AN ACT relating to prohibiting the possession and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Summary
HB410 would create new Kentucky criminal offenses for knowingly possessing or transferring an “assault weapon” or a “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” The bill defines assault weapons broadly to include certain semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols with specified features, as well as semiautomatic versions of automatic firearms and revolving cylinder shotguns. It also defines large-capacity feeding devices as magazines or similar devices capable of holding more than ten rounds, with limited exceptions for certain tubular .22 caliber devices and qualifying antique/curio-or-relic devices.
Under the bill, possession or transfer of either an assault weapon or a large-capacity ammunition feeding device would be a Class A misdemeanor. The bill includes exemptions for members of the Armed Forces, reserve components, National Guard, and law enforcement officers, and it grandfathers items lawfully possessed before the effective date. It also amends Kentucky’s emergency powers/firearms statute to clarify that government restrictions on firearms do not apply to persons prohibited under the new assault-weapon and magazine-possession provisions, and that seizure protections do not shield those violating the new offenses.
Impact
HB410 would significantly expand Kentucky criminal law by adding new prohibitions in KRS Chapter 527 on possession and transfer of defined assault weapons and magazines over ten rounds. It would affect firearm owners, dealers, and anyone transferring covered weapons or devices, while preserving possession for certain government personnel and preexisting lawful owners. The bill would also modify KRS 237.104, Kentucky’s firearms protection during emergencies statute, to align it with the new prohibitions and clarify when firearms and related items may be restricted or seized.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context does not show a documented public or legislative sentiment in the record provided. The bill’s framing suggests a gun-control approach intended to restrict access to certain firearms and magazines, which typically draws strong support from gun-violence-prevention advocates and strong opposition from gun-rights supporters. Because no transcripts or vote history are included, no formal consensus or chamber sentiment can be inferred from the provided materials.
Contention
The main points of contention would likely be the breadth of the “assault weapon” definition, the ten-round magazine limit, and the criminal penalty for mere possession or transfer. Opponents would likely argue that the bill burdens lawful gun ownership, uses feature-based definitions that can sweep in commonly owned firearms, and raises constitutional concerns. Supporters would likely emphasize public-safety goals, the focus on high-capacity magazines and semiautomatic firearms, and the grandfathering and law-enforcement/military exceptions as limiting the bill’s reach.