2022 assault Weapons Ban

[Rafe]

I think they mean FFL license?

That's how I read it. A grandfathered "semiautomatic assault weapon" could be transferred only via a licensed FFL, be that a licensed manufacturer, importer, or retail sales establishment. So the transfer would be documented (i.e., gun registration) and could always come attached with the requirement of a tax stamp or some other federal hoop jumping. Nothing in the text prevents additional requirements being placed on the licensee...it just says that transferring a grandfathered item is possible, though only through those licensed channels. One gathers it means you couldn't even bequeath your firearms to your adult child in your will without those items in the estate requiring that sort of licensee transfer.

But don't trust me. Not a lawyer, and only read through the morass once.

[powerboatr]

I think they mean FFL license?

That's how I read it. A grandfathered "semiautomatic assault weapon" could be transferred only via a licensed FFL, be that a licensed manufacturer, importer, or retail sales establishment. So the transfer would be documented (i.e., gun registration) and could always come attached with the requirement of a tax stamp or some other federal hoop jumping. Nothing in the text prevents additional requirements being placed on the licensee...it just says that transferring a grandfathered item is possible, though only through those licensed channels. One gathers it means you couldn't even bequeath your firearms to your adult child in your will without those items in the estate requiring that sort of licensee transfer.

But don't trust me. Not a lawyer, and only read through the morass once.

thanks
so how would they know you gave a firearm to a relative so to speak? my firearms are not registered other than on the form you fill out at time of purchase, so this bill would now require ffls to send notice at time of sale vice holding the forms on hand? if so, that would create a database of names, addresses etc really fast and make those persons "targets" because we all know the gov will not protect information.

[mayor]

so how would they know you gave a firearm to a relative so to speak? my firearms are not registered other than on the form you fill out at time of purchase, so this bill would now require ffls to send notice at time of sale vice holding the forms on hand? if so, that would create a database of names, addresses etc really fast and make those persons "targets" because we all know the gov will not protect information.

This is the wonderous stupidity of our leftist betters. I won't comply with their hoop jumping.

[Rafe]

thanks
so how would they know you gave a firearm to a relative so to speak? my firearms are not registered other than on the form you fill out at time of purchase, so this bill would now require ffls to send notice at time of sale vice holding the forms on hand? if so, that would create a database of names, addresses etc really fast and make those persons "targets" because we all know the gov will not protect information.

No, the language in HR 1808 doesn't go into any specifics about sending notice at the time of sale or any new database. The parenthetical comment about gun registration was just me extrapolating what could happen if this turkey passes. What it does, though, is create a special class of firearm that is specifically controlled, and if we look back to the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 we can see that once that step is taken then adding new administrative requirements or restrictions has never really come under SCOTUS scrutiny...e.g., there is a federal database of everyone who legally owns a suppressor because they had to buy a tax stamp for it, even if it was through a registered trust.

The blanket wording of this proposed travesty of a bill is: "It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon." Same exact wording for magazines, just substitute "large capacity ammunition feeding device" for "semiautomatic assault weapon"; but there's no grandfathering for transfer of those, only possession: you can keep it if you already owned it, but you can't sell it or give it away.

For "semiautomatic assault weapons" the "it shall be unlawful" part is followed by the grandfathering clause: "...shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022" and a second clause that excludes any firearm that's manually operated (bolt, pump, lever, or slide) except for certain shotguns; has been rendered permanently inoperable; is an antique; or is capable of firing only rimfire ammunition.

When you get down to Section 5, "Background Checks for Transfers of Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons," there are some references to repeals and redesignations of the existing 18 USC §922 so you kinda have to look at that to follow along with everything. Basically it would repeal Section (s) as currently written--which has some wiggle room on certain transfers--and replaces it with a modified version of what is today Section (t). The new verbiage is pretty plain about any transfer requiring the FFL to first take custody of the gun and then treat it "as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee." It then defines that "for purposes of this subsection, the term 'transfer' shall include a sale, gift, or loan."

