I wouldn't be surprised if Rhoads is messing with 3196 to distract us from something else.

I'm confused. Is this the text of the revised bill? It still has all the assault rifle/ assault shotgun language in it?



I think there's still plenty of stuff inside of this bill that can be effectively argued against in a way that would find sympathy with the undecideds.

1) It makes no sense to ban pistols for being too large, having a threaded barrel, or to ban specialized target pistols for having magazines outside of the grip. The law was originally written with the intent to NOT ban pistols just because they had a single one of these features, but this revision turns that language on its head to explicitly ban what the law was originally "carefully worded" to leave legal. We can put together a huge slideshow of not-scary-looking pistols that should be convincing. There must be a large number of existing pistols that'd be banned by this, so it should get tons of personal testimony.

2) The 50 caliber ban remains devoid of logic. There are smaller caliber rounds more accurate at range than any 50 caliber round, or that have more power than most of the 50 caliber rounds that would be banned. (Is it true that they have NO history of criminal use in Hawaii?)

3) What would an "assault weapon attachment" be under this law? An ambiguous list of benign-looking objects? Would there be parts that would be totally kosher on non-semi-auto guns, but that would be banned by this because they "could" be installed on a semi-auto gun? Could we come up with some examples?


I feel magazine limits are harder to argue against in a way that appeals to the undecideds, so it seems advantageous that the bill includes so much nonsense that is easily argued against.
What's the latest the bill could be re-amended?

I'll match his Bronze star and raise him a Meritorious Service Medal, a pair of Army Commendations, a pair of Army Acheivements, and a Combat Infantry Badge. My two Distinguished Badges trump his Expert. Wikipedia says his service ended with a helicopter crash, no mention if he was shot down or just a bad landing.

As not-a-veteran, I'll never feel comfortable speaking against a veteran's vet-cred, so thank you for doing so, it's an important thing to do. I didn't realize he met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. 

Doesn’t 134-8(a) just straight out prohibit possession of the attachments which would basically prohibit most semis by default?

yep

Not clear if someone currently possessing a rifle with one or more of the 8 “attachment” characteristics would be grandfathered or even be able to pass them down to someones kid or would their firearms become illegal to own under this bill, exception being antique firearms under their definition? I get the .50 cal, pistols and mags not being grandfathered but the attachment part is somewhat ambiguous, to me at anyways. Seems like an attempt to accomplish what the original bill had but wordsmithing intentionally to confuse other legislators in order to accomplish his original objective....essentally a assult weapons ban and a lot of semi-auto other weapons to boot. just not clear to me.

 Total BS.

What is this? Section 9. This act shall take effect  on April 14, 2112.

 

Not clear if someone currently possessing a rifle with one or more of the 8 “attachment” characteristics would be grandfathered or even be able to pass them down to someones kid or would their firearms become illegal to own under this bill, exception being antique firearms under their definition? I get the .50 cal, pistols and mags not being grandfathered but the attachment part is somewhat ambiguous, to me at anyways. Seems like an attempt to accomplish what the original bill had but wordsmithing intentionally to confuse other legislators in order to accomplish his original objective....essentally a assult weapons ban and a lot of semi-auto other weapons to boot. just not clear to me.

I read it as not being able to possess the attachments alone. Doesn’t even need to be attached to a firearm.

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); .50 caliber rifles, except as provided by section 134-4(f); assault weapon attachments; automatic firearms; rifles with barrel lengths less than sixteen inches; shotguns with barrel lengths less than eighteen inches; cannons; mufflers, silencers, or devices for deadening or muffling the sound of discharged firearms; hand grenades, dynamite, blasting caps, bombs, or bombshells, or other explosives; or any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof coated with teflon or any other similar coating designed primarily to enhance its capability to penetrate metal or pierce protective armor; and any type of ammunition or any projectile component thereof designed or intended to explode or segment upon impact with its target.

(e)  Any person who intentionally or knowingly violates subsection (a) or (b) shall be guilty of a class C felony and shall be imprisoned for a term of five years without probation.

 Total BS.

What is this? Section 9. This act shall take effect  on April 14, 2112.

it's a placeholder date
it will be edited on the final vote

so...

kept all the framework for defining "assault weapons".
removed grandfather for existing "assault weapons".
added grandfather for only 50 cals.
added ban on greater than 20 round mags unless permanently blocked

meaning....

"assault weapon attachments" are anything that defines an assault weapon - threaded barrel, pistol grip, hand grip, folding stock, flash suppressor, etc
possession of "assault weapon attachment", if "knowingly or intentionally" is a class c felony "shall be inprisoned for 5 years without probation"

no grandfather for greater than 20 round mags, also, violation is a misdemeanor, unless inserted into a firearm, then its a class c felony.

A single modern AR has 4 "assault weapon attachments" on it, threaded barrel, flash supressor, pistol grip, hand guard. thats 4 felonies for one firearm.

 Total BS.

What is this? Section 9. This act shall take effect  on April 14, 2112.

they change the effective date to a "defective date" when they know the bill still needs work/discussion. happens in many bills.

My bolt action rifle has a threaded barrel and flash suppressor.  Came with two 10-rd mags.

Is this an assault weapon?

Because if it is then this whole fiasco is a circus and total BS.

My bolt action rifle has a threaded barrel and flash suppressor.  Came with two 10-rd mags.

Is this an assault weapon?

