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 6, 2016, 09:33 AM   #26
Evan Thomas
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,586
Metal God, the point is that no matter where majority opinions lie in either party, there are, out there in the world, liberals (Democrats, if you will) who support gun rights, and conservatives (Republicans) who don't. There are also Democrats who have never thought that much about the issue and don't feel that strongly about it; some of them are open to reasonable arguments -- not so much to name-calling, etc. People of different political persuasions are members here, and all sorts of other people read our forums.

It does us no good at all to alienate actual or potential supporters. That's why we have the policy we do, and that policy is not open for discussion. (That is a strong hint, and you'd do well to take it.)

ETA: cross-posted with Spats... but he's right.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old July 6, 2016, 11:09 PM   #27
flyer898
Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2013
Posts: 31
I think Governor Brown is trying to supplant President Obama as the most prolific arms and ammunition salesman. Since those bills were signed I bought $1K in ammunition and $3K in AR rifles - I never owned an AR until these arrive, someday and hopefully soon. (Left-hand Stag Arms 3GL and 6L.)

I wonder how many AR and AK rifles have been purchased or ordered since 7/1; and how much ammunition has been ordered?

I am still looking for a left-hand AR-10 or equivalent.
flyer898 is offline  
Old July 6, 2016, 11:21 PM   #28
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
I'm likely going featureless with one or two and dissembling the rest , not registering anything . As far as ammo , Thank god I reload . I figure that's what the hard core shooters will start doing if they're not already .

I was thinking today about the mandatory registration . CA in 2014 required all firearms to be registered when bought . They had only required hand guns to be registered prior to that . Is there a legal argument to be made that there is no need to register a firearm twice . The DOJ already knows who has what , at least since 2014 .
__________________
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 7, 2016, 05:47 AM   #29
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
. . . . Is there a legal argument to be made that there is no need to register a firearm twice . . . .
As in, "the new law which requires registration is invalid because the State doesn't actually need for me to register a gun twice?" I suppose you could make it, but you'd need to frame it differently. You won't get any traction with it written the way it was. Something along the lines of "the law is an unwarranted burden on the Second Amendment in that it: (1) burdens a core right of the 2A; (2) by requiring lawful gun owners to register guns a second time; (3) while providing no additional benefit to the State (because the guns were already registered)."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

Last edited by Spats McGee; July 15, 2016 at 04:23 PM. Reason: spelling
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 7, 2016, 10:04 AM   #30
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,875
While discussing the legal requirements of new laws is legit, discussion bordering on illegitimate markets isn't, so let's not.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 10:58 AM   #31
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Bullets also require a background check, so yes, reloaders are affected as well


(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01520160SB1235
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 11:04 AM   #32
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Who will be doing these background checks?

It is my understanding that the Feds/NICS will not allow individual States to use their system for Ammunition background checks?

If true, how will CA perform these checks?
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 01:56 PM   #33
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,400
Steve,
Some states, including here in NJ, have their own NICS database and don't use the fed NICS. CA may be another one.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 02:40 PM   #34
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
We here in CA don't believe it includes reloading components . If you read the above quote you can see some of those things named can't be fired from a firearm . Namely magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, so I think they were trying to cover all possible ammo . As we all know the law makers here in CA very rarely actually know what they are actually outlawing because they don't understand firearms in general .

As for CA and the NICS system . I believe CA does use it but that's not all they use . CA also has a separate system that follows , covers , more things then the NICS system .
__________________
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 13, 2016, 03:03 PM   #35
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
We here in CA don't believe it includes reloading components .
Maybe not "Components all", but bullets and projectiles are named specifically.

Quote:
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
Seems clear to me?
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 06:19 PM   #36
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
So are magazines , clips and speed loaders . Seems clearly wrong to me . Are you saying you read the statute to require a background check on all mags , speed loaders and clips . No one else here does .

Not sure if you reload but how many times have you had to correct someone when they said bullet but really meant cartridge . We as a country often if not most times use the word bullet to mean a loaded cartridge . I believe that's what's meant here .
__________________
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 13, 2016, 07:16 PM   #37
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
I reload.

Can't count how many times someone miss used the terms Bullet with Cartridge.

This legislation seems to have cleared that up as they used the terms "Bullet", "Cartridge" and even "Projectile".

