Nasty Anti-Gun Legislation Potentially Looming in RI

pinefd

NES Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
1,183
Likes
2,749
Location
Escapee from MA
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
There are RI House and Senate hearings this week to consider some of the harshest gun laws in the country, including a so called "Assault Weapon" ban, "Large capacity feeding device" ban (more than 10 rounds), as well as several others, including forcing the closure of any outdoor gun ranges within one mile of a school. This last one would impact several clubs in RI, including the Newport Rifle Club, the oldest continually operating rifle club in the country.

If you can, please try to show support at the State House, this Wednesday, from 1:00 - 8:00, and Thursday from 3:00 - 7:00. Details of the bills being considered can be found here: https://www.ri2nd.org

Thanks,

Frank
 
There will be another rally tomorrow, Thursday, June 2nd, at 3:00pm.

I'll be there, but I'm afraid our efforts will likely be in vain. I bet that an AWB, magazine limit, 21 year old minimum age and storage laws will all pass this time around. And the A**hole governor is anxious to sign any and all of these bills that make their way to his desk.

:mad:


Frank
 
The way those bills are written make pretty much ANY semi-auto illegal. I hope people are ready to sue this scumbag state if it passes. Get another case up to the Supreme Court. RI the safest state in the country when it comes to guns but still have to make everything illegal. Sick of the idiots who vote for these losers. Can't wait to move to a much better state
 
Well, it looks like at least some of these bills will be passing. I received this email earlier today from the RI Second Amendment PAC:

"Tomorrow the House Judiciary will be passing bills that restrict long gun sales to anyone under the age of 21, prohibit the carrying of long guns in public and ban the possession of magazines which exceed 10 rounds. No grandfathering clause so this ban is a confiscation."

And in a text I received, it also said: "180 days to forfeit your detachable magazines."

There's another rally at the Statehouse tomorrow, but this one, I won't be able to attend, since I'll be in the middle of surgery (on the receiving end).


Frank
 
Confiscation is a step too far and one I dont think the senate will pass.

Unfortunately it does seem some form of capacity restriction will go thru, I dont think the senate in RI has the will to resist it.

Not that it matters, New Hampshire is only 90 mins away, plenty of magazines to buy there.
 
Violates the search and seizure clauses, obviously the 4th in the US but also the search and seizure clause in the RI constitution. The legislature in RI is made up of a bunch of AOC's, retards who don't know the first thing about law
We know how stupid the gun laws are. Why would we expect any other laws written by the same idiots to be any better?
 
House in RI is making a push to add a grandfather amendment to the magazine law.
They have to. Or that law will be in court b4 that idiot McKee has a chance to sign it. Will be interesting to see if they go the way of Conn and make everyone bring their mags to their local COP to have them serialized
 
They have to. Or that law will be in court b4 that idiot McKee has a chance to sign it. Will be interesting to see if they go the way of Conn and make everyone bring their mags to their local COP to have them serialized
Have there been any other states that passed a mag capacity limit that didn't have a grandfather clause?
 
It appears that there may be an amendment that would exclude those with a RI CCW from the magazine capacity law. IDK, I wasn't paying attention, but from the way they're talking it sounds like that's what it's about.

EDIT: Yes, there has been an amendment proposed that would exclude CCW holders in RI from the magazine capacity laws.
 
Last edited:
Amendment failed, so it looks like no amendments for grandfathering for magazines will be done in the House version of the bill, so it will be up to the Senate in RI to kill it or amend it and IDK how that will do.
 
Have there been any other states that passed a mag capacity limit that didn't have a grandfather clause?
Good question. I'm not sure how places like Vermont, NY, Cali did it but by not offering a path to legality or compensation I don't know how they can pull that off
 
Good question. I'm not sure how places like Vermont, NY, Cali did it but by not offering a path to legality or compensation I don't know how they can pull that off
I have to believe the senate will pass a bill that includes a grandfather clause. The bullshit they're spewing about how 10 rd mags are readily available for every gun and modifying existing mags to 10 rds is easy and doable for all guns is flat out lies. I mean, that may be true for the most common and popular stuff like AR's, Glocks, etc. but not for Kel Tecs or older Berettas.
 
[rolleyes]

Did everyone smoking weed get compensated or grandfathered
when they outlawed it?
There's no right in the Constitution that allows for smoking weed, unlike the 2A, but at least with a consumable like weed or alcohol it doesn't go to waste before a law goes into effect. A magazine isn't a consumable, with proper maintenance they last forever.
 
There's no right in the Constitution that allows for smoking weed, unlike the 2A, but at least with a consumable like weed or alcohol it doesn't go to waste before a law goes into effect. A magazine isn't a consumable, with proper maintenance they last forever.
Show me the Clause that forbids laws declaring arbitrary objects to be contraband.
 