It reads to me that, having created a new class of controlled firearm, if you can't prove that you acquired the firearm (or magazine) prior to 90 days after the date of enactment of HR 1808, or that a grandfathered controlled firearm was legally transferred to you via an FFL, then the penalties that apply will be as described in 18 USC §924 (a)(1): "shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

So it seems to me that, no, nobody would know if you gave a "semiautomatic assault weapon" to a relative (I guess unless it's specifically in your will), but the new "criminal" then would be the person in possession of a controlled firearm who couldn't prove that he acquired it before HR 1808 went into effect. In other words, if you gave me the firearm then the onus would be on me to show evidence of acquisition prior to the law taking hold.

Which of course raises the question about firearms previously--perfectly legally--being transferred via individual, in-state sale without a receipt or other paperwork. Hm. How would I prove that a rifle in my possession without transaction documentation was legally in my possession before a certain date?

[philip964]

My learned friends say it’s just window dressing so that the Dems can say they voted for gun control in October.

No chance they say it will pass the Senate.

Makes me nervous.

My learned friends also say the gun control mantra has reached the higher ups in the civil service ranks of federal law enforcement. So sounds like they have no qualms about ordering their staff to arrest citizens for gun violations as long as they vote conservative.

[carlson1]

[carlson1]

My learned friends say it’s just window dressing so that the Dems can say they voted for gun control in October.

No chance they say it will pass the Senate.

Makes me nervous.

My learned friends also say the gun control mantra has reached the higher ups in the civil service ranks of federal law enforcement. So sounds like they have no qualms about ordering their staff to arrest citizens for gun violations as long as they vote conservative.

Yea and they said that about the Red Flag law they passed too and it was signed into law. So don’t count on it. Two REPUBLICANS in the House voted for this bill. Can’t count on the Republicans in the Senate.

[howdy]

I am 72 and know at some point (hopefully way down the road) my family will be dividing up my estate. If I owned any guns, I would "sell" them to my relatives right now. I would do a bill of sale, price of $1 and have it notarized. I am a notary in Katy and would be glad to notarize the forms for you free of charge. IANAL and I will let any Attorney chime in here.

[powerboatr]

thanks
so how would they know you gave a firearm to a relative so to speak? my firearms are not registered other than on the form you fill out at time of purchase, so this bill would now require ffls to send notice at time of sale vice holding the forms on hand? if so, that would create a database of names, addresses etc really fast and make those persons "targets" because we all know the gov will not protect information.

No, the language in HR 1808 doesn't go into any specifics about sending notice at the time of sale or any new database. The parenthetical comment about gun registration was just me extrapolating what could happen if this turkey passes. What it does, though, is create a special class of firearm that is specifically controlled, and if we look back to the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 we can see that once that step is taken then adding new administrative requirements or restrictions has never really come under SCOTUS scrutiny...e.g., there is a federal database of everyone who legally owns a suppressor because they had to buy a tax stamp for it, even if it was through a registered trust.

The blanket wording of this proposed travesty of a bill is: "It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon." Same exact wording for magazines, just substitute "large capacity ammunition feeding device" for "semiautomatic assault weapon"; but there's no grandfathering for transfer of those, only possession: you can keep it if you already owned it, but you can't sell it or give it away.

For "semiautomatic assault weapons" the "it shall be unlawful" part is followed by the grandfathering clause: "...shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022" and a second clause that excludes any firearm that's manually operated (bolt, pump, lever, or slide) except for certain shotguns; has been rendered permanently inoperable; is an antique; or is capable of firing only rimfire ammunition.

When you get down to Section 5, "Background Checks for Transfers of Grandfathered Semiautomatic Assault Weapons," there are some references to repeals and redesignations of the existing 18 USC §922 so you kinda have to look at that to follow along with everything. Basically it would repeal Section (s) as currently written--which has some wiggle room on certain transfers--and replaces it with a modified version of what is today Section (t). The new verbiage is pretty plain about any transfer requiring the FFL to first take custody of the gun and then treat it "as if the licensee were transferring the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee." It then defines that "for purposes of this subsection, the term 'transfer' shall include a sale, gift, or loan."

