What if the ban passes?

[MXGreg]

In HF241 they've removed the guns by name and instead list features that would be the basis to determine legality. So, with that in mind, would it be acceptable to remove the offensive features and replace them with something that would pass the legal stiff test? I'm not saying you're going to put a nice walnut stock on your AR-15, but there are some guns that were listed by name that could be modified to pass what is now being proposed.

It's just something I've been thinking about.

[sawgrass]

In HF241 they've removed the guns by name and instead list features that would be the basis to determine legality. So, with that in mind, would it be acceptable to remove the offensive features and replace them with something that would pass the legal stiff test? I'm not saying you're going to put a nice walnut stock on your AR-15, but there are some guns that were listed by name that could be modified to pass what is now being proposed.

It's just something I've been thinking about.

How about this...
Figure out for yourself the difference between conviction and convention and where you draw the line.
Don't post about it, don't talk about it, just know it. If it comes down to it, that is where it ends one way or the other.

I attended three of the five sessions last week. Some of what is proposed is more severe than what is currently required on a Federal level for class III weapons.
Write your congress people and let your voice be heard. Support GOCRA and the NRA who is fighting for us.

Consider if you own something on the list that is irreplaceable and then later the non-constitutional decision is reversed. Can you get it back?

[MXGreg]

How about this...
Figure out for yourself the difference between conviction and convention and where you draw the line.
Don't post about it, don't talk about it, just know it. If it comes down to it, that is where it ends one way or the other.

Okay, it was just a hypothetical question. I don't think my Ruger 10/22s, Stevens 350, or Hi Point C9 are on the list, but I will now shut up about the whole thing. Thanks.

[sawgrass]

OP, my response isn't in any way personal.
We are all likely asking ourselves a lot of questions stemming from the hearings.

[MXGreg]

I didn't take it personal, but I can take a hint.

[tabberski]

One could move the firearms/magazines out of state until clearer heads prevail if that was an option for them. They wouldn't be illeagle then.

[St. Olaf]

How much are storage lockers in WI going for?

[infidel]

Are safety deposit boxes big enough for pistols or rifles?

[sawgrass]

Store until the laws change...

[MXGreg]

The idea behind the original post wasn't how to skirt the ban, but whether it would be possible to make the gun LEGAL. Nothing more.

[sawgrass]

The idea behind the original post wasn't how to skirt the ban, but whether it would be possible to make the gun LEGAL. Nothing more.

Was it legal when you bought it?
Is it old?
Is it replaceable?
Is it a family heirloom?

If you change it this time, how long before something else happens and it changes again?

[greenfarmer]

Ok, here's a dumb question. Is it at all possible, to hire a lawyer as sort of a "scare tactic" to bring a lawsuit against the state, or the legislators who are sponsoring this bill, suing them for taking or threatening to take away your 2nd amendment rights? There has to be something that could be done about this! I guess i'm by no means a genius when it comes to legal matters, but couldn't there be something done to fight it somehow? The constitution is powerful. It's just like trying to take away your first amendment rights with freedom of speech. So you have to be able to fight it somehow.

[MXGreg]

The idea behind the original post wasn't how to skirt the ban, but whether it would be possible to make the gun LEGAL. Nothing more.

Was it legal when you bought it?
Is it old?
Is it replaceable?
Is it a family heirloom?

If you change it this time, how long before something else happens and it changes again?

You're reading way more into the question than what I asked.

[sawgrass]

Ok, here's a dumb question. Is it at all possible, to hire a lawyer as sort of a "scare tactic" to bring a lawsuit against the state, or the legislators who are sponsoring this bill, suing them for taking or threatening to take away your 2nd amendment rights? There has to be something that could be done about this! I guess i'm by no means a genius when it comes to legal matters, but couldn't there be something done to fight it somehow? The constitution is powerful. It's just like trying to take away your first amendment rights with freedom of speech. So you have to be able to fight it somehow.

greenfarmer, the chair of the hearings has a degree in Education from Hamlin. Both of the Professors "Pro and Anti" are also from Hamlin. They debated more than
just the 2nd amendment. The 4th came up a few times.

There was quite a lot of testimony around 'due process'. I don't know if you can litigate without a crime...
Write your representatives, support those who are fighting for us. Let your voice be heard! Maybe the voice of the people will be heard and they will decide that they
want to keep their jobs.

[xd ED]

The idea behind the original post wasn't how to skirt the ban, but whether it would be possible to make the gun LEGAL. Nothing more.

Was it legal when you bought it?
Is it old?
Is it replaceable?
Is it a family heirloom?

If you change it this time, how long before something else happens and it changes again?

You're reading way more into the question than what I asked.

1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
2.31has one or more of the following:
2.32(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
2.33(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the
2.34nontrigger hand;
2.35(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
3.1(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the
3.2barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
3.3burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

If one considers that a walnut/ wood/ kevlar stock might well fit the definition of: 3.1(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the
3.2barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being
3.3burned,

I am at a loss to think of a semi-auto rifle which would not be banned... or reasonably modified into compliance.