bring or cause to be brought into the
State an assault rifle, assault shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, or
assault weapon attachment. No assault rifle, assault shotgun,
.50 caliber rifle, or assault weapon attachment shall be sold or
transferred on or after July 8, 2024, to anyone within the
State, other than to a dealer licensed under section 134-32 or
the chief of police of any county, except as provided by section
134-8 (e); provided that any person who obtains title by bequest
or intestate succession to an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or
.50 caliber rifle registered within the State shall, within
ninety days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell or
transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer of the chief of police
of any county, or remove the weapon from the State."



If I'm reading this right it means you get to keep 'em until you die, but they will be pretty useless without the mags.

"(f) After July 8, 2024, except as provided by section
134-8(e), no person shall bring or cause to be brought into the
State an assault rifle, assault shotgun, .50 caliber rifle, or
assault weapon attachment. No assault rifle, assault shotgun,
.50 caliber rifle, or assault weapon attachment shall be sold or
transferred on or after July 8, 2024, to anyone within the
State, other than to a dealer licensed under section 134-32 or
the chief of police of any county, except as provided by section
134-8 (e); provided that any person who obtains title by bequest
or intestate succession to an assault rifle, assault shotgun, or
.50 caliber rifle registered within the State shall, within
ninety days, render the weapon permanently inoperable, sell or
transfer the weapon to a licensed dealer of the chief of police
of any county, or remove the weapon from the State."



If I'm reading this right it means you get to keep 'em until you die, but they will be pretty useless without the mags.

thats for transfer, theres another section regarding possession.

thats for transfer, theres another section regarding possession.

Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?

Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?

its unclear to me, but seems like no grandfather, honestly im not sure. also keep in mind that the bill can and will be amended multiple times during session. it can easily change drastically the longer its kept alive.

Okay so no grandfather....hand 'em all in by July 8 2024?

There is nothing that states possesion is illegal. Just transfering or bringing into the state after 7/8.

So grandfathered.

But this can always be deleted after the bill becomes law. Look at CA and their grandfathered mags.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

There is nothing that states possesion is illegal. Just transfering or bringing into the state after 7/8.

So grandfathered.

But this can always be deleted after the bill becomes law. Look at CA and their grandfathered mags.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

what does this section mean?

"§134-8  Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.  (a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); assault rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault shotguns, except as provided by section 134-4(f); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments;

what does this section mean?

"§134-8  Ownership, etc., of automatic firearms, silencers, etc., prohibited; penalties.  (a)  The manufacture, possession, sale, barter, trade, gift, transfer, or acquisition of any of the following is prohibited:  assault pistols, except as provided by section 134-4(e); assault rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault shotguns, except as provided by section 134-4(f); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments;

That looks like no grandfather to me

If the first people hear about this is a letter in the mail from HPD then we will have failed

I'm no attorney, but I'm sure any law that retroactively bans something is significantly harder to pass because it will run into even greater constitutional challenges.

I don't support this bill, but I feel like if there really is no "grandfather clause" it will be indefensible and shall not pass. In my opinion, I'd temper the whole "they're gonna go door to door and take away all of our freedom if this bill passes" because I think that's far, far less of a possibility than it seems.

I already feel the vibes... "omg he's telling us not to write in because he secretly wants guns banned". No, that's not what I'm saying. You exercise your 1st to the maximum extent of the law. However, you probably don't want to sound like a paranoid lunatic in the process. At the end of the day, "you, do you".

This bill is blatantly bad. It has drawn our attention. Look out for the bait and switch trick.

This bill is blatantly bad. It has drawn our attention. Look out for the bait and switch trick.

I see it as placing all the numbers at craps.  Then when one number hits, tell the dealer to take everything down.

Small win.  But a win nonetheless.

Then they rinse and repeat.  One small win at a time.

I feel like this is a very bad bill. So I feel that I should like write in opposition of this bill.

I'm no attorney, but I'm sure any law that retroactively bans something is significantly harder to pass because it will run into even greater constitutional challenges.

I don't support this bill, but I feel like if there really is no "grandfather clause" it will be indefensible and shall not pass. In my opinion, I'd temper the whole "they're gonna go door to door and take away all of our freedom if this bill passes" because I think that's far, far less of a possibility than it seems.

I already feel the vibes... "omg he's telling us not to write in because he secretly wants guns banned". No, that's not what I'm saying. You exercise your 1st to the maximum extent of the law. However, you probably don't want to sound like a paranoid lunatic in the process. At the end of the day, "you, do you".

A grandfather clause does very little to dampen this bills affect on law abiding citizens. If this bill passes and you are caught with a firearm that applies(which is literally all semi-automatics) or accessories(all magazines over 10 rds) LE will have two options, assume its grandfathered and do absolutely nothing about it, or assume its not grandfathered and enforce the law until you can prove(to their satisfaction) that it is grandfathered.

A grandfather clause does very little to dampen this bills affect on law abiding citizens. If this bill passes and you are caught with a firearm that applies(which is literally all semi-automatics) or accessories(all magazines over 10 rds) LE will have two options, assume its grandfathered and do absolutely nothing about it, or assume its not grandfathered and enforce the law until you can prove(to their satisfaction) that it is grandfathered.

P mags have a manufacturers date on them. Other mags don't and neither do accessories such as BCG's, stocks, handguards, barrels, foregrips, etc...

Then add in they can always delete the grandfather later as the years pass.

Keep in mind the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had a hearing yesterday for the California AWB  Miller v Bonta.  It will likely be a loss for us.  This means we cannot sue if this law is passed and it'll be in effect until we get a good SCOTUS 2A ruling again.

P mags have a manufacturers date on them. Other mags don't and neither do accessories such as BCG's, stocks, handguards, barrels, foregrips, etc...

Then add in they can always delete the grandfather later as the years pass.

Yes but theres no clause that creates exceptions based on manufacturers date. It would boil down to your word vs the cop who wants to bust you on a felony charge for possession.

"No officer, I went buy that one July 7th, 2024, you can trust me."

Keep in mind the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had a hearing yesterday for the California AWB  Miller v Bonta.  It will likely be a loss for us.  This means we cannot sue if this law is passed and it'll be in effect until we get a good SCOTUS 2A ruling again.

^^^This,

Usually if there's a split in the circuit courts, SCOTUS is more likely to take up a case.  But the other circuits are also anti 2a and ruling with the state.  So unless a pro 2A state passes a law to ban them, then the state wins in court and it goes to their pro 2A circuit and gets struck down, the odds of this going to SCOTUS is greatly reduced.

But some cases do go to SCOTUS without needing a circuit split, which this would be our hailmary due to circuit courts violating Bruen.

Yes but theres no clause that creates exceptions based on manufacturers date. It would boil down to your word vs the cop who wants to bust you on a felony charge for possession.

"No officer, I went buy that one July 7th, 2024, you can trust me."

Since all rifles should be registered, the rifle itself would be easy to prove this.  The problem would be any accessories added to it, or if you built your own.  Same with Pmags, they're a date on them.

All these efforts and waste of resources amount to one big nothingburger.

Since all rifles should be registered, the rifle itself would be easy to prove this.  The problem would be any accessories added to it, or if you built your own.  Same with Pmags, they're a date on them.

There are tons of pre94 unregistered rifles in existence.