Nasty Anti-Gun Legislation Potentially Looming in RI

[Jared]

Have there been any other states that passed a mag capacity limit that didn't have a grandfather clause?

yes. The most recent one was New Jersey. They passed a 15 round limit in 1990 with no grandfather clause. A couple of years ago, they reduced it to 10 and the federal courts didn’t care.

HawaiI passed a 10 round limit for pistols back in 1994 with no grandfathering provision.
California’s ballot initiative back around 2016 retroactively banned 10+ round mags. The 9th circuit reversed it to have to court of appeals reverse them to allow the law to stand.

Courts will uphold this like the 3rd circuit did for NJ when they lowered it to 10 rounds. The useless Republican appointed “federalist society” judges and justices are worthless.

 

[T-Unit]

I sent my email to the two most important movers and shakers in the RI senate. Might call later today, but I doubt anything I say will make a difference. First time I've ever done it, so that was cool.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

House in RI is making a push to add a grandfather amendment to the magazine law.

Thus creating a "grandfathered ban" as a so-called "compromise" because the opposition only gets part of what it wants.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

yes. The most recent one was New Jersey. They passed a 15 round limit in 1990 with no grandfather clause. A couple of years ago, they reduced it to 10 and the federal courts didn’t care.

HawaiI passed a 10 round limit for pistols back in 1994 with no grandfathering provision.
California’s ballot initiative back around 2016 retroactively banned 10+ round mags. The 9th circuit reversed it to have to court of appeals reverse them to allow the law to stand.

Courts will uphold this like the 3rd circuit did for NJ when they lowered it to 10 rounds. The useless Republican appointed “federalist society” judges and justices are worthless.

CA has grandfathering for mags "personally possessed in CA prior to the CA ban".

CO has grandfathering for mags personally and continuously possessed, but not necessarily in CO, before the ban.

CT has grandfathering for "declared magazines"

MA has pre-ban mag grandfathering with no specific when possessed requirement.

Grandfathering can take on many different meanings but the goal is usually the same - minimal exemptions only to avoid the complication and legal issues of compensation.

 

[Jared]

CA has grandfathering for mags "personally possessed in CA prior to the CA ban".


Grandfathering can take on many different meanings but the goal is usually the same - minimal exemptions only to avoid the complication and legal issues of compensation.

CA had a statute from 2000 that banned the manufacture, importation into the state, or sales of 10+ mags.

Proposition 63 from 2016 required existing magazines be destroyed or moved out of state.

En Banc 9th circuit Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the ban in Duncan v Bonta.

​

 

[allen-1]

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

CT didn't do it quite like that.

They printed up a form, upon which you declared the number of mags you had as line items where each line item was a description including mfg, caliber and capacity. You sent in this "declaration" form.

If I were to file such a form today, I would most likely "over declare", so that I could add to my "declared" mags as I saw fit. Friends of mine may have "under declared"
so that they would have "off-list" mags in the case of confiscation.

I was told by a friend of mine that CT's declaration forms were ruined in a flood before they had scanned them. I don't know if this is wishful thinking, urban legend or fact - I've been unable thus far to confirm.

 

[pinefd]

So, here are the laws being voted on tomorrow, all of which I'm sure will pass (note there will be no grandfathering of >10 round magazines):

Senate Bill No. 2637

BY Goodwin, Miller, Coyne, DiMario, Lawson, Cano, Kallman, Murray, Quezada, Zurier

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC4686/1} (Increases the age from eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) years for lawful sale of firearms or ammunition. Exempts full-time law enforcement, state marshals and members of the U.S. military from these prohibitions.)

Senate Bill No. 2653

BY Coyne, Goodwin, Miller, DiPalma, Felag, Quezada, Seveney, Euer, Lawson, DiMario

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BAN OF 2022 {LC5424/1} (Makes it a felony for an individual to possess any semi-automatic firearm magazine which is capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition. Violations are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine of up to $5,000.)

