Pertinacious Tom
Importunate Member
Florida Gun Ban Proposed
The bill bans a variety of gun models by name. I support one of those: the shotgun called the Streetsweeper. My respect for first and second amendment rights has limits and those idiots deserve to have their gun banned just for giving it that name. Maybe I should be Streetsweeper Tom next? But I digress...
What the bill actually does is create a closed registry for lots of ordinary rifles, including two we own. If we get our certificate of possession in time, current voters could keep guns purchased before this coming July. But we would be the last generation of voters able to own these scary "assault style automatic rifles." <---FAKE NEWS
The proposed legislation is here.
This part covers my wife's Ruger 10-22, a pretty ordinary semi-automatic .22 caliber squirrel shooter. I don't know if Canadians are allowed to have those but I'm going to assume they are just for fun.
Anyway, itbans provides for a reasonable regulatory prohibition of assault weapons (as defined above) OR "large capacity" magazines. (You're welcome, Raz'r.)
Undeterred by the fact that the NY SAFE Act's provision banning magazines holding more than 7 rounds was thrown out as unconstitutional, this proposal contains that definition of "large capacity" magazine.
I don't really think of my wife's .22 gun as a scary "assault style automatic rifle." I don't even think of it as a scary assault style semi-automatic rifle, despite the black furniture she put on it. Yes, even though the factory supplied ten round magazine is defined as "large" so we could not avoid the ban just by putting the original wood furniture back on the gun.
I don't think of my dad's old .22 as an "assault weapon" either, despite the definition posted above. I guess it's nice that they acknowledge that the magazine is on a .22 and so is not "large capacity" but it could be excluded only by striking the word "rimfire" from the definition.
Maybe legislative compromise could result in excluding .22's from the definitions entirely. It would not matter because I'd buy lots of the guns and magazines that are covered. I'm deplorable that way.
Eh?
The bill bans a variety of gun models by name. I support one of those: the shotgun called the Streetsweeper. My respect for first and second amendment rights has limits and those idiots deserve to have their gun banned just for giving it that name. Maybe I should be Streetsweeper Tom next? But I digress...
What the bill actually does is create a closed registry for lots of ordinary rifles, including two we own. If we get our certificate of possession in time, current voters could keep guns purchased before this coming July. But we would be the last generation of voters able to own these scary "assault style automatic rifles." <---FAKE NEWS
The proposed legislation is here.
This part covers my wife's Ruger 10-22, a pretty ordinary semi-automatic .22 caliber squirrel shooter. I don't know if Canadians are allowed to have those but I'm going to assume they are just for fun.
And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.
Another part of the definitions specifically say that a tubular magazine on a .22 rifle is not a "large capacity" magazine, so it's not covered by that section, but it's still covered under the definition of an "assault weapon."
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on what I believe is an error in that part. It's actually subsection (4) that covers legal possession by current voters (but not their descendants). Subsection 5 covers legal transfers to a dealer. Anyway, I assume that would be corrected if this had a snowball's chance in hell of passing, which, thankfully, it does not.
Anyway, it
Undeterred by the fact that the NY SAFE Act's provision banning magazines holding more than 7 rounds was thrown out as unconstitutional, this proposal contains that definition of "large capacity" magazine.
I don't really think of my wife's .22 gun as a scary "assault style automatic rifle." I don't even think of it as a scary assault style semi-automatic rifle, despite the black furniture she put on it. Yes, even though the factory supplied ten round magazine is defined as "large" so we could not avoid the ban just by putting the original wood furniture back on the gun.
I don't think of my dad's old .22 as an "assault weapon" either, despite the definition posted above. I guess it's nice that they acknowledge that the magazine is on a .22 and so is not "large capacity" but it could be excluded only by striking the word "rimfire" from the definition.
Maybe legislative compromise could result in excluding .22's from the definitions entirely. It would not matter because I'd buy lots of the guns and magazines that are covered. I'm deplorable that way.
