New Florida Assault Weapons Ban Bill Introduced

V

vitesse9

New member
State Senator Gwen Margolis introduced Senate Bill 0500, which, if passed would ban all usual "scary" semi-autos and hicap mags. What's worse, is that 1) it criminalizes mere possession of such "contraband" and then calls for the confiscation of them. No grandfather clause or anything as far as I can tell (I read the bill). This is the real nightmare situation: ban guns and turn them in or else face felony charges!
Anyway, the bill already failed in the Senate, so no need to panic. But, I fired off a rather nasty email to Mr. Margolis anyway. Here's what I wrote:

Dear Ms. Margolis,

I'm a resident of Gulfport, Florida. I am deeply disturbed by your recent proposed legislation (SB0500). What I find most disturbing is the provision in your bill for the forced confiscation and forfeiture of so called "assault weapons." Ms. Margolis, you should be ashamed of yourself. This bill, were it to become law, would be more fitting for the cowering supplicants of Castro's Cuba rather than the free citizens of the United States of America. You may not like the guns that are the subject of your bill, and you may see nothing objectionable to using state power to take them from law-abiding citizens. But I think it's disgraceful and by association, you are a disgrace.
Click to expand...

I know, I know . . .not very diplomatic or effective of me. I probably should have waited until I cooled down. But, the point is the same: if enough people write her and give her *&*# about this draconian bill, she'll at least know that there will be strong opposition if she does it again.

If you're from Florida, write her at her at margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov Let her know Floridans won't sit back and let their state become a California or New York!
 
Last edited:
Wtiting to her is a good thing. But the fact that she has brought this shows that she is a lost cause.
Every senator and congress person in Fla should be contacted by as many of us as possible. Let them know now that this type of crap will not be tolerated here.
They serve at our pleasure
 
WHEREAS, as a result of the expiration of the ban,

7 UZI's, AK-47's, and other semiautomatic weapons are now

8 available for purchase and possession in this state, and

9 WHEREAS, a Miami-Dade police officer was shot with a

10 semiautomatic assault weapon the day before the federal

11 assault weapon ban expired, and
Click to expand...

I found this interesting. The fact that before the Fed ban ended, that this officer was shot.

I can't see how the a state can seize property, and not reimburse a person. Even when a freeway was constructed, through an existing neighborhood, the state condemned the land/property, and gave the owners full market value.
 
I can't see how the a state can seize property, and not reimburse a person. Even when a freeway was constructed, through an existing neighborhood, the state condemned the land/property, and gave the owners full market value.
Click to expand...

Normally, you're correct that the state (or fed gov.) must pay "just compensation" when they take property. This is mandated by the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution and applies against the states because the 5th Amendment has been incorporate into the 14th Amendment.

HOWEVER the bill says confiscation AND forfeiture. Forfeiture is the process whereby property is seized and "forfeited" to the state because it has been used in furtherance of criminal activity. This is why you see cops driving around in souped up cars when they are undercover: these cars were used in illegal activity (probably drug-related) and they were forfeited.

To answer your question: in the case of forfeiture, the state is not required by the 5th Amendment to pay just compensation.

That's why Margolis' bill makes mere possession of "assault weapons" and hi caps illegal. Once possession of these items is a crime, the state can take them without paying for them. It's a very crafty way to use the nuances of the law to affect a true gun ban. There's no grandfather clause in this bill. If the bill were to pass, after it goes into effect, anyone who had a hicap laying around or an AK semi-auto in the gun safe would be committing a felony. And then the state could just take the guns without paying the owner for them. Convenient isn't it?

Gotta watch these gun banning oligarches: they have no scruples when it comes to affecting their agenda (getting guns out of the hands of regular people). Someone ought to read Mrs Margolis the Second Amendment or Article I, Sec. 8 of the Florida Constitution.
 
I am not arguing. I might not have read the law correct. Assume I am dainflorida, I own a "covered" weapon. Before a certain time, I have to sell the gun?, store the gun in a different state, or just give the gun to the state to destroy? So if I am unable to sell, can not afford out of state storage, I have to "give" the gun to the state, with no compensation?, or after the date have it taken(same as giving), but have a felony conviction too. Is that the choices I am left with?
 
Danindetroit,

Well, not exactly. The only way the state can forfeit your guns is if you're convicted of an underlying crime. The criminal trial and the forfeiture trial are two separate proceedings. So, unless you've been convicted of "possession," which, the way I read the bill is a 2nd degree felony, the guns can't be forfeited. Plus, while not binding on Florida, the Supreme Court of Maryland just ruled that convicted felons have property rights in their guns, even though they can't possess them anymore. Thus, a guy convicted of a felony that had nothing to do with his guns, and who owned the guns before he was a felon, was allowed to sell the gun collection.

If this bill were to pass, which it won't, I would say that you'd still have the opportunity to sell your guns. You just wouldn't be able to posssess them. IF the state started going door-to-door and demanding that you turn over your banned guns before possessing the guns becomes a crime or during an amnesty period or something, then you would be entitled to the fair value of your guns at the time they were seized. However, no compensation required once you are convicted of "possessing" the guns and the state prevails at the forfeiture trial.

Does that help?
 
It helps guys, it is unbelievable, that someone would even try this. I am serious thinking of getting some grassroots ballot proposals in MI. The legislature is one of the most dangerous places, so many idiots in one place with a lot of time, and trying to justify there existence. They are considered a "full time" legislature, work about 9 months out of the year maybe, get paid $79,000 a year with an $11,000 expense account, with lifetime benefits after 5 years.
 
I offer FREE assault weapon "storage"! LOL There are too many sheeple "making a statement" as our elected representatives. Does anyone else think that trusting our rights to government is wrong?
 
The only way the state can forfeit your guns is if you're convicted of an underlying crime.
Click to expand...

Errrm, unfortunately, actually, no. Well, maybe as that proposed law is written, perhaps, but in general, no. The government can steal, I mean take by forfeiture, your stuff, EVEN if you've been found NOT guilty of the underlying crime - that's right folks - it happens every day in drug cases, and it's outrageous if you ask me. The theory there is that well, the criminal case has a different level of burden of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt"), whereas in the case of State of Florida vs Three Scary Looking Rifles, Case # 05-13482, the burden of proof is mere "preponderance" of the evidence, so it makes sense to proceed with the forfeiture even if the state couldn't meet its burden in the criminal courtroom to get a conviction. That's the theory anyway. The trial is a mirror image of the criminal one in proof, but the defendant is the actual named property, and the jury is instructed with a different burden of proof.
 
Unfortunately First Freedom is right especially, it seems, in Fla.
Do a google on sheriff Vogel of Volusia county and his highwaymen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top