Senate Bill No. 2825

BY McCaffrey, Goodwin

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC5547/1} (Defines rifle and shotgun as weapons and makes it unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in public subject to various exceptions inclusive of hunting activity punishable upon conviction by imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to $5,000.)

Frank

 

[MAJoe]

I was told by a friend of mine that CT's declaration forms were ruined in a flood before they had scanned them. I don't know if this is wishful thinking, urban legend or fact - I've been unable thus far to confirm.

Wishful thinking perhaps, but may not matter much anyway. I believe you’re supposed to keep your copy of the form they returned to you. So, even if their records were destroyed, if you can’t present the declaration form, you also have no proof you declared the parts/mags/AW.

 

[Uzi2]

So, here are the laws being voted on tomorrow, all of which I'm sure will pass (note there will be no grandfathering of >10 round magazines):

Senate Bill No. 2637

BY Goodwin, Miller, Coyne, DiMario, Lawson, Cano, Kallman, Murray, Quezada, Zurier

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC4686/1} (Increases the age from eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) years for lawful sale of firearms or ammunition. Exempts full-time law enforcement, state marshals and members of the U.S. military from these prohibitions.)

Senate Bill No. 2653

BY Coyne, Goodwin, Miller, DiPalma, Felag, Quezada, Seveney, Euer, Lawson, DiMario

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BAN OF 2022 {LC5424/1} (Makes it a felony for an individual to possess any semi-automatic firearm magazine which is capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition. Violations are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine of up to $5,000.)

Senate Bill No. 2825

BY McCaffrey, Goodwin

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC5547/1} (Defines rifle and shotgun as weapons and makes it unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in public subject to various exceptions inclusive of hunting activity punishable upon conviction by imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to $5,000.)

Frank

I would hope that one way Ryder and Penske truck rentals spike in the next couple of weeks...............but the realist inside me says they won't.

 

[allen-1]

I read the magazine bill from your link.

You can keep your currently posessed large capacity magazine(s) - as long as you permanently modify it(them) to hold 10 or fewer rounds.
Up to 5,000 USD and up to 5 years in prison for posession of a large cap mag.

Jesus.

They're about to outlaw posession - I'm thinking that FOPA won't cover me going through RI with my USPSA mags.

 

[allen-1]

Wishful thinking perhaps, but may not matter much anyway. I believe you’re supposed to keep your copy of the form they returned to you. So, even if their records were destroyed, if you can’t present the declaration form, you also have no proof you declared the parts/mags/AW.

Yeah. I just don't know.

I have my forms, originals are in my safe, copies are up here in my safe and in my truck.

It's one of those - "prove I didn't declare these" .vs. "prove that you did declare them". Cop doesn't care, DA gets the same pay, I'm gonna be out of pocket for an attorney.

 

[MAJoe]

Yeah. I just don't know.

I have my forms, originals are in my safe, copies are up here in my safe and in my truck.

It's one of those - "prove I didn't declare these" .vs. "prove that you did declare them". Cop doesn't care, DA gets the same pay, I'm gonna be out of pocket for an attorney.

Yea we’re on the same page. I’d much rather proactively be able to easily prove I did something and nip the question in the bud, rather than go to trial and pay a lawyer to convince a judge/jury that actually the state needs to prove I didn’t.

 

[MAJoe]

They're about to outlaw posession - I'm thinking that FOPA won't cover me going through RI with my USPSA mags.

FOPA doesn’t cover mags so nope, not covered.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

CA had a statute from 2000 that banned the manufacture, importation into the state, or sales of 10+ mags.

Proposition 63 from 2016 required existing magazines be destroyed or moved out of state.

En Banc 9th circuit Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the ban in Duncan v Bonta.

​

I though the grandfathering provision (personally possessed in CA prior to the ban) was still in place. Looking for confirmation on the existing muse be destroyed or move law.

 

[bigbravehog]

CT didn't do it quite like that.

