The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 30, 2013, 12:52 AM   #1
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Bills Introduced in California

CA Bills

A number of bills were introduced in CA yesterday, ranging from poorly thought out to . Individually they're all bad, if multiples of them were enacted as law, the unforeseen consequences could be really bad.

One that really stands out.
Quote:
AB 169 (Asm. Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento) People exempted from restrictions on purchasing guns designated as unsafe by the California Department of Justice would be prohibited from selling or transferring ownership of those guns to anyone who is not also exempt. “AB 169 will keep non-rostered, unsafe handguns out of the hands of people who don't have a legitimate and lawful reason to own them. By limiting the guns available for sale we can further protect our families and our communities from gun violence,” said Assemblymember Dickinson.
You know who's exempt from the roster? LEOs... Do they not trust LEO's judgement in who they sell to, along with all their other current laws? I find it interesting, that even though LEOs are exempt their exempt purchases are not limited to duty weapons. The implication being its lawful and legitimate for LEOs to own any handgun for self defense, recreation or whatever, but not for average Joe/Jane.

If anyone finds the text of the bills please post links I'll try and find them when I have time.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 01:25 AM   #2
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Text of Bills
AB48
AB169
AB170
AB174
AB187
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 02:38 AM   #3
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Posting to come back to this thread when I don't have work to do and can read all the text.

If someone would summarize for me I would appreciate it. (Not trying to come off lazy)
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:55 PM   #4
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 196
What a bunch of ????

In my understanding of the text of these bills:

AB48
– makes it a misdemeanor to sale, lend, give, or possess a magazine or ammunition feeding device that can be modified to accept more than 10 rounds including possession of the PARTS to make such a device. It also prohibits magazines that LOOK like they can hold more than 10 rounds!

Also requires identification to purchase ammunition (18 for rifle ammo and 21 years of age for handgun ammo) and all ammunition sales must be reported to the Department of Justice. Sales of more than ___ (number unspecified) rounds must be reported to local law enforcement agencies.

Violation of either of these is punishable by a fine of $1,000 and/or 6 months in the County Jail.

AB169
– I find it difficult to figure out what this bill is trying to do. So read for yourself:

Quote:
“AB 169, as introduced, Dickinson. Unsafe handguns.
(1) Existing law requires parties to a firearms transaction to complete the sale, loan, or transfer of the firearm through a licensed firearms dealer where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer license. Existing law provides for several exceptions from this requirement, including sales made to authorized law enforcement representatives, delivery of a firearm to a gunsmith for repair, transactions involving a firearm that is a curio or relic, or the loaning of a firearm for use solely as a prop in a motion picture, among others.

Existing law provides for the testing of handguns and requires the Department of Justice to maintain a roster listing all handguns that are determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, to manufacture, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law provides that the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns do not apply to certain transactions, including the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm in a transaction that requires the use of a licensed dealer, or where the sale, loan, or transfer is exempt from the provisions of law requiring the transfer to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer, among others.

This bill would repeal these exemptions, and would instead make the prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun inapplicable to the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm that is exempt from the requirement that a firearms transaction to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Existing law exempts the purchase of a handgun from the above prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.

This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision unless the transaction is exempt from the requirement to complete the transaction through a licensed dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
Looks like we may be required to complete a DROS to get a gun repaired?

AB170
Quote:
“(d) On and after January 1, 2014, no partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or any other group or entity, regardless of how the entity was created, may be issued a permit to possess an assault weapon or a .50 BMG rifle.”

31110.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), the Department of Justice shall, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued pursuant to this article, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventory of assault weapons.

(b) A permit for possession issued pursuant to this section may only be issued to an individual, and may not be issued to a partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or any other group or entity, regardless of how that entity was created.
AB 174 -
Quote:
as introduced, Bonta. Weapons: grandfather clauses.

Existing law prohibits the possession of various weapons. Under existing law, certain of these bans exempted from their scope weapons that were possessed prior to the ban, if prescribed conditions met, are authorized.

This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to subsequently amend this bill to include provisions that would end all of those exemptions.

AB 187
-
Quote:
as introduced, Bonta. Ammunition.

Existing law prohibits that a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined, from selling, offering for sale, or displaying for sale, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor or employee thereof. Existing law requires, subject to exceptions, that handgun ammunition vendors obtain a thumbprint and other information from ammunition purchasers, as specified.
[Ed: This is NOT true; this law was overturned.]
Quote:
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish a tax on all ammunition sold in retail stores and gun shows in the state and direct tax revenue to a fund to prevent crime in high-crime areas of the state.

DIGEST KEY
Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO
________________________________________

BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.
It is the intent of the Legislature that would enact legislation to establish a tax on all ammunition sold in retail stores and gun shows in the state and direct the revenue from the tax to a high-crime prevention fund for crime prevention efforts in high-crime areas of the state.

I cannot express enough how hard we must fight these bills! Remember that California is the liberal test bed with a #1 rating from the Brady Bunch. What happens here will spread to the rest of the country; so we must stop it HERE!


__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 06:57 PM   #5
Librarian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 141
Open:states is not a particularly good reference for CA bills.

Try http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml, giving, for example,

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140AB169

And the source article referenced says 'yesterday'; I don't know why they wrote it that way. Skinner's AB 48 was introduced December 20, 2012.
__________________
See the CALGUNS FOUNDATION Wiki for discussion of California firearms law.

The FAQ page is here.
Librarian is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 09:17 PM   #6
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
So are they going to confiscate all the weapons after the "exemption" is removed under AB174?

Under CA's original AWB all grandfathered weapons had to be registered, correct?

Registration is a horrible idea that only serves the interest of future confiscation.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old January 30, 2013, 09:21 PM   #7
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 664
^^^ Yep, first registration, then confiscation.
2ndsojourn is online now  
Old January 31, 2013, 02:28 AM   #8
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
AB48 - That law already exists in california. There's already a 10 round limit. And how STUPID is it to pass a law that says you cant have a magazine that LOOKS like it can have more rounds? So is my 10 by 20rd magazines going to be illegal then?

AB169 - No private transfers. Also, what the hell is an "unsafe handgun"?

AB170 - AWB, but that legislation already exists...

AB174 - Does this make all existing and grandfathered weapons illegal?

AB187 - Great. A damn tax.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 31, 2013, 02:34 AM   #9
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Also, what the hell is an "unsafe handgun"?
Anything not on this list according to the state of California.
sigcurious is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08445 seconds with 9 queries