Florida justices skeptical of proposed assault weapons ban
One of the justices called one of the provisions “prohibitively misleading.”
But Chief Justice Charles Canady read it differently. The sentence, he said, says the weapon itself is exempt from the ban, he said, meaning that the weapon could be transferred to another person after the ban takes effect.
“I don’t know how anybody could get an idea from that that when the person who possessed it trundles off this earth, then all of a sudden that weapon becomes illegal and is no longer exempt,” Canady said. “If it means that, if I’m reading it correctly, then that is prohibitively misleading.”
Mills said that interpretation was “completely nonsensical," noting that if that were true, the amendment would allow someone to buy up thousands of assault weapons before the ban takes effect, then sell them after it takes effect.
“It says what it says,” Canady responded. “I didn’t write this.”
They're still at it.
Let's hope they continue to have little luck.
At least until Trump's six-conservative SCOTUS tosses out all of these.