They printed up a form, upon which you declared the number of mags you had as line items where each line item was a description including mfg, caliber and capacity. You sent in this "declaration" form.

If I were to file such a form today, I would most likely "over declare", so that I could add to my "declared" mags as I saw fit. Friends of mine may have "under declared"
so that they would have "off-list" mags in the case of confiscation.

I was told by a friend of mine that CT's declaration forms were ruined in a flood before they had scanned them. I don't know if this is wishful thinking, urban legend or fact - I've been unable thus far to confirm.

"upon which you declared the number of mags you had" - why in the world would anyone fill this out. I wonder how many submitted to this

 

[allen-1]

"upon which you declared the number of mags you had" - why in the world would anyone fill this out. I wonder how many submitted to this

The form came out at the same time that CT issued declaration/registration certificates for "assault weapons".

Some number of people filled them out because having undeclared mags discovered as a result of an interaction with police would result in (additional) charges. Sort of similar to why some people won't carry "high capacity" mags in MA, and want definitive proof that their "high cap" mags are "pre-ban".

The estimates that I saw about how many people registered firearms or magazines showed a fairly low level of compliance. What's interesting is that any firearm that came through a dealer already had a 4473 and DPS3-C on file, so "declarations" to get certificates issued for the firearms appeared to me to be kind of foolish - a duplication of data. However - it did give the SLFU a nice clean list to work from if they ever want to confiscate them.

CT/MA/RI - three monkeys in a small room, flinging shit all over themselves and everyone else.

 

[Lokdog]

So, here are the laws being voted on tomorrow, all of which I'm sure will pass (note there will be no grandfathering of >10 round magazines):

Senate Bill No. 2637

BY Goodwin, Miller, Coyne, DiMario, Lawson, Cano, Kallman, Murray, Quezada, Zurier

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC4686/1} (Increases the age from eighteen (18) to twenty-one (21) years for lawful sale of firearms or ammunition. Exempts full-time law enforcement, state marshals and members of the U.S. military from these prohibitions.)

Senate Bill No. 2653

BY Coyne, Goodwin, Miller, DiPalma, Felag, Quezada, Seveney, Euer, Lawson, DiMario

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- LARGE CAPACITY FEEDING DEVICE BAN OF 2022 {LC5424/1} (Makes it a felony for an individual to possess any semi-automatic firearm magazine which is capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition. Violations are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment or a fine of up to $5,000.)

Senate Bill No. 2825

BY McCaffrey, Goodwin

ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO CRIMINAL OFFENSES -- WEAPONS {LC5547/1} (Defines rifle and shotgun as weapons and makes it unlawful to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun in public subject to various exceptions inclusive of hunting activity punishable upon conviction by imprisonment up to 5 years or a fine up to $5,000.)

Frank

Well, the Second Amendment foundation has already filed a lawsuit against Washington state for their magazine ban, which isn't nearly as terrible as the RI one, so let's all hope and join the lawsuit that will almost certainly happen in RI if these laws pass. A f*#king felony up to 5 years in jail for possession of a magazine that was legal and is still legal everywhere else!?! Ridiculous

 

[T-Unit]

Who knows, with the lack of a grandfather clause and a more pro 2A SCOTUS, this mag ban law may be the one that destroys all similar magazine laws in the country.

That could be the silver lining to all this and RI has done a terrible job arguing 2A cases at Scotus, see the stungun case from last year.

 

[Davidk]

Other states have had mag bans for years. Scotus has not been a friend

 

[T-Unit]

Other states have had mag bans for years. Scotus has not been a friend

But they had a grandfather clause, RI's doesnt.

 

[Jared]

But they had a grandfather clause, RI's doesnt.

This is incorrect. Many didn’t.

Hawaii never grandfathered pistol magazines holding over 10.

