Originally Posted by pisc1024
How could you have a ban on possession, and it NOT be retroactive?
I believe her because it's the same thing she said
last time. If you already own it or it was manufactured
before the ban it's legal to own.
That's what "not retroactive" means.
What the law, "if passed" actually will do
is not known. I can only comment on the facts I know now.
In Florida you could still own a pre ban AR.
Still own a pre ban hi cap mag and buy or sell them during the 94 to 04 ban years.
It sounds like you won't be able to buy pre ban item like last time, of course how they
can prove whether or not you owned them before the ban is another issue.
Regardless I'm not parting with anything
that may be banned. And if everyone sticks
together on that they will have to cave.
Unless they plan on jailing millions of law abiding Americans. Here is what she said again, why would she mention the words "retroactive" & "prospectively" if it was to
be an outright ban on possession?
“I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year,” Feinstein said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” during a discussion about guns following Friday’s deadly mass shooting as a Connecticut school.
Influencing or applying to a period prior to enactment