Because if it is then this whole fiasco is a circus and total BS.

gotta be semi-automatic (for now):

"(3)  A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:"

however, the flash supressor is maybe still considered an "assault weapon attachment". so possession of it would be a class c felony. if you have a chassis bolt gun, the folding stock and pistol grip would also possibly be classified as assault weapon attachments. I think this is a good angle for the next round of testimony.

My bolt action rifle has a threaded barrel and flash suppressor.  Came with two 10-rd mags.

Is this an assault weapon?

Because if it is then this whole fiasco is a circus and total BS.

This is my current understanding of the bill as it is written. I could be wrong.
“Assault rifles” are being defined as semiautomatic rifles so no to the bolt action question.
My concern would be more on the bolt rifle’s attachments and whether they’re interchangeable and could be installed on something like an AR platform. The bill currently prohibits “assault weapon attachments”.

chassis gun is also gonna have handguards, and bipods can be considered protruding grips.

gotta be semi-automatic (for now):

"(3)  A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:"

however, the flash supressor is maybe still considered an "assault weapon attachment".

This is my current understanding of the bill as it is written. I could be wrong.
“Assault rifles” are being defined as semiautomatic rifles so no to the bolt action question.
My concern would be more on the bolt rifle’s attachments and whether they’re interchangeable and could be installed on something like an AR platform. The bill currently prohibits “assault weapon attachments”.

Thanks guys, I'm so overwhelmed by the BS I forgot that it pertains only to semi-autos. (For the time being )
But I believe the flash suppressor can be installed on an AR platform.

I need somebody to explain how the bill no longer bans "assault rifles" or "assault shotguns" when 134-8 says "The... possession... of any of the following is prohibited: assault pistols... assault rifles... assault shotguns... assault weapon attachments..."

There's this wonderful circular reference where 134-8 points to exclusions in 134-4, and 134-4 points to exclusions in 134-8.


I think it's a fair assumption that whoever was editing the bill was up against the deadline and was hamfisting the language to try and make a workable draft.
Theoretically if the bill is trying to define "assault weapon attachment", it would have to keep all of the language that defines "assault weapon".

The law defines "assault weapon attachment" as "any device capable of being attached to a firearm that is specifically designed for making or converting a firearm into an assault pistol, assault rifle, or assault shotgun." I imagine the "specifically designed" phrase as doing a lot of heavy lifting, and it could be interpreted in two extremes... Either a part is NOT an assault weapon attachment as long as it has a single use on a non-semiauto firearm... Or a part IS an assault-weapon attachment if it could single-handedly turn a semiauto rifle into an assault weapon.

I see major ambiguity there. I'd need to look at similar language in the other states to see how it was interpreted there.

My bolt action rifle has a threaded barrel and flash suppressor.  Came with two 10-rd mags.

Is this an assault weapon?

Because if it is then this whole fiasco is a circus and total BS.

My read is that your rifle would be fine because nothing in the bill bans non-semiauto rifles as long as they aren't 50 caliber.

Your flash suppressor could theoretically be welded onto a non-assault weapon, so that could be deemed illegal.
And your threaded barrel, if it was capable of being installed on a semiauto weapon, could be deemed illegal.


But this law just seems totally not to be amended in the way they said it was amended so I'm just really confused about the whole thing.

I think it's a fair assumption that whoever was editing the bill was up against the deadline and was hamfisting the language to try and make a workable draft.
Theoretically if the bill is trying to define "assault weapon attachment", it would have to keep all of the language that defines "assault weapon".

During the hearing I noticed attachments weren't mentioned being removed.  It was concerning however I assumed it would have to be removed at the same time to make the bill work as Rhoads amended it.  The attorneys at the capitol rewrite the bill with what they're given

I'm not sure if Rhoads did it on purpose with his history of past antics, or it was a mistake as he don't know much about guns.

During the hearing I noticed attachments weren't mentioned being removed.  It was concerning however I assumed it would have to be removed at the same time to make the bill work as Rhoads amended it.  The attorneys at the capitol rewrite the bill with what they're given

I'm not sure if Rhoads did it on purpose with his history of past antics, or it was a mistake as he don't know much about guns.

In my opinion, Rhoads as a political leader needs to learn as much about what he is trying to ban for him to be regarded with respect and integrity.

To try to ban what he is trying to ban while showing he has no real integral knowledge of what he is banning only shows he is pushing an agenda.

He doesn't care.  That's what I get from all of this.

And I don't think for one minute he thinks this SB3196 will decrease crime and increase safety for the people.  He might not know a lot about firearms but he's not stupid.

This guy is going for a complete ban on all firearms from citizens.  SB3196 is just a stepping stone.

Taking a piece of a pie little by little. It is going to come to a point where the theives will get their hands chopped off.

In my opinion, Rhoads as a political leader needs to learn as much about what he is trying to ban for him to be regarded with respect and integrity.

To try to ban what he is trying to ban while showing he has no real integral knowledge of what he is banning only shows he is pushing an agenda.

He doesn't care.  That's what I get from all of this.

And I don't think for one minute he thinks this SB3196 will decrease crime and increase safety for the people.  He might not know a lot about firearms but he's not stupid.

This guy is going for a complete ban on all firearms from citizens.  SB3196 is just a stepping stone.

If he doesn't care, then he and those like him aren't consenting their decisions to the will of the people. You know how the rest goes.