Show me the Clause that forbids laws declaring arbitrary objects to be contraband.
Huh? You mean private property that was purchased legally and then the government says they're pretty much taking it, by outlawing it and telling you to either turn them over or toss them, without paying you for it? The 4th amendment is pretty clear on people being secure in their effects and the 5th covers the taking of private property, which is more than just land, so if the government wants to confiscate magazines that they arbitrarily decided to be illegal then they should have a buy back or grandfather them in for the ones that already exist.
 
Last edited:
Huh? You mean private property that was purchased legally and then the government says they're pretty much taking it, by outlawing it and telling you to either turn them over or toss them, without paying you for it? The 4th amendment is pretty clear on people being secure in their effects and the 5th covers the taking of private property, which is more than just land, so if the government wants to confiscate magazines that they arbitrarily decided to be illegal then they should have a buy back or grandfather them in for the ones that already exist.
How's that going for Trump's bump stock ban?
 
Obtain an Internet FFL 🤔

Does anyone here in RI or MA have a internet FFL?
 
Last edited:
Show me the Clause that forbids laws declaring arbitrary objects to be contraband.
Ex Post Facto Clause Law and Legal Definition. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law. Like wise, Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government.

RI can prohibit future sales/possession but they cannot ban those that are already in possession. They'd have to grandfather them and that will present a huge problem enforcing the law. Undated magazines ?

The whole notion that something like this would work is insane. The fact that they even met to legislate and pass this law is a crime itself. They are conspiring to deny people of their constitutionally protected rights and continued to do so even after being warned by their AG.
 
Last edited:
Violates the search and seizure clauses, obviously the 4th in the US but also the search and seizure clause in the RI constitution. The legislature in RI is made up of a bunch of AOC's, retards who don't know the first thing about law

They are nothing more than gangsters with a "government title". They know that what they are doing is unconstitutional, yet they persist and insist on breaking the law, both state and federal.
 
The 4th amendment is pretty clear on people being secure in their effects and the 5th covers the taking of private property, which is more than just land, so if the government wants to confiscate magazines that they arbitrarily decided to be illegal then they should have a buy back or grandfather them in for the ones that already exist.
When property is rendered valueless by ownership becoming legally prohibited,
there is no need to compensate for its confiscation or destruction.

That's settled law:

The University of Chicago Press: The Journal of Legal Studies:
Hyde Park’s Two Turns in the Takings Clause Spotlight

Ex Post Facto Clause Law and Legal Definition. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall pass any ex post facto law. Like wise, Article I, section 9, clause 3 imposes the same prohibition upon the federal government.

RI can prohibit future sales/possession but they cannot ban those that are already in possession.
[bs]
If a law is passed to prohibit possession of something,
all the Ex Post Facto Clause forbids is
prosecuting someone for possessing contraband in the past,
before the law went into effect.
 
When property is rendered valueless by ownership becoming legally prohibited,
there is no need to compensate for its confiscation or destruction.

That's settled law:

The University of Chicago Press: The Journal of Legal Studies:
Hyde Park’s Two Turns in the Takings Clause Spotlight


[bs]
If a law is passed to prohibit possession of something,
all the Ex Post Facto Clause forbids is
prosecuting someone for possessing contraband in the past,
before the law went into effect.
The FVCK IT IS!!!

Where is your information from?

The very fact that a state or the feds are making a law that infringes on the 2A renders that law null and void.
 
Last edited:
The Founding Fathers for sure knew the atrocities committed by the British
before and during the revolution, and revolted in fear of far worse atrocities
to come. While they could scarce imagine the Holocaust, the Holodomor,
everything the ChiComs have done, and various other genocides;
they would never assume that Britain could not do the same to them.

They intended for the people to have the means to violently resist such horrors
inflicted by any government - foreign or domestic.


AHM,
The words above are yours, the bolding is mine just to highlight them.

If what you say above is correct, then how could any law that diminishes the 2A be accepted, including diminishing the value of property to the point that government doesn't have to compensate for its confiscation.

You need to either grow a pair and decide whether you are going to put the "confiscators" that arrive at your door in the grave, or just go turn your shit in now and avoid the conflict.
 
Last edited:
The FVCK IT IS!!!

Where is your information from?
You know, lawyers?

If what you say above is correct, then how could any law that diminishes the 2A be accepted, including diminishing the value of property to the point that government doesn't have to compensate for its confiscation.
And yet it happens all the time.

Spreading baseless legal opinions like
"it's unpossible to outlaw possession of an object without grandfathering"
is a good way to get some other guy jacked up on criminal charges.

Should I start spreading the tale that "if you get busted on bad legal advice from an NESer,
a judge will totally make him pay for your legal bill"?
 
Back
Top Bottom