The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2013, 11:40 AM   #26
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
So The Mighty Squirrel Assassin (better known as the Ruger 10/22) is now an "assault weapon."
IIRC, a late change to the bill exempted rimfire.

Quote:
What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author
confused? Does she mean the bullet button?
Yes, if my reading is correct, even bullet-button equipped centerfire rifles are now considered assault weapons if they accept an ammunition-feeding device capable of feeding 10 or more rounds.

Expect a crap-ton of poor reporting. This is the MSM we're talking about here...
speedrrracer is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 11:42 AM   #27
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,019
Thanks for the clarification, speedrrracer. I haven't read the bills themselves, obviously.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 12:57 PM   #28
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author confused? Does she mean the bullet button?
Yes and yes.
natman is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 01:07 PM   #29
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
What will happen to everyone with bullet buttons?

And there's about to be a HUGE run on ammo in california
__________________
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 September 11, 2013, 01:50 PM   #30
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
When does it take effect?

From the article it sounds like existing rifles can be registered? Or is everything covered become illegal?
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 02:12 PM   #31
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Big Bird PhD
What will happen to everyone with bullet buttons?
We're not supposed to talk about that yet. The bill actually went back to the State Senate (right now, actually) so they can approve the amendments made by the Assembly.

It's of course a formality that the Senate will approve the bill, but they could make some tweaks, so ask me again after Friday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
When does it take effect?
Well, first the Governor has a chance to veto it, and that's what we're really working hard on right now. If you know anyone in CA, please have them fill out the form at
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-i...2014/askbrown/

Assuming he fails to veto it, it will go into effect next year...I don't remember exactly when, but I can check if you need the specifics.
speedrrracer is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 04:46 PM   #32
Wreck-n-Crew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario!
Wreck-n-Crew is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 05:12 PM   #33
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
There is no exemption for caliber.

Quote:
17090. As used in Sections 16530, 16640, 16650, 16660, 16870, and
17170, Sections 17720 to 17730, inclusive, Section 17740, subdivision
(f) of Section 27555, Article 2 (commencing with Section 30300) of
Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4, and Article 1 (commencing with
Section 33210) of Chapter 8 of Division 10 of Title 4, "rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only
a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of
the trigger.
Please note the Penal Code does not give a universal definition of a "Rifle." The above definition is only provided in terms of the other referenced sections.

Also note that what is often referred to as an "automatic rifle" is not a rifle under the above definition.

(thanks to RickD427 at Calguns)
speedrrracer is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 05:36 PM   #34
Wreck-n-Crew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,376
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
There is no exemption for caliber.
That figures. Sad that such a beautiful state can be run by such ugly people.

I really don't how many still tolerate it!

The one thing that does surprise me about California is that the people have any right to have or carry firearms. How that happened remains a mystery to me.
Good luck to all of you still in California, I only hope that one day you will get your state back.
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario!
Wreck-n-Crew is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 05:56 PM   #35
SHE3PDOG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 978
Well, I can't believe this is happening. Being in the military, I have absolutely no desire to register my weapons in a place I will only be staying temporarily. I suppose I'll just have to move them out of state until I'm not in CA anymore.
__________________
Semper Fi

Marine, NRA member, SAF Defender's Club member, and constitutionally protected keeper and bearer of firearms
SHE3PDOG is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 06:52 PM   #36
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
Quote:
"rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only
a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of
the trigger.
I don't suppose the fact we use a propellant rather than an explosive would make any difference to the enforcers? I hate to think of how politicians define "explosive."
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 07:11 PM   #37
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by NWPilgrim
I don't suppose the fact we use a propellant rather than an explosive would make any difference to the enforcers? I hate to think of how politicians define "explosive."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...le=12000-12007

Quote:
12000. For the purposes of this part, "explosives" means any
substance, or combination of substances, the primary or common
purpose of which is detonation or rapid combustion, and which is
capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and
heat, or any substance, the primary purpose of which, when combined
with others, is to form a substance capable of a relatively
instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat
speedrrracer is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 11:40 PM   #38
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
More bad news

So California now aims to illegalize all rifles with detachable magazines of all calibers in a step to further disarm responsible gun owners.