They covered their bases and made it clear "in my mind" that a bullet is the projectile and not to be confused with a loaded "Cartridge".

Quote:
Any Bullet, Cartridge, or Projectile
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 13, 2016, 08:24 PM   #38
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
So are magazines , clips and speed loaders . Seems clearly wrong to me . Are you saying you read the statute to require a background check on all mags , speed loaders and clips . No one else here does .

Not sure if you reload but how many times have you had to correct someone when they said bullet but really meant cartridge . We as a country often if not most times use the word bullet to mean a loaded cartridge . I believe that's what's meant here .
Here's my take, with emphasis added:

Quote:
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
So if it's capable of being fired from a firearm it's covered, whether you call it a bullet, a projectile, a slug or a red, red rose.
natman is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 08:43 AM   #39
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
I would also think that the wording here includes "bullets/balls,projectiles" that can be loaded into a Muzzle Loader.
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 09:25 AM   #40
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
Your interpretation would also include pellets and BB's . with a deadly consequence is open to any living thing I guess .

I do understand and agree the statute does appear to include the tips/bullets/projectiles . I guess I'm hoping the fact they got half the wording wrong by including mags , clips and speed loaders that they also wrote the bullets only wrong as well . We shall see

I went over to calguns to ask again what everyone thinks but apparently we are no longer aloud to talk about the new laws over there right now . The thinking is that the law makers monitor the site and if we talk about work arounds . The law makers will just pass another law banning the work around . After September first they no longer can introduce new legislation for this year . I guess that's are date we can then talk about these new laws
__________________
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 .

Last edited by Metal god; July 14, 2016 at 09:31 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 10:10 AM   #41
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metal god
Your interpretation would also include pellets and BB's...
This may be a reflection of my ignorance of CA law, but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"? Does CA law define airguns as firearms?

I'll step back onto the sidelines now.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 11:06 AM   #42
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
My point is that people are here are ignoring obviously wrong things in the bill and only excepting things they agree with . How is a mag anything that can be fired . Yet it's in there to get a background check . So I ask how is a pellet not capable of a deadly consequence . If mags , clips , speed loaders and auto loaders are wrongly included in the bill . Why can't firearm be wrongly interpreted as well .

Are you saying all we need to do is redefine what a pellet is ? Kind of like how the anti's keep redefining what an AW is. ... I'll have no problem shooting pellets from my firearms that remarkable appear very much like a bullet .
__________________
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 .

Last edited by Evan Thomas; July 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM. Reason: deleted off-topic content.
Metal god is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 11:14 AM   #43
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,236
Quote:
but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"?
Ah, but they ARE intended to be fired from a firearm, specifically SHOTGUNS!

and sorry, no, you can't really build a case to exempt air gun pellets, due to the wording of the law. "CAPABLE" does not depend on intended use.

Quote:
So if it's capable of being fired from a firearm it's covered, whether you call it a bullet, a projectile, a slug or a red, red rose.
They have indeed written a very inclusive law (as quoted). SO inclusive that one might, if you had the money and the time, take them to court over every truckload (or shovel full) of gravel sold in the state without a background check, because, after all, gravel IS CAPABLE of being fired from a firearm with deadly effect!

Banks and businesses ought to be running a background check on every customer too, because DIMES are capable of being fired out of a 12ga.

The possibilities are virtually endless. My Grandfather once loaded some 12ga with split peas, for a friend, who wanted to teach a dog a lesson, without killing it. Grandpa recommended rock salt, but the friend was insistent, he wanted split peas, so he got split peas. And, it killed the dog dead as a stone!!

Sure, its extreme, and they'll think its foolish, but it is what they wrote into the LAW!!!!

They didn't write "intended for" or "sold for the purpose of", they wrote "Capable of.." and literally everything in the world physically smaller than the bore size is capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence!

they wrote and passed a bad law. If you can't get it tossed, at least make them live with the unpleasant unexpected consequences, if you can.

If I won the lotto mega jackpot, I'd happily toss a few million your way to support the cause. Till then, all I can do is share ideas. Good Luck!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 11:22 AM   #44
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
Quote:
Sure, its extreme, and they'll think its foolish, but it is what they wrote into the LAW!!!!
yes but didn't the affordable care act set precedent that it does not really matter what's in the text . All that matters is the intent . Penalty/tax they're the same thing .

