The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 1, 2016, 06:47 PM   #1
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,854
California governor signs stringent gun bills, vetoes others

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cal...Kw4?li=BBnb7Kz

Quote:
Gov. Jerry Brown signed six stringent gun-control measures Friday that will require people to turn in high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks for ammunition sales, as California Democrats seek to strengthen gun laws that are already among the strictest in the nation.
Blaming things as opposed to people will always result in these ridiculous laws as these laws will do nothing to stop crime.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 06:53 PM   #2
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Here's a list:

Signed:

AB 1695 (Bonta): AB 1695 makes it a misdemeanor to report to a local law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing the report to be false.

AB 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511 Limits infrequent lending of guns to specified family members.

SB 1235 (De León): SB 1235 requires background checks for ammunition purchasers, licenses to sell ammunition, and collection of sale information. Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. Bans internet / out of state ammunition purchase.

SB 880 (Hall, Glazer) & AB 1135 (Levine, Ting): SB 880 & AB 1135 would redefine assault weapons to encompass specified guns capable of accepting any type of detachable magazine. (Bullet Button Ban)

SB 1446 (Hancock): SB 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.

Vetoed:

AB 1674 (Santiago): AB 1674 would add to the current restrictions that are placed on an individual in regards to how many firearms they can purchase in a 30 day period, including long guns

AB 2607 (Ting): AB 2607 would allow an employer, coworker or mental health worker to file a restraining order on an individual to keep them from owning a gun. This individual would not be allowed to defend themselves until 21 days later. During this period their guns could be confiscated.

SB 894 (Jackson): SB 894 requires the reporting of a lost or stolen gun within 5 days of when a person knows or reasonably should have known of the theft or loss.

AB 1176, (Cooper) AB 1176 would have clarified that stealing a firearm is felony grand theft.

AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms (80% receivers).



The worst that were signed were the ammo ban and the over 10 round magazine ban - first the CA government bans lead ammo for hunting and then they make it as difficult as possible to buy replacement ammo.

The CONFISCATION of all magazines over 10 rounds. The next time a politician says they don't want to confiscate your guns, here's the camel's nose under the tent.

The worst that was vetoed (thankfully):

Restraining orders. Anybody you work with who doesn't like guns could file a restraining order. Your guns would be confiscated and you couldn't even appeal for 21 days.

The Federal government wants to suspend your constitutional rights based on suspicions. The CA government wants to suspend your constitutional rights based on gossip.
natman is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 07:19 PM   #3
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
A few errors/expansions:

AB 1511 bans loans of firearms EXCEPT TO specified family members. So no sharing guns.

AB 1235 requires that names be checked against a database of prohibited persons, but not a full blown background check. Further, although there are required reports of purchases by purchaser, amount and caliber, there are no restrictions on purchases. Internet sales are not "banned," but regulated. Instead of shipping ammo to your home, the seller must ship to a licensed ammunition vendor for the purpose of complying with the "background check" and reporting requirements. Obviously this will likely make internet bulk purchases less economically advantageous, as the licensed vendor will charge a service fee, and will collect state sales tax. Importation of ammo without a license (i.e., in the trunk of your car) is a misdemeanor.

SB 880. The best way to understand this bill is that it bans future purchases of semiauto rifles with detachable magazines and at least one prohibited feature. The purpose and intent is to prospectively ban the California Bullet Button, such that one will have to open the action on an AR in order to be able to reload. "Featureless" rifles such as the Mini 14/30 and the M1 Carbine are exempt. Presumably rifles equipped with a Prince magazine lock are exempt, but the law does not specifically so state. The bill retroactively requires registration of previously legal bullet buttoned rifles as "assault weapons" by January 1, 2018. "Assault weapons" may not legally be transferred, whether by sale, gift or bequeath, in the State of California.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 07:33 PM   #4
62coltnavy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Posts: 353
And yes, we are all very depressed.
62coltnavy is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 07:43 PM   #5
deerslayer303
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Leesville SC
Posts: 2,540
SB 1235 "creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners"??? WOW!!
__________________
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson
deerslayer303 is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 07:55 PM   #6
krunchnik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2010
Location: Lakeland,TN
Posts: 131
In Short-The Lunatics are now running the bin.Confiscation means relinquishing something today they was legal yesterday.I thought that this in fact is against the law-confiscation with no compensation-sounds like legal stealing to me.
__________________
THE CROW
KIMBER SUPER CARRY PRO
krunchnik is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 07:58 PM   #7
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,565
Dear California Gun Guys (and Girls),
please considering moving to Texas, where the taxes are low, gun ownership is encouraged, and common sense still prevails.
(You may want to avoid Austin though, as you'll find treatment there not unlike what you're trying to leave.)
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً

Last edited by TXAZ; July 1, 2016 at 08:14 PM.
TXAZ is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 08:08 PM   #8
chrisr6
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2013
Location: S California
Posts: 23
I was going to try to retire out of California. I'm only 42, that might not be soon enough.
chrisr6 is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 08:29 PM   #9
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
I'm presuming the ban on out-of-state ammo sales means no shipping of ammo to Californians from distributors in Oklahoma or the like, but making it a crime to travel out of state, purchase ammo, and bring it home, absent a special tax, that's going to bump against the Interstate Commerce rules and be challenged pretty quickly.

