|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 23, 2012, 11:18 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 113
|
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. |
June 23, 2012, 12:21 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
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 ? |
June 23, 2012, 12:23 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 113
|
Easy. The people here in CA elect a Senator here born and raised in China.
|
June 23, 2012, 12:34 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
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. |
June 23, 2012, 12:38 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
|
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. |
June 23, 2012, 04:41 PM | #6 |
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.
|
June 23, 2012, 06:23 PM | #7 |
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.
|
June 23, 2012, 08:46 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
June 23, 2012, 08:47 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2012
Posts: 3,881
|
Quote:
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. |
|
June 23, 2012, 10:34 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
The link to the NRA site says, in part:
Quote:
|
|
June 24, 2012, 12:35 AM | #11 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
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; ... |
June 24, 2012, 06:16 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
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.
|
June 24, 2012, 07:16 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
Geetarman |
|
June 25, 2012, 07:30 PM | #14 |
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.
|
June 25, 2012, 09:30 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 23, 2000
Location: California USA
Posts: 4,533
|
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 |
June 26, 2012, 02:09 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
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. |
June 26, 2012, 08:13 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
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. |
June 26, 2012, 08:59 AM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Here's where I get puzzled:
Quote:
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
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
June 26, 2012, 08:48 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
|
|
June 26, 2012, 11:44 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
Quote:
__________________
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. |
|
June 26, 2012, 11:57 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
June 27, 2012, 12:10 AM | #22 |
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. |
June 27, 2012, 12:53 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,261
|
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. |
June 27, 2012, 07:43 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
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.
|
June 27, 2012, 09:35 PM | #25 |
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. |
|
|