Quote:
If I won the lotto mega jackpot, I'd happily toss a few million your way to support the cause. Till then, all I can do is share ideas. Good Luck!
That's a great proposal , unfortunately are legislature would either amend or rewrite a law mooting your suit so fast . It would just be a waist of money . CA with it's anti super majority has gotten really good at passing bills so fast it could make your head spin . These bills were just introduced this year and most were stopped in commit . Then Orlando happened and they gutted and rewrote other bills to become these anti gun bills. Not sure what date Orlando happened but that's how long it took these bills to become law .
__________________
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 .

Last edited by Metal god; July 14, 2016 at 11:49 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 12:41 PM   #45
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Quote:
My point is that people are here are ignoring obviously wrong things in the bill and only excepting things they agree with . How is a mag anything that can be fired . Yet it's in there to get a background check . So I ask how is a pellet not capable of a deadly consequence . If mags , clips , speed loaders and auto loaders are wrongly included in the bill . Why can't firearm be wrongly interpreted as well .
First, I do not agree with any of this legislation, so forget that for now.

All I did, was post the Statute, you are free to interpret it any way you wish, as am I, but it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what it says.

Read it again.

Quote:
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
This (or) does not mean that the Mag,clips and speed loaders must be fired from a firearm.
steve4102 is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 12:43 PM   #46
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by carguychris
...but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Ah, but they ARE intended to be fired from a firearm, specifically SHOTGUNS!
<slaps forehead> I shoulda stayed on the sidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
They didn't write "intended for" or "sold for the purpose of", they wrote "Capable of.." and literally everything in the world physically smaller than the bore size is capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence!

they wrote and passed a bad law. If you can't get it tossed, at least make them live with the unpleasant unexpected consequences, if you can.
Sad but true.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 04:18 PM   #47
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,541
Again you are cherry picking how you read the statute . You are doing the same thing the anti's do when they try to separate parts of the second amendment by saying it only includes militia's . Acting as if the part saying the right of the people shall not be infringed only goes to the militia . This statute claims amunition is magazines , clips and speed loaders . It claims those things can be fired from a firearm . Why are you ignoring that inaccuracy and hang on to the rest as if they wrote that correctly ?

I think 44amp showed how little they really thought about how the statute reads .
__________________
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 .

Last edited by Metal god; July 14, 2016 at 07:07 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 07:10 PM   #48
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
This statute claims amunition is magazines , clips and speed loaders . It claims those things can be fired from a firearm . Why are you ignoring that inaccuracy and hang on to the rest as if they wrote that correctly ?
It was ridiculous for them to include magazines, clips and speedloaders in the law. It's also irrelevant to the point, which is that bullets - separate loading components - are clearly included in the law, other inaccuracies notwithstanding.
natman is offline  
Old July 14, 2016, 09:49 PM   #49
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,236
The problem with the law, and nearly every law today is that while it is written in English, it is not written in English.

Call it legalsese or any other name, it is the equivalent of computer basic IF, THEN, GOSUB... and worse. Basic, I can figure out.

Quote:
(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306,


Quote:
ammunition” includes, but is not limited to,
How about this phrase?? What is an open ended phrase without a definition doing in ANY LAW??? Oh, wait, it IS a definition, of something in a different section...

The problem is an old one, it is the law making definitions for use in law that do not "match" the definitions in general use.

You could write a law that included Blue Whales as ammunition, you can include ANYTHING you want, and if passed, and signed, that what it legally becomes.

The use of "and", "or", "includes but is not limited to" and other things are used so the law can "say" or not say anything, and requires a court (lawyers and Judges) to tell us ordinary folk what it actually means.

On the other hand, if they wrote laws in plain easily understood English, a lot of people would be out of work.....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old July 15, 2016, 08:28 AM   #50
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,903
Bad law, bad language, whatever you wish to call it, "it" is now the law and it specifically spells out bullets and projectiles.

The bad language has placed the "bullet" a key component in reloading ammunition, on the list of items that one must go through a background check to purchase.
steve4102 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 10:34 AM.


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 0.09259 seconds with 8 queries