It's like saying I can't travel to another state, buy a bottle of Scotch, and bring it home. I've paid the taxes when I bought it, and have no requirement to pay additional taxes in another state for the same bottle.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 08:31 PM   #10
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
Krunchnik, I think property cannot be taken without due process of law. When the governor signed it, that was due process.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 1, 2016, 10:28 PM   #11
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,219
Quote:
When the governor signed it, that was due process.
Not exactly. (legal eagles, correct me, if I'm wrong)

The Gov signs it, it becomes law. Due process is the process of enforcing the law, and it must work in conjunction with other, already existing laws. (meaning it cannot contradict established law).

Or, more accurately, it should not. OF course, that is a matter for the courts to decide. And CA courts are not noted for being what I would consider reasonable or "true" to established legal principles, where guns are concerned.

CA violated the principle of ex post facto decades ago, with their original Roberti0-Roos assault weapon law, by requiring owners of certain guns, guns owned before the law took effect, to be registered. And it has survived legal challenges, and even expanded on, as time went by.

Guns that were required to be registered were, a couple years later, put on the confiscation list. Remember that, when they say "no one is trying to take your guns", because it is a LIE!

Now, they're after those "evil" more than 10 shot magazines.

Kind of takes the hi-cap advantage to the 9mm away. My 1911A1a looking better and better.

The GOV has signed them, they are law, and stay law until a court says they are not. Sad for CA people, but democracy is a numbers game, and it appears mislead fools are in the majority there.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old July 1, 2016, 10:43 PM   #12
smee78
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 2,461
I'm sad to hear more rights are being stripped away from law abiding citizens, I guess all the bad guys will just rush to the local police station and turn in their ...........o ya.......right thats why their criminals. Keep hammering your guns into plows......
__________________
We know exactly where one cow with Mad-cow-disease is located, among the millions and millions of cows in America, but we haven't got a clue where thousands of illegal immigrants and terrorists are
smee78 is offline  
Old July 2, 2016, 09:32 PM   #13
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,529
Quote:
(You may want to avoid Austin though, as you'll find treatment there not unlike what you're trying to leave.)
If you already have a big city doing this . Trust me it will spread .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 2, 2016, 11:29 PM   #14
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 3,565
At least the over 10 round magazine bill isn't running until 7/1/2017.
Not a lot of comfort but the gendarmes won't be showing up tomorrow.
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابياً
TXAZ is offline  
Old July 3, 2016, 12:43 AM   #15
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,117
Quote:
At least the over 10 round magazine bill isn't running until 7/1/2017.
So cali folks have A year to dispose/sell off the mags out of state or just give em up for zero compensation.
Sharkbite is offline  
Old July 3, 2016, 08:48 AM   #16
BumbleBug
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 11, 2013
Location: Near Heart of Texas
Posts: 852
Quote:
SB 1235 (De León): SB 1235 requires background checks for ammunition purchasers, licenses to sell ammunition, and collection of sale information. Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. Bans internet / out of state ammunition purchase.
Components are not ammunition. How will this affect handloaders? I don't live in California but I am wondering.
BumbleBug is offline  
Old July 3, 2016, 08:53 AM   #17
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by BumbleBug
Components are not ammunition. How will this affect handloaders? I don't live in California but I am wondering.
Sssshhh ...

I have two friends who are FFLs in Connecticut, where they enacted a similar ammunition sales law back in 2014, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook School shooting. My understanding is that the Connecticut law likewise doesn't address reloading components. I've asked if they saw an increase in reloading and, to my surprise, both answered, "No, not at all."

However, the CT law also doesn't address importation, and Connecticut isn't all that far from Vermont and New Hampshire ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 3, 2016, 03:04 PM   #18
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,892
Some questions that may or may not be useful to our CA friends...

What are the CA legal restrictions on AOWs?
-Could one legally purchase a NFA AOW with a pistol brace/cheek rest and vertical foregrip, or does that fall under one of the CA AWB definitions? (e.g. Sig MPX with an SB brace and vertical foregrip)


With the CA AWB registry opening for new additions, due to revised laws, can one legally register an AWB that falls under the new definitions, then reconfigure that AWB to have more of the banned features? (e.g. currently CA compliant AR pattern->register due to falling under expanded AWB definitions->remove goofy CA stock, bullet button, etc. once registered.)
raimius is offline  
Old July 3, 2016, 05:52 PM   #19
Wyosmith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 2,597
The libs will call the new laws "reasonable".

