which guns specifically are banned or required to be registered per hb5471

[cybermgk]

On 1/11/2023 at 10:54 AM, defaultdotxbe said:

And the SKS has what I would assume the law considers a barrel shroud. 

Well, that's the real crux. Isn't it.  But then, They don't know what they put in the law, as it is cut and paste from the Handgun section, as no rifle has a slide.  One of the MANY language issues with this offal pile of a law.  For handguns, it's meant to ban AR handguns and similar,   But, by using the same language, verbatim on rifles, it becomes an interpretive mess.  So, it depends on how the ISP states it will be enforced.  And once again, IF that was the actual intent (and I am not saying practice always or has to equal intent) then why not just list SKS on the enumerated list?  After all, they obviuosally know about the SKS, and detachable mag variants.  Why only list  those, and not SKS, period, if the consider a rifle forend a shroud.  Me personally, don't consider the forend a shroud.  But, doesn't matter what I think. 

 

BUT EVEN IF IT IS, it still doesn't qualify the SKS with an internal mag as an SW unless that internal mag is deemed to qualify as

 

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine, if the firearm has one or more of the following:

 

Has to be both this AND have a shroud however they deem it.

 

YES, it all can be interpreted as such to ban an SKS.  But, it can also be to NOT.  Ultimately, why this law will be suspended then overturned imho, so much in it like this, in and of itself makes it violate Constitutionality.  Even before the 2A violations, it violates badly the 2nd tenet of The vagueness doctrine:

 

2) Under vagueness doctrine, a statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.

 

They as much stated that it is the ISP's job to lay down HOW it will be enforced.

 

THAT SAID, I hope it isn't fought on those grounds, as they would just redo it less vague.  Needs to be struck down on 2A violation, so it never happens again.

[GunCollector]

On 1/11/2023 at 3:10 PM, Vodoun da Vinci said:

So this means my Wife's Ruger 10/22 is toast

I own a ruger 10/22 and don’t think it qualifies.  It has no barrel shroud, no pistol grip, no thumb hole, no handle etc.  I think it is legal.  Can still buy one with a 10 round also. My opinion. 

[hetzen]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:42 AM, GunCollector said:

I own a ruger 10/22 and don’t think it qualifies.  It has no barrel shroud, no pistol grip, no thumb hole, no handle etc.  I think it is legal.  Can still buy one with a 10 round also. My opinion. 

 

It has a part that partially covers the barrel, does it not? Banned. 

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:42 AM, GunCollector said:

I own a ruger 10/22 and don’t think it qualifies.  It has no barrel shroud, no pistol grip, no thumb hole, no handle etc.  I think it is legal.  Can still buy one with a 10 round also. My opinion. 

Agree for 10/22s like this

 

But nor for ones like the Tactical model

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 8:57 AM, hetzen said:

 

It has a part that partially covers the barrel, does it not? Banned. 

It;s the stock.  Hard sell for the state that shroud = stock.

[vito]

Have any lawsuits been filed yet against the new law?

[hetzen]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:00 AM, cybermgk said:

It;s the stock.  Hard sell for the state that shroud = stock.

 

I think it fits the definition. partially encircles the barrel. It allows the bearer to hold the firearm without being burned. It's not a slide. I don't see how a 10/22 stock doesn't partially cover the barrel and its purpose is so you can hold the gun without being burned. 

(vi) a shroud attached to the barrel or that
25		partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing

10200HB5471sam003 - 85 - LRB102 24372 RLC 42574 a
1		the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
2		hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that
3		encloses the barrel.

[Fuddly]

The Chicago ordinance(?) specifically exempted shrouds that were an extension of the stock. That is noticeably missing from this act. I think Chicago had some kind of carve out for 22lr but I’m not certain on that.

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:49 AM, hetzen said:

 

I think it fits the definition. partially encircles the barrel. It allows the bearer to hold the firearm without being burned. It's not a slide. I don't see how a 10/22 stock doesn't partially cover the barrel and its purpose is so you can hold the gun without being burned. 

(vi) a shroud attached to the barrel or that
25		partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing

10200HB5471sam003 - 85 - LRB102 24372 RLC 42574 a
1		the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger
2		hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that
3		encloses the barrel.

Yes, technically it does.  But it MORE fits the description of a rifle stock.  Stock is it's PRIMARY definition.  Planes and cars both can be described with a single term like transportation.  But, they have more accurate, and specific descriptions that more clearly define/describe each as separate.  One can keep moving up the encompassing terms until one is found to describe everything.  However,  Stock much more accurately describes it.  This is important (Mind you IANAL, but my son is) in law.  The more specific term holds sway. 

 

Additionally, as this is verbatim cut and paste from Handgun section, where it actually makes sense, and DOES delineate certain types of handguns (like AR handguns), given the slide portion, my guess is this was not the intent, nor how ISP will define it,  Could be wrong.  TIme will tell.

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:59 AM, Fuddly said:

The Chicago ordinance(?) specifically exempted shrouds that were an extension of the stock. That is noticeably missing from this act. I think Chicago had some kind of carve out for 22lr but I’m not certain on that.