It reads to me that, having created a new class of controlled firearm, if you can't prove that you acquired the firearm (or magazine) prior to 90 days after the date of enactment of HR 1808, or that a grandfathered controlled firearm was legally transferred to you via an FFL, then the penalties that apply will be as described in 18 USC §924 (a)(1): "shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

So it seems to me that, no, nobody would know if you gave a "semiautomatic assault weapon" to a relative (I guess unless it's specifically in your will), but the new "criminal" then would be the person in possession of a controlled firearm who couldn't prove that he acquired it before HR 1808 went into effect. In other words, if you gave me the firearm then the onus would be on me to show evidence of acquisition prior to the law taking hold.

Which of course raises the question about firearms previously--perfectly legally--being transferred via individual, in-state sale without a receipt or other paperwork. Hm. How would I prove that a rifle in my possession without transaction documentation was legally in my possession before a certain date?

thank you very much for the common sense reply.
i have to go study the bill now in detail . so i can be educated. YOU just boosted my education 2 fold on this bill. time to strap on the study goggles

i was very concerned about time of purchase that the ffl would be required to populate the ATF database of the firearm listed on the form.
i dont think its any of their business.
i keep asking our senators why they dont just mandate atf and DOJ to enforce CURRENT laws and prosecute those who are deemed illegal to own firearms. again the bad guys and girls will have the firearms and good guys and girls will be made into criminals by way of dumb leaders

anyway my new 1911s are due in any day

[Soccerdad1995]

I highly doubt that this bill will ever be: A) Passed by the senate; and B) Not immediately struck down by the courts. But I do have a couple of observations:

One, this seems like a great time to sell any spare firearms that would fall under this ban, if we see a price spike. Should be a decently long window because I'd expect Schumer to postpone a vote until or unless he reasonably expects a possibility of passing (or closer to the midterms if the point is just to get Republican senators on record).

Two, If this somehow goes into effect, then every affected firearm that is manufactured prior to the law's effective date should be grandfathered, because it will have been "lawfully possessed" at that time, right? Even if it is possessed by the manufacturer or a distributor / retailer. Net-net, we should not see any meaningful decrease in supply before SCOTUS ultimately strikes this absurdity down.

[Rafe]

i keep asking our senators why they dont just mandate atf and DOJ to enforce CURRENT laws and prosecute those who are deemed illegal to own firearms. again the bad guys and girls will have the firearms and good guys and girls will be made into criminals by way of dumb leaders

anyway my new 1911s are due in any day

Amen to that. A tiny fraction of firearm homicides are committed with modern sporting rifles...and if you remove the mentally warped wackos who set out to kill a bunch of strangers, the tiny fraction becomes microscopic. And then we go back to the data that shows 88% of all firearm homicides are committed by people who are not legally allowed to possess guns under the current, existing laws...79% of the perps are already convicted felons! If almost 9 in 10 gun homicides are committed by perps for whom having a firearm in their possession is already illegal, enacting new laws as a solution to crime just doesn't make a lick bit of sense.

This bill is like the Biden administration trying to fix rampant inflation by raising taxes and spending an additional bazillion dollars to increase the national debt.

And I love me my 1911s! Some say old fashioned; I say timeless.

[Rafe]

I highly doubt that this bill will ever be: A) Passed by the senate; and B) Not immediately struck down by the courts. But I do have a couple of observations:

One, this seems like a great time to sell any spare firearms that would fall under this ban, if we see a price spike. Should be a decently long window because I'd expect Schumer to postpone a vote until or unless he reasonably expects a possibility of passing (or closer to the midterms if the point is just to get Republican senators on record).

Two, If this somehow goes into effect, then every affected firearm that is manufactured prior to the law's effective date should be grandfathered, because it will have been "lawfully possessed" at that time, right? Even if it is possessed by the manufacturer or a distributor / retailer. Net-net, we should not see any meaningful decrease in supply before SCOTUS ultimately strikes this absurdity down.

To point #2, I agree, but it would still wreak havoc with the manufacturing industry. If it passes and goes into effect, a boatload of manufacturers effectively would have to shut down operations on a bunch of different lines. The smaller niche builders who specialize in modern sporting rifles might be put out of business, because I'd think it almost a certainty that by the time lawsuits and appeals are filed that it could easily be a year before SCOTUS could address it.

