• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Gun Laws in your state

Sonog

Well-Known Member
pilot
I gotcha fam,

Prohibiting sale, transport, etc., of assault firearms and certain firearm magazines; penalties. Expands the definition of "assault firearm" and prohibits any person from importing, selling, transferring, manufacturing, purchasing, possessing, or transporting an assault firearm. A violation is a Class 6 felony. The bill prohibits a dealer from selling, renting, trading, or transferring from his inventory an assault firearm to any person. The bill also prohibits a person from carrying a shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the longest ammunition for which it is chambered in a public place; under existing law, this prohibition applies only in certain localities. The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Full text here
Copy. It actually does say that. Wow.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Banning transport and possession? I have a hard time seeing how that’s going to survive a legal challenge barring SCOTUS acting completely out of character.
You’re too young to remember, but we had a national assault weapons ban for 10+ years.
 

nittany03

FUBIJAR
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
You’re too young to remember, but we had a national assault weapons ban for 10+ years.
Nice condescension. I'm not too young to remember; it expired when I was an Ensign. I'm also aware that it was never reviewed by SCOTUS, and that it preceded both Heller and McDonald. So it is absolutely an open question as to whether the firearms described in a so-called "assault weapons" ban are deemed to be "in common use for lawful purposes" as per Heller, and thus a ban is unconsitutional.

We had abortion laws for years that Roe struck down. We had marriage restrictions for years that Obergefell struck down. Just because a law is on the books does not make it constitutional.
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Nice condescension. I'm not too young to remember; it expired when I was an Ensign. I'm also aware that it was never reviewed by SCOTUS, and that it preceded both Heller and McDonald. So it is absolutely an open question as to whether the firearms described in a so-called "assault weapons" ban are deemed to be "in common use for lawful purposes" as per Heller, and thus a ban is unconsitutional.

We had abortion laws for years that Roe struck down. We had marriage restrictions for years that Obergefell struck down. Just because a law is on the books does not make it constitutional.
Laws don’t have to be reviewed by SCOTUS, as you’re well aware. If the NRA wanted to make a case on this issue, they had 10+ years to do it. Heller wasn’t about assault weapons, which you’re also well aware.

FWIW, I think that assault weapons bans are ridiculous, but at least come up with a cogent argument as to why they’re bad instead of the drivel you’ve just posted.
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Laws don’t have to be reviewed by SCOTUS, as you’re well aware. If the NRA wanted to make a case on this issue, they had 10+ years to do it. Heller wasn’t about assault weapons, which you’re also well aware.

FWIW, I think that assault weapons bans are ridiculous, but at least come up with a cogent argument as to why they’re bad instead of the drivel you’ve just posted.
Did the previous ban have anything to do with banning sale or transportation?
 

Rocketman

Rockets Up
Contributor
Did the previous ban have anything to do with banning sale or transportation?
I think I'm correct in saying it banned the sale of rifles with more than two nasty features (flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet lug etc) There were no restrictions on travel. I already had a couple of black rifles when the ban took effect. People who didn't either bought rifles that were grandfathered in for exorbitant prices or new rifles that had no flash supressor and bayo lug which made them legal. Stupidest gun law ever.
 
Last edited:

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I think I'm correct in saying it banned the sale of rifles with more than two nasty features (flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet lug etc) There were no restrictions on travel. I already had a couple of black rifles when the ban took effect. People who didn't either bought rifles that were grandfathered in for exorbitant prices or new rifles that had no flash supressor and bayo lug which made them legal. Stupidest gun law ever.
I don’t disagree.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Did the previous ban have anything to do with banning sale or transportation?
No!!! Only new sales of weapons produced AFTER the law went into effect with those certain features, which were effectively gotten around by manufacturers. No prohibition on personal sale or transfer of weapons predating the law or on the transportation of the targeted weapons.
 

wink

VS NFO. Blue and Gold Officer
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
If you are keeping score, and some of us obviously weren't, Virginia SB 16 that was the "assault weapons" bill was killed mid January. There remains a bill regarding any gun transfers and mandatory back ground checks even for private sales. The one gun a month also survives as well as the "red flag" provisions. All votes were on party lines but the back ground check bill that got a couple GOP.
 

OscarMyers

oh its gonna fit...
None
If you are keeping score, and some of us obviously weren't, Virginia SB 16 that was the "assault weapons" bill was killed mid January. There remains a bill regarding any gun transfers and mandatory back ground checks even for private sales. The one gun a month also survives as well as the "red flag" provisions. All votes were on party lines but the back ground check bill that got a couple GOP.
I think SB16 was killed because it was some what redundant with HB961 and they wanted to clean up some verbiage. That one is still trucking along.
Virginia House Democrats pass 'assault firearm' ban
 

Treetop Flyer

Well-Known Member
pilot
Suck it, Gov Coonman

 

red_stang65

Active Member
pilot
And a ray of hope in Commiefornia:


Curious to see how federal courts deal with the two states’ magazine limitations going forward; ie: will they see a difference between 10 or 12-round magazine limitations?
 
Top