JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The manipulation of wording semlautomatic assult firearm is what Virginia did it can then cover anything they want it to.
 
Last Edited:
How should we interpret this language of Section 3 (9) (f)

(9) "Semiautomatic assault firearm" means:

(f) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a rifle into a semiautomatic assault firearm as described in paragraphs (9)(d) or (e) of this subsection, or that can be assembled into a semiautomatic assault firearm as described in paragraphs (9)(d) or (e) of this subsection.



Does this mean that any part that could be used to convert a rifle in to a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as described in (9)(d) or (e) will be subject to restrictions laid out in IP 60?
 
Can you share with us what parts of the title or summary description you challenged? How did you submit your challenges?
Submissions to this address:
[email protected]

My criticisms were centered around existing law, namely that of the state Constitution that provides that civilians are to be allowed arms not subservient to any police force, which only allowing LEO and military standard cap mags violates.
 
Submissions to this address:
[email protected]

My criticisms were centered around existing law, namely that of the state Constitution that provides that civilians are to be allowed arms not subservient to any police force, which only allowing LEO and military standard cap mags violates.
I thought that challenges had to be strictly based on the procedural constitutional requirements of the IP process? For example whether the IP dealt with mutliple subjects that were not related, a title that was unrelated to subject of IP etc?
 
How should we interpret this language of Section 3 (9) (f)

(9) "Semiautomatic assault firearm" means:

(f) A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a rifle into a semiautomatic assault firearm as described in paragraphs (9)(d) or (e) of this subsection, or that can be assembled into a semiautomatic assault firearm as described in paragraphs (9)(d) or (e) of this subsection.



Does this mean that any part that could be used to convert a rifle in to a "semiautomatic assault rifle" as described in (9)(d) or (e) will be subject to restrictions laid out in IP 60?
It certainly seems like it.
I thought that challenges had to be strictly based on the procedural constitutional requirements of the IP process? For example whether the IP dealt with mutliple subjects that were not related, a title that was unrelated to subject of IP etc?
That could be. I'm probably not as educated as I should be on that, however, any magazine capacity restrictions put upon civilians would have to be put upon state and local police forces per the state Constitution. So, any such restrictions, if put in place, would require either violation or revision of the state Constitution. Then, the language would need to reflect intent to revise the state Constitution.
I don't know if our state has any specific requirements as to whether or not church groups can funnel money into groups like LEVO, but at the very least we should also be reporting their activities to the IRS.
I am just waking up. Need coffee.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top