Coalition aims to ban assault weapons by constitutional amendment

Anything and Everything dealing with Political issues.
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:49 pm

Re: Coalition aims to ban assault weapons by constitutional amendment

Post by Allme » Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:46 pm

Odessaman wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:32 pm
Allme wrote:
Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:47 pm
You know the 3 day wait is a part of the FL constitution. If I remember they did that because the powers that be felt if it were a law it would be too easy to strike down. Now as of Oct. 1st (correct me if I am wrong) it is unlawful to purchase a bump stock in the state and a person has to be over 21. Strange times we are living in.
Actually, it'll be illegal to even possess a bump stock or other device that increases the rate of fire . . . there is no grandfather provision.
No. The way I read it they are banning the sale, not the possession. If they did (ban possession) they are opening a huge can of worms, they can't ban something without offering compensation. I can't see a few million "God fearing, law abiding" gun owners trashing their $100 bump stock without any compensation. BTW has anyone heard what happened to the NRA's law suit?

User avatar
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2018 4:50 pm
Location: NW Hillsborough County

Post by Odessaman » Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:30 pm

790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—
A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump-fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
Sure looks like they're banning possession to me. I don't agree with the law - but I don't plan to be the test-case, either.

Post Reply