A group of Floridians, probably funded by Bloomberg’s purse, want to introduce a petition that “Prohibits possession of defined assault weapons” in the 2020 elections. As we all know, the term “assault weapon” is malleable and adaptable to the moment they want to use it. Here is the definition according to the petition:

1) Definitions a) Assault Weapons – For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns. b) Semiautomatic – For purposes of this subsection, any weapon which fires a single projectile or a number of ball shots through a rifled or smooth bore for each single function of the trigger without further manual action required. c) Ammunition-feeding device – For purposes of this subsection, any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device for a firearm.

Top of my head, a bunch old and new self-loading .22LR rifle out there will suddenly become assault weapon. From the Marlin 60 to the Ruger 10-22 to even the despised Remington Nylon will be officially “weapons of Mass Destruction” as in the hyperbolic parlance of the Gun Control fascists.

Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody has petitioned the FLSC to block the measure explaining that the proposed ballot language is “clearly and conclusively defective,”  She goes on.

Specifically, the ballot title and summary do not inform Florida’s electorate that, by defining “assault weapons” as “any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition . . . in a fixed or detachable magazine,” the amendment would ban the possession of virtually every semi-automatic long-gun. To be included on the ballot, the sprawling practical effect of the amendment must be revealed in the ballot language. Because that effect is not revealed, the ballot language is deficient.

Here is the title and summary:

The ballot title for the proposed amendment is:
Prohibits possession of defined assault weapons.” The ballot summary for the proposed amendment states:
Prohibits possession of assault weapons, defined as semiautomatic rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition feeding device. Possession of handguns is not prohibited. Exempts military and law enforcement personnel in their official duties. Exempts and requires registration of assault weapons lawfully possessed prior to this provision’s effective date. Creates criminal penalties for violations of this amendment

She goes on to indicate that the title and summary do not inform the demand for a firearm registration (currently illegal under the law, and in my opinion  means it will eventually have to be removed and Floridians could be forced into a full firearm registration) and this last part was amazing for me to read:

Finally, the ballot language and summary do not reveal that the amendment, if passed, would not merely “[c]reate0 criminal penalties for violations” of the assault weapons ban but would also grant the Legislature plenary authority to increase (but never to decrease) the severity of those penalties.

So if the initial penalty of “X” years and $”X” in penalties are not deemed effective, the legislature can just go ached and crank it up to 11 if necessary.  Maybe even pay attention to those in the Gun Control mob who demand the death penalty for Gun Owners and NRA members

As usual don’t tale my word, but go read straight from the source.

And if you care, drop a couple of lines of support to the AG via the Citizen Services Contact Form. You can alos leve a message via phone at the switchboard ( 850-414-3300) or Citizen Services (850-414-3990).

Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

9 thoughts on “Florida: Assault Weapons Ban Petition being challenged by the State.”
  1. As for “Assault Weapons” take note of the fact that the shooting in California was done with an SKS, Designed in 1943 in 7.62 by 39 it is the Russian equivalent of the M1 Garand. It has a 10 round internal box magazine and is loaded from feeder strips.

    A classic WWII weapon.

    Thus: Gunman kills 3 with assault-style weapon
    Gilroy Garlic Festival gunman used a rifle banned..
    Weapon used in Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting couldn’t legally be bought, imported into California

    quote: An AK-47 style rifle…

    Most of the articles I’m finding now say “AK-47 Style rifle” or “Assault style rifle”.

    This article names it as an SKS: https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/national/what-is-an-sks-the-rifle-used-in-the-gilroy/article_45db17fe-a811-595f-bbca-6aea305167da.html

    There are also statements like “SKS/AK-47 style”

    What this all means is that an “assault-style weapon” is any weapon that people are hating on now.

    1. Re “what this means” — that always was what it meant from when that bogus concept was first invented.
      The working definition I like to use of “assault weapon” is “anything that makes Dianne Feinstein p*** her pants”.

  2. IMO, it is the second half of the proposed amendment that is truly dangerous. The second half would instantaneously make most of the state into “prohibited persons.” Read it yourself :

    Further, to protect the population of the state no person shall possess a firearm of any kind if: 1) they have been convicted of a felony; 2) convicted of three or more misdemeanors; 3) had their drivers license suspended or revoked for driving under the influence, careless or reckless driving, or excessive speeding; 4) has been the subject of two or more domestic abuse emergency calls or investigations; 5) they are a person whose mental condition has been affirmed as temporarily or permanently psychologically disturbed by a person with a medical degree; 6) or if they are a person who has made any substantiated threat of violence against another person.
    The provisions of this section are self-implementing and are immediately in effect upon adoption.

    Here is a link to the full proposed amendment:

        1. It looks like the one I saw is closed for lack of signatures. Look at the list of upcoming initiatives. Two of them are to eliminate party primaries. Instead, the primary would place every candidate on the ballot, and the two highest would be the ones on the ballot for the general election.
          This could result in the general election being between two candidates of the same party, and the incumbent would not have to be one of them.


          This amendment by popular vote thing is getting out of hand.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.