langzaiguy
Regular Member
This bill is in the senate and already has 6 sponsors:
http://legiscan.com/KY/bill/SB92?utm_campaign=rss&guid=5iweZE5TcxXpOzfvD1lmNI
http://legiscan.com/KY/bill/SB92?utm_campaign=rss&guid=5iweZE5TcxXpOzfvD1lmNI
Half of the bill is great--limiting federal firearm jurisdiction and whatnot. The other half is crap like this:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import:
(a) Any machine gun;
(b) Any short-barreled shotgun;
(c) Any short-barreled rifle
I don't see any of this bill as anti-gun. The portion about NFA weapons in Section 2 only applies to those weapons:
1. Which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or
2. Any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
I don't know of any weapons like that in existence. If they do exist, I have no problem with them being made illegal.
No, those are semi-colons at the end of (a), (b) and (c), that makes them words in a series. Then there is the word OR before (d) and a colon which precedes a list that applies to the entire sentence. There are no periods. This is all one sentence. Think of it this way:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import: any machine gun; any short-barreled shotgun; any short-barreled rifle; or any firearm: which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
I agree that the construction is clumsy and unfortunate, but I know Senator Hornback and Senator Schickel personally and I am certain they have no intentions of banning any weapons.
This could be a slippery slope legislation, IMO.
Regardless, it needs some clean up on the language as it might be interpreted to ban mear possession of these guns. This would seem to really put a hurt on those who have Class 3 weapons as the transfers are contingent on them being legal in the state of residence.
The real kicker, however, is the use of the word "or." We have the first three items listed under different super-sections seperated by the semi-colon, but at the end of the third item we have the word "or" after the semi-colon, followed by the words "any firearm" followed by a colon, which means any firearm with the following characteristics stated, which is SEPERATED from the first three items in the sub-sections (a), (b) and (c).
This legislation in its current form will definately ban the stated firearms, and it needs to be amended before I could ever support it. It may not have been the sponsors intent, but in its current form that is exactly what it does.
No, those are semi-colons at the end of (a), (b) and (c), that makes them words in a series. Then there is the word OR before (d) and a colon which precedes a list that applies to the entire sentence. There are no periods. This is all one sentence. Think of it this way:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, manufacture, sell, deliver, transfer, or import: any machine gun; any short-barreled shotgun; any short-barreled rifle; or any firearm: which, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the security exemplar as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 922, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the security exemplar; or any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
I agree that the construction is clumsy and unfortunate, but I know Senator Hornback and Senator Schickel personally and I am certain they have no intentions of banning any weapons.
Gutshot has it right, this law would not ban any weapons that we would care about.
Gutshot has it right, this law would not ban any weapons that we would care about.
I just got off the phone with Senator Paul Hornback, a co-sponsor of this bill. He told me the wording was intentional and had to be that way. It would do no good to claim that a federal law was null and void in Ky. if Ky. didn’t have a law on the books to cover that same subject. We have to show that the federal law is unnecessary because Ky. has already done what we think necessary in that field. I asked about the issue of machine guns, SBR’s and SBS’s. He said they would be illegal, except where properly registered. I told him that I couldn’t find any exception for registration in the bill and he was shocked. He said it was supposed to be in there. He’s going to look into it and get back with me by Tuesday. He will get it fixed or he’ll pull the bill.
Where did this come from? I never said that the exemption would only cover possession. It never even occured to me, or to Sen. Hornback, that all the provisions of Section 2. would not be exempted. They certainly would.
I agree with you. When I speak with Sen. Hornback I will insist that the word "involuntarily" be inserted before committed. This will protect those that seek mental health treatment on their own.
This bill also strips the rights of those that unlawfully use or that are addicted to a controlled substance. We are going to deprive someone of their rights because they smoke a little marijuana? Alcohol is MUCH more dangerous than marijuana, so why not strip gun rights from those that drink?
Because alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.
Its not about causing trouble. Its about being addicted and out of control.