|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 11, 2013, 11:40 AM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
Expect a crap-ton of poor reporting. This is the MSM we're talking about here... |
||
September 11, 2013, 11:42 AM | #27 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Thanks for the clarification, speedrrracer. I haven't read the bills themselves, obviously.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
September 11, 2013, 12:57 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,604
|
Quote:
|
|
September 11, 2013, 01:07 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
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 |
September 11, 2013, 01:50 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
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
|
September 11, 2013, 02:12 PM | #31 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
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:
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. |
||
September 11, 2013, 04:46 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Quote:
__________________
If you ever have to use a firearm, you don't get to pick the scenario! |
|
September 11, 2013, 05:12 PM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
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) |
||
September 11, 2013, 05:36 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,820
|
Quote:
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! |
|
September 11, 2013, 05:56 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Posts: 988
|
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 |
September 11, 2013, 06:52 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
Quote:
__________________
"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
|
|
September 11, 2013, 07:11 PM | #37 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 11, 2013, 11:40 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 49
|
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? |
September 12, 2013, 10:42 AM | #39 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
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. |
September 12, 2013, 05:44 PM | #40 |
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! |
September 12, 2013, 06:38 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
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
|
September 12, 2013, 07:09 PM | #42 |
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. |
September 12, 2013, 07:35 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
September 12, 2013, 07:50 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
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:
|
|
September 14, 2013, 01:06 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
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. |
September 14, 2013, 01:12 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 356
|
"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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|