This law , this part was a cut and paste from the handgun part, where it makes sense (albeit Unconstitutional).  What rifle has a slide over the barrel?.

[hetzen]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:04 AM, cybermgk said:

Yes, technically it does.  But it MORE fits the description of a rifle stock.  Stock is it's PRIMARY definition.  Planes and cars both can be described with a single term like transportation.  But, they have more accurate, and specific descriptions.  Stock much more accurately describes it.  This is important (Mind you IANAL, but my son is) in law.  The more specific term holds sway.

 

They don't define stock the way you define it in this bill.

 

I also am not a lawyer, but that part of a stock on a 10/22 DOES partially cover the barrel and DOES have the intended purpose of being gripped so that you don't burn your hand. 

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:07 AM, hetzen said:

 

They don't define stock the way you define it in this bill.

 

I also am not a lawyer, but that part of a stock on a 10/22 DOES partially cover the barrel and DOES have the intended purpose of being gripped so that you don't burn your hand. 

Um, Law, not bill and they don't define stock at all in it.  Exactly 5 occurrences of the word stock, and not one is a definition, just TYPES of stocks that are banned. .

 

Additionally, a predominant doctrine in law is The Reasonable Man Doctrine.  I.E., as applied to this, What would a reasonable person, average person, etc, call that on the 10/22.  The answer is much more likely, to an absurd degree, stock, and not shroud.

 

(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

 

(iii) a folding, telescoping, thumbhole, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of, the weapon;

 

(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock

 

iii) a folding or thumbhole stock

[hetzen]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:19 AM, cybermgk said:

Um, Law, not bill and they don't define stock at all in it.  Exactly 5 occurrences of the word stock, and not one is a definition, just TYPES of stocks that are banned. .

 

Additionally, a predominant doctrine in law is The Reasonable Man Doctrine.  I.E., as applied to this, What would a reasonable person, average person, etc, call that on the 10/22.  The answer is much more likely, to an absurd degree, stock, and not shroud.

 

 

I just disagree. 

 

To them a stock the back part of the gun, and shroud is the front. They're clueless on guns, clearly, but this is what it says. It doesn't say "AND". It says "OR". A stock "partially or completely encircles the barrel". So to them, it makes it a shroud. 

 

a shroud attached to the barrel or that
25		partially or completely encircles the barrel

 

 

I don't think/hope this ever actually goes into place, but if it does, you're welcome to take your chances with **** LEO/prosecutors in this anti-gun state and see how it goes. 

[illinois_buckeye]

On 1/12/2023 at 9:43 AM, vito said:

Have any lawsuits been filed yet against the new law?

I was listening to the radio this morning on the way to work in St. Louis, they had a gun shop/range owner in Belleville who has a Missouri store as well that they were talking to.  He mentioned something about a lawsuit getting filed sometime today.  He seemed to think that they had a good change based on Heller and what’s happened in other states that tried similar laws.

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:42 AM, hetzen said:

 

 

I just disagree. 

 

To them a stock the back part of the gun, and shroud is the front. They're clueless on guns, clearly, but this is what it says. It doesn't say "AND". It says "OR". A stock "partially or completely encircles the barrel". So to them, it makes it a shroud. 

 

a shroud attached to the barrel or that
25		partially or completely encircles the barrel

 

 

I don't think/hope this ever actually goes into place, but if it does, you're welcome to take your chances with **** LEO/prosecutors in this anti-gun state and see how it goes. 

By They, do you mean Legislators?  Yeah agree they don't know their hole from a hole in the ground viz a viz guns.

 

But "To them a stock the back part of the gun, and shroud is the front" even if you are correct that is what they 'think', A) it denotes two separate entities, like on a typical Lever Rifle.  But, in this case, it is one piece.  B.  Doesn't matter what the Legislators think at this point..

 

It's no longer in their hands now.  It's in the hands of LEOs, prosecutors and courts.  More to the point, it is in the hands f the ISP to clarify, as per direction of Pigster.

 

And, as I pointed out, this particular portion, about Semi auto rifles with detachable mag capability and Shrouds, is so vague, open to interpretation, that it is unenforceable, and SHOULD lose in any court, if fought on those grounds alone.  Any prosecuter that tried to prosecute someone with a 10/22 using a 5 or 10 rd mag, on this, would be, frankly imho, stupid.

[hetzen]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:04 AM, cybermgk said:

By They, do you mean Legislators?  Yeah agree they don't know their hole from a hole in the ground viz a viz guns.

 

But "To them a stock the back part of the gun, and shroud is the front" even if you are correct that is what they 'think', A) it denotes two separate entities, like on a typical Lever Rifle.  But, in this case, it is one piece.  B.  Doesn't matter what the Legislators think at this point..

 

It's no longer in their hands now.  It's in the hands of LEOs, prosecutors and courts.  More to the point, it is in the hands f the ISP to clarify, as per direction of Pigster.