Here are some quotes to read than think about;

The opposite of courage is cowardice, but the words "reasonably",
"conformity" or "cooperation" are what cowardice is called most of the
time, because cowards hate the word "cowardice".
......Steve Zihn

"None is more hopelessly enslaved then those that falsely believe they
are free"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Livestock stays in fenced enclosures because they don't control their
own minds.
They could get out with very little effort but they have been convinced
that they can't.
People also stay in subjection because they have given up control of
their own thought processes.
Cattle and horses are faster and stronger than people but people are
smarter then cattle and horses.
If people get out of their “enclosures” however, it’s only because they are
smarter than those that would like to convince them there there is an
enclosure they need to stay inside, when in fact there is none.
.................Steve Zihn

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man-brave, hated,
and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him for
then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain
Wyosmith is offline  
Old July 5, 2016, 03:17 PM   #20
insman1132
Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2009
Location: FL in winter, MI in summer
Posts: 45
Is there going to be a court challenge to any of these laws?
insman1132 is offline  
Old July 5, 2016, 03:48 PM   #21
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,861
Been following the circuits and SCOTUS on similar issues? Rather suicidal at this point.

Also, let's skip the libs vs. conservative naming calling, once again.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 5, 2016, 11:55 PM   #22
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,529
Quote:
Also, let's skip the libs vs. conservative naming calling, once again
Why does The Firing Line keep it's head in the sand on this . Sure there are a few out lairs in the parties . As citizens we may not agree fully with the party we most affiliate with . How ever the party lines are drawn , please don't insult us by acting as if they are not . It's quite clear the dems/libs are anti gun and the rep/conservatives are pro gun . I'm putting this out there because it's the representatives that can enact change and they are the ones we are talking about when we comparing one vs the other .

I'd have a lot more respect for The Firing Lines view on this if you all were honest about why you don't want the topic discussed . IMHO it has noting to do with where the party lines are . You all simply don't want the emotional argument . That's fine , just say that then .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 6, 2016, 02:43 AM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,219
Metal god, please read the sticky about the L&CR rules. It will answer at least some of your questions.

And if you want to understand why what was decided was decided the way it was, block out some time, and read the archived Legal and Political forum.

If you find the rules here on the harsh side of strict, understand that there IS a reason, and we feel it is a valid one.

In a contentious election year, the old forum was rendered virtually useless by "civil" political discussions that devolved into endless bickering and personal attacks. The forum was closed.

There was a great deal of discussion, and the current Forum AND IT"S RULES was created. We are Americans, we value our liberties, and we speak our minds. We have the right. Our political discussions are wild free for alls, no matter how structured in intent, they very often devolve into the most childish mudslinging and insults. We have that right, too. But, we do not have the right to do it here, without consequence.

Because this is NOT a public place, though the public is welcome. We are all guests here.

There are many places to discuss politics directly. This is not one of them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old July 6, 2016, 08:50 AM   #24
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,529
I understand completely what you are saying . My point was very narrow in scope . Only that The Firing Line when addressing this issue in new threads generally claims they are not allowing this line of discussion because it's not a Dems vs Rep debate . I disagree , are political party's have made it just that .

The point was IF you're not going to allow something . Be honest and say (... Our political discussions are wild free for alls, no matter how structured in intent, they very often devolve into the most childish mudslinging and insults....) That is a very good reason to avoid the discussion in a private forum . Claiming it's not a Dems vs Rep debate is inaccurate IMO .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old July 6, 2016, 09:32 AM   #25
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
. . . .I disagree . . . .
You're free to disagree, but Glenn & 44 AMP were clear. I'll also add that your opinion of TFL rules is not the topic of this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Quote:
When the governor signed it, that was due process.
Not exactly. (legal eagles, correct me, if I'm wrong)

The Gov signs it, it becomes law. Due process is the process of enforcing the law, and it must work in conjunction with other, already existing laws. (meaning it cannot contradict established law).
Not exactly. There are Due Process components to both the enactment and the enforcement of legislation. The keystone of Due Process is "notice and an opportunity to be heard." That means adequate, meaningful notice and a reasonable opportunity to contest a legislative enactment, or an enforcement action. (I'm at work and am afraid that I do not have time to dig up citations right now.)

What I've written above is for procedural Due Process, but please bear in mind that Due Process requirements also break down into procedural Due Process and substantive Due Process. Those are really beyond the scope of this thread, so I won't delve off into them, but they are out there.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 11:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11511 seconds with 8 queries