The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 23, 2012, 11:18 AM   #1
Wallabing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 109
California AR15, AK ban and confiscation bill SB249

This bill was aimed to ban the bullet button after senator Yee saw the mag magnet (which is illegal anyway) on the local nightly news , but the bill also has wording that could make many parts of the lower receiver illegal and can turn hundreds of thousands of law abiding owners into Felons.

The bill states any "part" (antis call it "conversion kit") that can be used construct to a semi auto with fixed magazines to take detachable magazine will be deemed public nuisance and confiscated.

Owners will not be reimbursed for confiscated rifles.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.s...b249&year=2012

The semi auto ban has already arrived here in California.
Wallabing is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 12:21 PM   #2
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
California needs to fight this as it is unconstitutional, most of Cal gun law is unconstitutional.
How do these states get away with trampling all over out constitution ?
rebs is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 12:23 PM   #3
Wallabing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 109
Easy. The people here in CA elect a Senator here born and raised in China.
Wallabing is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 12:34 PM   #4
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
I'd be willing to bet that some folks here would trade away all the other amendments in exchange for the 2nd. It is said that if you worded the question in the right way, most folks would say they aren't in favor of any of the bill of rights.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 12:38 PM   #5
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
There should be no LEO exemption to civilian gun laws. Problem solved.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 04:41 PM   #6
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
If every major gun company that sell's AR's were to refuse to sell California LEO's firearms, much like Barrett already has then laws like this could go away. I think gun companies need to make a political stand WITH gun owners on BS laws like this. I understand they are businesses but if the heads of these companies could get together, put a small bit of profit aside and take a stand they could realize they have the same political power as GM or the Oil Companies. Whats the California governor going to do when he can't get guns for his body guards? or when the LAPD can't get new AR's for their SWAT team? Maybe some eyes on the anti side will finally open.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 06:23 PM   #7
Young.Gun.612
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
While I agree with the idea, i think its not a reasonable possibility to get EVERY manufacturer who makes AR pattern rifles to not sell to California. There are just too many who no matter what are going to put profit ahead of politics.
Young.Gun.612 is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 08:46 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,054
Quote:
California needs to fight this as it is unconstitutional
The Calguns foundation is doing just that. They are responsible for some truly great work there, and I'm disappointed that many California gun owners don't support them.

Heck, I'm on the other coast, and I send them money.

The Heller decision explicitly found bans on entire classes of arms to be unconstitutional, and if it's not stopped at the legislative level, this SB 249 will make for a very interesting lawsuit.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 08:47 PM   #9
rebs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 2,195
Quote:
There should be no LEO exemption to civilian gun laws. Problem solved.
I agree with you, here in NY even local and state prison guards are exempt. At the range they have 30 round mags, flash hiders, collapsible stocks etc..
I am a law abiding citizen, are they any better than me or any more trust worthy than me ? I served in the armed forces and did two tours in Viet Nam, carried full automatics, grenades, 1911 and just about every other weapon and now I am treated like I am not trust worthy enough to have a simple semi auto AR 15 with the collapsible stock or any magazine over 10 rounds. I was good enough when the government wanted me, but I am not good enough now. I have an unrestricted CCP, but I am restricted on an AR.
rebs is offline  
Old June 23, 2012, 10:34 PM   #10
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,454
The link to the NRA site says, in part:
Quote:
After NRA explained our concerns about SB249, Senator Yee stated that he would not "move" this severely flawed legislation. However, two members of his staff, Adam Keigwin and Johannes Rognerud decided to proceed with the bill and now the SB249 is in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. To reach these staff members for Senator Yee, call (916) 651-4008 or click on their names (above) to send them an email.
Can staff members really move bills into committee? Is the California legislative system really that flawed?
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 24, 2012, 12:35 AM   #11
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,197
These two staff member still have jobs, after moving a bill that the senator said would not be moved?

Several words come to mind: Mutiny; insurrection; ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 24, 2012, 06:16 AM   #12
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Simpler explanation is a double talking politician. If he did not want the bill submitted and his staff did it behind his back he could always pull the bill or move to have it tabled, if he has not done this he wants the bill to go forward.
wally626 is offline  
Old June 24, 2012, 07:16 AM   #13
geetarman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Simpler explanation is a double talking politician. If he did not want the bill submitted and his staff did it behind his back he could always pull the bill or move to have it tabled,
There you have it. Wonder why politicians think we do not trust them?

Geetarman
geetarman is offline  
Old June 25, 2012, 07:30 PM   #14
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Most of the stupid ideas start here. Guns, gas cans, whatever. This could be the "Greatest Place on Earth" - we have Disneyland - but "politics" has destroyed it. As MEP Daniel Hannan said, "you have run out of our money" but unfortunately the "bad guys" won't just stop there. And yes, as noted above, some of us would trade a Constitutional right, or two or three if we could just get some decent Second Amendment Rights, it's that bad. This is for sure, "a tale of two states" Coastal vs. Inland, and the wrong team is winning.
jmortimer is offline  
Old June 25, 2012, 09:30 PM   #15
Ledbetter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 23, 2000
Location: California USA
Posts: 4,535
I've lived here 56 years, since birth. The problem is, and always has been, idiots voting for idiots.
__________________
Regards,