In other news, California has decided to release 9600 inmates by year's end due to overcrowded prisons.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/02/ju...ase/index.html

I am not sure the combination of 9600 freed felons and a disarmed citizenry is a good thing. I guess we are all supposed to believe that the 9600 inmates are hell-bent on being 100% good people now.

What happens if this example spreads to other states?
freedash22 is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 10:42 AM   #39
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,219
No exemption for Hollywood? How could they be so thoughtless?

How does the law apply (if it does)to guns owned by corporations?, as opposed to private individuals?

If there's no exemption, the folks who supply guns to the movie makers are going to be filling out a lot of paperwork!

Thousands of guns used in films are fully working guns, capable of firing live ammo, and thousands more are modified to only be able to fire blanks, but are still legally firearms, and all laws about firearms should still apply.

The way the law defines firearm, it appears there is no provision exempting guns that were originally functional arms, but have been converted to blank firing only.

While I am in no way in favor of any gun control laws, I do believe that no matter what the law, it should be "sauce for the goose", meaning that ALL gun control laws should apply to EVERYONE. Private individuals, corporations, Hollywood studios, AND THE POLICE!!!!

Since the basic premise is that people owning these things are a threat to public safety, and since corporations and the police are made up of people, how is it ethical to have exemptions or loopholes in the law, just for them?

Why do people (and the law) just blindly assume that because a person holds a particular job they are safe and trustworthy with all kinds of weapons, including machineguns and explosives, when that exact same person, not holding that particular job is under the law, NOT trustworthy or safe?

Got new for you people (ok to a lot of us its not news, we knew it already), Cops, military personnel, even private security guards are humans, like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, individuals sometimes flip out or have meltdowns. And if it happens they turn violent, its as bad, or possibly worse than when it happens with an "ordinary citizen".

What cop or solider carrying an M16 on duty ever went through the same back ground check, Chief LEO approval sign off, paid the $200 transfer tax out of his own pocket, and endured the WAIT (months usually) before being approved to have it, the way an "ordinary citizen" has to for the same exact item? None that I ever heard of.

"Don't be ridiculous," they say. "That's different. They need those guns in their jobs!" To which I reply, with the brilliantly erudite,... "SO?"

Like the t-shirt says about dyslexics, Cops and soldiers are "Teople Poo!"

Wearing a certain set of clothes and carrying issued credentials doesn't make one a saint, or incapable of causing harm. The one thing I thought was good about the Lautenberg law was that (for the first time I know of) a rabid gun control law did NOT exempt police and military personnel. While this law had the effect of taking a lot of cops off the street (because under the law they could no longer carry or own a gun), I thought the fact that it applied to everyone was a good thing.

If it is a good law, it should be applied to everyone, equally and fairly. NO exceptions or exemptions. Period.

If it cannot, will not, or should not be applied to everyone without exception, then its a bad law, and we should not have it. Period.

Seems like, on this farm, some animals are more equal than others.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 05:44 PM   #40
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
Stupid California!! Their lawmakers have suggested that we (nevada) need to tighten our laws because its too easy for people to come here and buy gun products against their laws. Lol, never going to happen.

I have heard of LEO's hanging out in the cabelas parking lot, during big sales, and stopping people with CA plates when the load up the car with guns. Our cabelas is less than 10 (maybe 5) miles from the stateline. All the bigger stores check ID's though.

California sucks, come across the stateline and you can: smoke inside bars/casinos, gamble, buy a .50bmg, buy (rent) a hooker, and 2 words you will never hear? Last call!
Sierra280 is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 06:38 PM   #41
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,141
Talked with my brother in CA and he is weighing his options of what to. Moving is not an option as wife loves it there. He said there is another bill not yet voted that would make all semis illegal, not just magazine rfiles. So his Garand and Benneli SBE might be at risk in not too distant future.

This is going to affect millions of rifles I suspect just in CA. There are a lot of guys that have AR15, M1As, M1 carbines, Mini-14/30, SKS, let alone the BAR, Rem 740/7400. I can't imagine 100% of those gun owners will turn in 1005 of subjected rifles or register them. I would guess a good many will choose to tuck at least of them away just in case and risk becoming a felon if caught with them. That is a darn hard choice to force a law-abiding citizen to make, especially for younger guys with families.