New York City‘s 5 round limit for long guns from 1991 was never struck. Everyone had to get them out of the city or risk being a criminal. The law is still there today. A Staten Island man refused to comply and he refused to remove his AR/AK from the city and the NYPD had a short stand off with him.

New York‘s SAFE Act ONLY grandfathered “antique” magazines holding over 10. They only grandfathered 10 round mags when they had the 7 round limit (this portion was struck down but not the 10+ round limit.

New Jersey’s 15 round limit from 1990 and their 10 round limit from a couple of years ago have no grandfather clause. Penalty is a felony and the 3rd circuit court of appeals didn’t care less.

Washington DC never grandfathered 10+ round magazines from their 2008 ban.

California’s Proposition 63 from 2016 outlawed possession, the only exemption were for current/retired CA or Fed LEO as well as some oddball ones thst aren’t applicable to most people.

 

[Lokdog]

CA had a statute from 2000 that banned the manufacture, importation into the state, or sales of 10+ mags.

Proposition 63 from 2016 required existing magazines be destroyed or moved out of state.

En Banc 9th circuit Court reversed the court of appeals and upheld the ban in Duncan v Bonta.

​

Aren't propositions voted on by the voters? Those sound a little harder to overturn then a law voted on by a certain legislature

 

[AHM]

Aren't propositions voted on by the voters? Those sound a little harder to overturn then a law voted on by a certain legislature

That's why Massachusetts has no seat belt law -
the voters repealed it by initiative petition.

Oh wait; the scumbag legislators merely re-enacted it.

 

[Lokdog]

That's why Massachusetts has no seat belt law -
the voters repealed it by initiative petition.

Oh wait; the scumbag legislators merely re-enacted it.

The national "click it or ticket" was a federally pushed program. Just like the 21 year old drinking age I'm sure states were either told to get on board or lose federal highway money and no state would be willing to do that.

 

[Jared]

I though the grandfathering provision (personally possessed in CA prior to the ban) was still in place. Looking for confirmation on the existing muse be destroyed or move law.

Aren't propositions voted on by the voters? Those sound a little harder to overturn then a law voted on by a certain legislature

depends on the state. In Arizona and California they can only be overturned by another ballot initiative.

Oregon can simply be overturned by the legislature.

Michigan it takes 3/4 of both houses to repeal a ballot initiative unless there is another initiative.

Florida has initiative by constitutional amendment. It has to go to the state Supreme Court to be vetted for “constitutionality “and then it needs 60% of the vote.

Ballot initiatives were normally a process by which the progressive movement seized power.

 

[AHM]

The national "click it or ticket" was a federally pushed program. Just like the 21 year old drinking age I'm sure states were either told to get on board or lose federal highway money ...

Yeah, no.

The Massachusetts mandatory seat belt use law was repealed by referendum in Nov-86.
23 USC §402 Highway Safety Programs wasn't amended for seat belts until 1997.

... and no state would be willing to do that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

FOPA doesn’t cover mags so nope, not covered.

Has this been established by specific law or case precedent or is this just an assertion? Seeking a reference.

 

[Lokdog]

Yeah, no.

The Massachusetts mandatory seat belt use law was repealed by referendum in Nov-86.
23 USC §402 Highway Safety Programs wasn't amended for seat belts until 1997.

86? What is that like a life time ago? The world is a much different place than from 1986

 

[Lokdog]

I guess we can talk about referendums from the 70's too but we still hated commies then and now they run the country

 

[AHM]

86? What is that like a life time ago?

When I said that the Mass legislature reinstated a seat belt mandate
after it was repealed by initiative petition
what did you think I was referring to -
some other time the Mass legislature reinstated a seat belt mandate
after it was repealed by initiative petition?

The world is a much different place than from 1986

Yes; I voted for repeal because WBCN pointed out that
seat-belt mandates supply One More Pretext
for crooked cops to stage a traffic stop
to go on fishing expeditions.

I missed the Big Mattress this morning.
What's the Color of the Day?
I want to set my monitor background.