Ledbetter
from thefiringline
TFL #4573
NRA for Life
Winchester Canyon Gun Club for Life
Ledbetter is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 02:09 AM   #16
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
I've lived here for 56 years, since birth as well and the problem here is and has always been the incredible success of the media propagandists. They've simply convinced too many people that self defense = vigilantism and having a gun in the house will lead to violence and death. We as organized gun owners can a afford to fund a couple of legal campaigns and maybe a few thousand dollar/year public outreach campaign to spread the gun rights = civil rights message but the media fights back with TV propaganda campaigns like the one that brought this on. It's like fighting a propaganda fire hose with a squirt gun.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 08:13 AM   #17
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
Isn't it frustrating what other people don't see things your way? That's really the problem with democracies. People really can't be trusted with their own government. You just can't tell what they'll do next. A democracy is where you can vote to have a man put to death, you know.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 08:59 AM   #18
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,957
Here's where I get puzzled:

Quote:
Existing law makes possession of an assault weapon a public
nuisance, authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin possession of the weapon,
authorizes imposition of a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions,
requires disposition of the weapon by sale at public auction or by
destruction
.
This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a
conversion kit a public nuisance, would authorize a civil action to
enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would authorize imposition of
a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require
disposition of the conversion kit
.
Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to
relinquish an assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department.
This bill would authorize a person to arrange in advance to
relinquish a conversion kit to a police or sheriff's department.
(emphasis supplied)

Now, I'm not an expert on California law. Not by a long shot. And this language comes from some language printed above the actual language of the Act, so it may not reflect exactly what goes on in the staute.

That said, if the above-quoted language is an accurate reflection of the Act's wording, it "authorizes" a person to arrange in advance to surrender an assault weapon or conversion kit to a police or sheriff's department, and authorizes the police or sheriff to dispose of such items, either by destruction . . . or SALE AT A PUBLIC AUCTION?!?

Am I understanding that right?

Source for quoted material: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...d_asm_v95.html
__________________
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 June 26, 2012, 08:48 PM   #19
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,454
Quote:
Isn't it frustrating what other people don't see things your way? That's really the problem with democracies. People really can't be trusted with their own government. You just can't tell what they'll do next. A democracy is where you can vote to have a man put to death, you know.
Last I looked, I lived in a republic which had a constitution with written, guaranteed rights to keep a simple vote of the majority from from putting a person to death. It holds the government to a high burden of proof, provides for a group of fair minded jurists to hear the case, guarantees legal representation, and allows a defendant to cross-examine witnesses and put on proof himself.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 11:44 PM   #20
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
Quote:
The best I can say is I do my best to not buy any products from [C]alfornia that I can avoid or otherwie do without. Its not always possible to avoid buying a [C]alfornia product as sometimes you dont know where something comes from but I do my best to protest by spending my dollars elsewhere.

I understand many good gun loving people live in the state and figt for gun rights every day until the day it gets more inline with the Constitution of the United States as I see it and understand it I will do everything to protest in my own legal way. Believe it or not , its actually not impossible to grow my own produce..... no Kali...
Better yet instead of trying to harm innocent hard working people how about just getting involved and help. The NRA and CalGuns need all the help they can get.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.

Last edited by sholling; June 26, 2012 at 11:51 PM.
sholling is offline  
Old June 26, 2012, 11:57 PM   #21
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,054
This thread is about SB 249, specifically what it might affect and what can be done to stop it.

It is not the place for blanket bashing of the state of California or its residents. This includes the seemingly-clever-but-not-really misspelling of "Kalifornia."

Some folks may notice their posts have been deleted. That should be a warning. Anything more along those lines, and I break out the (metaphorical) riding crop.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 27, 2012, 12:10 AM   #22
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
"This thread is about SB 249, specifically what it might affect and what can be done to stop it."
Nothing - only if Gov. Brown vetos it but the chances of it passing are certain, in my opinion. We will try nonetheless. The votes are there for just about any stupid gun law you can imagine. If only it was like taxes where the legislature needs 2/3 majority, then nothing would get by. The minority here has been pretty consistent on that issue but have no power on the RKBA. With the Governator, he seemed to flip a coin on gun related legislation.
jmortimer is offline  
Old June 27, 2012, 12:53 AM   #23
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,258
I think Jerry Brown could go either way on this one. He's not anti-gun (Arnold was) but he's not all that pro-gun either. He supported gun rights in an amicus brief to the SCOTUS because he felt he was defending a core right. I just don't know if he'll stretch that core rights feeling to AR15s. I think a huge campaign of polite well reasoned and well written letters might sway him.
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old June 27, 2012, 07:43 PM   #24
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,454
I would think any polite and reasoned letter campaign would want to emphasize the angle of confiscation without compensation. Indeed, I would think this would be a major point in any litigation.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old June 27, 2012, 09:35 PM   #25
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Unless the bill has be changed since last time I read it, it's severely flawed(As to its apparent intent). It's designed to prevent usage of parts to convert from fixed magazine to detachable, not the other way around. Particularly since it relies on current definitions already in CA law. By current definitions, an AR, AK or other rifle with "evil" features with a bullet button is completely legal(minus those listed by name in the two separate AWB bills).

The bullet button or similar device by current definitions makes it a fixed magazine. The only things this would prevent would be things like the mag magnet(already illegal anyway as the OP noted), and parts used to enable SKSs and other fixed magazine rifles to accept magazines(It should be noted SKSs with detachable magazines are already illegal, I just used it as an example as it was the first fixed magazine rifle that people convert to accept detachable magazines that came to mind).

Granted this bill is another arbitrary restriction that will hopefully not pass, but it is an amazing example of legislation without understanding.

Although on the non-serious side, if the bill were extremely broadly interpreted
screw drivers and hex wrenches might become illegal, as they are "parts" used to convert firearms from fixed to detachable magazine.
sigcurious is online now  
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 04:22 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 0.12569 seconds with 7 queries