State level mag/AW bans are much worse.
- Thread starter nn8734
- Start date
State level mag/AW bans are much worse.
There are a bunch of illegal nonsense in the new bill. This new ruling should give us some leverage when it gets taken to the courts. Of course these aholes wrote this all before the Bruen decision so they're just going for broke and throwing every piece of crap they can up on the wall to see what will stick.
The problem is they can keep making laws that take forever to get challenged through the courts.
That’s exactly what they keep doing with everything…. Make it “law” or executive action and you are forced to follow it until it gets ruled illegal. In the mean time they get what they want even though they know it’s illegal
As the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Th best thing to do is to get these clowns voted out of office.
You can't do that with mushy turrets......
Hes outstanding
They can't simply make "everywhere" a sensitive place. Nor can they use that distinction as a de facto ban. The ruling directly addresses that point.
The same applies for making the application process overbearing, including placing either extraordinary requirements or delaying the wait time. The ruling also alludes to this, and remarks there are currently ~40 states with "shall issue" processes which will serve as the basis for determining a reasonable process.
I see some jurisdictions are trying to stretch out the timeframes and quoting almost a year wait. That will be legally challenged, expedited and defeated.
YMMV
The same applies for making the application process overbearing, including placing either extraordinary requirements or delaying the wait time. The ruling also alludes to this, and remarks there are currently ~40 states with "shall issue" processes which will serve as the basis for determining a reasonable process.
I see some jurisdictions are trying to stretch out the timeframes and quoting almost a year wait. That will be legally challenged, expedited and defeated.
YMMV
Problem is why would the anti constitutional states care? There is zero personal repercussions for those who infringe.
We need more FL type laws
“MARTIN: Yet across the state of Florida, local leaders hoping to pass new gun control measures have found that their hands are tied. Like many states, Florida prohibits cities and counties from imposing their own gun control rules. If elected officials implement new restrictions, they can be fined and removed from office by the governor. Earlier this week, I spoke to Philip Stoddard. He is a Democrat and the mayor of South Miami. And I started by asking him what gun control measures he would like to see implemented.
PHILIP STODDARD: Mayors across Florida are calling for four different sets of changes. One is to raise the minimum age of gun purchases and possession - and same for ammunition - to the age of 21. We would like to see red-flag laws to allow protection orders. We want to eliminate the loopholes and private transfer of weapons. And we want background checks for all sales and transfers of firearms. We'd like to place restrictions on the sale and transfer of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. And, of course, we're not too happy about the state's punitive regulations of lawmakers such as myself at the local level.
MARTIN: What would happen if you, as the mayor of South Miami, just went for it, just made those changes to affect your constituents?
STODDARD: Well, in the past, the city commission passed an ordinance that required trigger locks. And the NRA sued. And the Third District Court of Appeal voided the city's regulation. If I were to do that today, I would face fines and possible removal by the governor.”
Similar threads
