08 January 2019

IANAL

There's a school of thought that thinks that Florida's bumpstock ban also, somehow, applies to NFA registered machine guns like drop-in auto sears and lightning links.

790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump-fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.

Despite them doing what the bumpstock law says it bans...

FS 790.221 explains it all.

Machine guns are illegal in Florida.

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.—
(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.
(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

 
Wait...  What's that subsection (3)?
 
Don't read into the law things which aren't there while ignoring that which is.

Lightning links and DIAS are not accessories, kits or devices that mimic automatic weapon fire.  They create actual automatic fire and are already defined and regulated as machineguns.

The devil is in the details.

I suspect that 790.222 is going to, eventually, be struck as constitutionally vague from a lack of objective definitions.
Posted by Angus McThag at 19:32
Labels: ,

1 comment:

  1. Jonathan H09 January, 2019 12:25

    That definition is so wide ranging that it could be used to outlaw any change to a weapon - bigger magazine, sights, new trigger, different stock, etc. I was afraid the federal bump stock rule would be like this and (sigh, "fortunately") it isn't.

    ReplyDelete

You are a guest here when you comment. This is my soapbox, not yours. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: You can't. Log into your Google account.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)