To point #1, I wish I'd written it down because I can't find it right now with my weak Google Fu, but at some point yesterday Fox News made the point that all 50 democratic senators have not been present for a floor vote in months, like since January or February. With COVID positive tests and other reasons, they haven't been able to corral them all at the same time.

On that note, however, the soon-to-retire, 82-year-old Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced late last week that he would return to the senate floor this week "for some big votes, including the possible democratic agenda bill." (Note that the link is to Politico.com...for those who don't want to visit their site.)

I may well be wrong, but I assume that this bill will require a 60-vote majority for cloture. That would mean every single one of the dems would need to be present and vote in favor (at a time when many of them are having to fight for their seats in a midterm that could be a democrat bloodbath in some states), plus the turncoating of 10 republicans.

I think the chances are very remote. But it still makes me nervous. It's extremely frightening considering that the majority of politicians hardly even know enough about firearms to tell which end the business bit comes out of...

[Rafe]

Just received this from the NRA-ILA about HR 1808:

House-Passed Gun Ban Shows the Importance of the Election This November
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022080 ... s-november

Authored by Rep. David N. Cicilline (D-RI), H.R. 1808 would ban the most popular semiautomatic rifles in America, many popular semiautomatic shotguns, and the magazines that come with firearms commonly used for self-defense. The bill would also put millions of existing gun owners at risk of committing a federal felony for simply transferring a covered gun to another person.

Pointing out how out of touch the Nancy Pelosi-led House is with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions on the Second Amendment, NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet released this statement on passage of H.R. 1808:

“Barely a month after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, gun control advocates in Congress are spearheading an assault upon the freedoms and civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. The promises made in HR 1808 are nothing short of a lie based on willful ignorance of the disastrous 1994 Clinton Gun Ban which failed to produce any significant drop in crime. With more than 24 million potentially-banned firearms in common use, these draconian restrictions fall in blatant opposition to the Supreme Court's rulings in Bruen, Caetano v. Massachusetts, and DC v. Heller. Their refusal to recognize this reality places everyone at risk. Any legitimate attempt to address our nation's surge in violent crime cannot commence until anti-gun legislators step away from the radicals who defund our police departments, support prosecutors who refuse to prosecute dangerous criminals, and promote no cash bail policies that have turned once proud communities into a playground of lawlessness and fear.”

[The Annoyed Man]

I think they mean FFL license?

That's how I read it. A grandfathered "semiautomatic assault weapon" could be transferred only via a licensed FFL, be that a licensed manufacturer, importer, or retail sales establishment. So the transfer would be documented (i.e., gun registration) and could always come attached with the requirement of a tax stamp or some other federal hoop jumping. Nothing in the text prevents additional requirements being placed on the licensee...it just says that transferring a grandfathered item is possible, though only through those licensed channels. One gathers it means you couldn't even bequeath your firearms to your adult child in your will without those items in the estate requiring that sort of licensee transfer.

But don't trust me. Not a lawyer, and only read through the morass once.

FWIW, I’m not "transferring" any of mine…not in this climate. I foresee some tragic boating accidents.

Oh, and we’re looking at buying an old but good condition Bridgeport mill, so we can "make stuff" if we want to.

[Rafe]

FWIW, I’m not "transferring" any of mine…not in this climate. I foresee some tragic boating accidents.

Oh, and we’re looking at buying an old but good condition Bridgeport mill, so we can "make stuff" if we want to.

Even used, a Bridgeport can set you back a penny or two. And they're pretty big. Sigh. I'm not the handiest guy on the block, but if I had it to do all over again I'd, 1) be wealthy; 2) buy and build on a nice chunk of property in the Hill Country; and 3) as a hobby, set up my own metal working shop with all...well, many of the bells and whistles. I also can't gunsmith my way out of a Brownell's catalog, but it would sure be fun to have all the tools and learn to actually build components...especially considering parameter number one that I'd be wealthy and not have to work for a living.

But I'm not transferring anything either. And I'm even a bit poorer now. The ease and speed with which such an abominable and clearly anti-Constitutional bill swept through the House was just another reminder that complacency is not a strategic plan. So I've ordered a few more odds and ends.