 

And, as I pointed out, this particular portion, about Semi auto rifles with detachable mag capability and Shrouds, is so vague, open to interpretation, that it is unenforceable, and SHOULD lose in any court, if fought on those grounds alone.  Any prosecuter that tried to prosecute someone with a 10/22 using a 5 or 10 rd mag, on this, would be, frankly imho, stupid.

 

It would be stupid. And it fits them perfectly because they're all idiots who do, and will continue to do, stupid things. 

 

I think we're on the same page. I'm just assuming the worst about these idiots because they've given me no reason to think any more of them. And I believe they wanted this to be so outrageous so that it gets shut down, just like you said. That way fat fck jubba the hut can claim another victory in his presidential run when he can rant about courts being far right or whatever, and him needing to fix it. 

[Odinson]

My jumper cables are OK, right?

 

[cybermgk]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:28 AM, hetzen said:

 

It would be stupid. And it fits them perfectly because they're all idiots who do, and will continue to do, stupid things. 

 

I think we're on the same page. I'm just assuming the worst about these idiots because they've given me no reason to think any more of them. And I believe they wanted this to be so outrageous so that it gets shut down, just like you said. That way fat fck jubba the hut can claim another victory in his presidential run when he can rant about courts being far right or whatever, and him needing to fix it. 

I also think they are trying to flood the blue states, where they can do this, with these Unconstitutional, BADLY Unconstitutional laws, to spread the various 2A fighting Legal entites and support money thin.  It's really their only tactic left Since Bruen, Heller and a couple of others.  AND, depending on the lower courts, they may keep them in place for some amount of time, HURTING FFLs even more.

[LeviSS]

Are stripped lowers banned? They have none of the specified features. You could do a CA stock, bullet button, 10rd mag and bolt action upper.

 

 

 

Is it purchased/transferring AND a background check initiated or purchased OR transfer with a background check initiated. I know that sounds odd, but what if it was purchased online before he signed the bill? It has been purchased, but no background check initiated. So I would assume it is legally yours once you pay for it and have a dated and time stamped receipt.

 

 

 

Are we going to be able to list the caliber as "multi" for lowers that you swap uppers on?

 

 

 

How can they ban the sale of all parts when some parts are used on bolt action chassis rifles (and others) like grips, stocks, etc. What if you have a legal, grandfathered "assault" rifle and have a part break?

 

It's very possible I don't understand the legalese.  

[Fuddly]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:04 AM, cybermgk said:

But "To them a stock the back part of the gun, and shroud is the front" even if you are correct that is what they 'think', A) it denotes two separate entities, like on a typical Lever Rifle.  But, in this case, it is one piece. 

On a takedown 10/22 it is very much two pieces. Want to hike in the woods to hunt rabbit or squirrel? That firearm is no longer an option unless you already have one.

[Caveman2021]

has anyone figured out if glocks with rails on them that have a TLR light mount or a red dot considered illegal yet?

[spanishjames]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:20 PM, Caveman2021 said:

has anyone figured out if glocks with rails on them that have a TLR light mount or a red dot considered illegal yet?

They're not, unless over 15 round magazine is in it. 

[spanishjames]

On 1/12/2023 at 12:01 PM, LeviSS said:

Are stripped lowers banned? They have none of the specified features. You could do a CA stock, bullet button, 10rd mag and bolt action upper.

 

 

 

Is it purchased/transferring AND a background check initiated or purchased OR transfer with a background check initiated. I know that sounds odd, but what if it was purchased online before he signed the bill? It has been purchased, but no background check initiated. So I would assume it is legally yours once you pay for it and have a dated and time stamped receipt.

 

 

 

Are we going to be able to list the caliber as "multi" for lowers that you swap uppers on?

 

 

 

How can they ban the sale of all parts when some parts are used on bolt action chassis rifles (and others) like grips, stocks, etc. What if you have a legal, grandfathered "assault" rifle and have a part break?

 

It's very possible I don't understand the legalese.  

Answers here:

 

[Caveman2021]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:35 PM, spanishjames said:

They're not, unless over 15 round magazine is in it. 

So these attachments are not considered banned? only if thy are on long guns?

[spanishjames]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:45 PM, Caveman2021 said:

So these attachments are not considered banned? only if thy are on long guns?

They are not. 

[LeviSS]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:37 PM, spanishjames said:

Answers here:

 

No answers...only told to call/email officials for answers that I'm sure they aren't going to provide.

[mousegun6]

I emailed the House and Senate sponsors and asked them a question. So far, no response.

[papa]

Probably the wrong place to ask this however , has anyone noted anything concerning switchblade knives ? Especially OTF knives in this B. S. bill? 

[GunCollector]

Is there any rifle in the world that has nothing surrounding the barrel be it a lower hand guard/stock like. 10/22?  I can’t think of one.   So basically they banned ALL semi auto rifles.  Why not just say that. The bill could have been one page.  

[LeviSS]

Is it all 50cal cartridges or just 50bmg?  

 

They mostly refer to only 50cal, but tucked in there is this:

    (6) ".50 caliber cartridge" means a cartridge in .50 BMG

caliber, either by designation or actual measurement, that is

capable of being fired from a centerfire rifle.