cybermgk Posted January 12, 2023 at 02:30 PM Share Posted January 12, 2023 at 02:30 PM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now