Is there anything in the bill that affects handloaders? Can powder and primers still be purchased anonymously in state? Will components still be able to be purchased online?
__________________
"The ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone. ... The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
- James Madison
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 07:09 PM   #42
Sierra280
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2013
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Posts: 569
^ the problem with registration is they know who has those banned weapons (since they were fine before the new legislation). I foresee a lot of boats sinking (I like to take all of my guns with me, when I go boating).

"Though the people were free, few functions of goverment were performered by them." -Cicero (about the worlds first voting republic)

It's becoming more and more apparent we live in a police state.
Sierra280 is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 07:35 PM   #43
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 2,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierra280
I have heard of LEO's hanging out in the cabelas parking lot, during big sales, and stopping people with CA plates when the load up the car with guns. Our cabelas is less than 10 (maybe 5) miles from the stateline. All the bigger stores check ID's though.
It's against federal law for them to sell a handgun to a resident of another state, and it's also against federal law for them to sell a rifle or shotgun to a resident of a state where that firearm is illegal. I highly doubt a company like Cabela's would break federal laws like that.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 07:50 PM   #44
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 259
OK, so since this bill is about the ammo permit bill, SB 53, I'll post this here --

SB53 is dead. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, who has been an amazing advocate of 2A rights (the Assembly in CA contains far more pro-2A members than the Senate), posted on his newsletter:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly
2 hours ago ยท Sacramento
More GOOD NEWS....we killed SB 53, the ammo permit bill that amounted to a poll tax on the 2nd Amendment has been put on the inactive file....Hurrah Colorado!!! Keep your powder dry. Godspeed
speedrrracer is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 01:06 AM   #45
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 209
Lots of fail in this thread.
1. SB 374 (the AW ban) applies only to centerfire rifles and shotguns. The language banning rimfires was stricken out by amendment. The bill still has to be signed by the Governor to become law.

2. All newly defined assault weapons will remain legal to own, but will have to be registered by July 2015. The internet pundits are still arguing about whether it will be permissible to remove bullet buttons, since it is now just another AW--and AWs legally obtained prior to 2001 are still legal and do not have BBs. Playing with fire if you ask me, but tht discussion is for the future.

3. It's not just black rifles. It's Ruger minis, M1 Carbines, basically any semiauto rifle that can accept a mag. Bye bye Browning, bye bye. Yeah, it's bad. Brown has until mid-October to veto, and then the Legislature has an opportunity to vote for an override if he does. I assume there will be a rush either way to buy before the opportunity evaporates. Time to buy or at least put away a few 80% lowers.

4. Pistol carbines are already defined as AWs if they have two or more "evil features", i.e., a pistol grip plus a flash suppressor or a detachable mag or a thing that goes up etc. No CX-4 or that new Taurus for us Californians. (I just checked on this at a local LGS today.)

5. The ammo bill did initially pass the Senate, but it failed three votes in the Assembly after several amendments, which would be enough to kill it, except that its author won a vote to have it reconsidered, and then withdrew it. So no ammo permit this session, but it will be back. There is already a law on the boos declaring that handgun ammo can be sold only in a FTF transaction with ID (and thumbprint, if I recall) plus a record of the same--however that law was held void for vagueness and is still pending on appeal. Because of that appeal, Brown vetoed a bill very similar to the this one last year. The fight will continue.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old September 14, 2013, 01:12 AM   #46
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 209
"I have heard of LEO's hanging out in the cabelas parking lot, during big sales, and stopping people with CA plates when the load up the car with guns. Our cabelas is less than 10 (maybe 5) miles from the stateline."

Close, but not quite. They have been reported to be hanging out at gun shows in Nevada, not with respect to ammo, but private purchase firearms where the seller did not ask for ID. Vehicles are then stopped in California and the contraband "unsafe" firearms confiscated and the purchasers arrested. You CAN purchase a handgun in another state, but it must be shipped to an FFL in the state of the buyer's residence to complete the DROS, and the handgun must be legal to possess in that jurisdiction. You CANNOT take possess
62coltnavy 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 05:14 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 0.12335 seconds with 9 queries