PDA

View Full Version : SB 776 Hi Cap Mag Possession Ban


CAL.BAR
04-16-2009, 10:57 AM
For all you folks who worry about a Federal AW ban, perhaps you should turn your attention (and paranoia) back here to home where we continue to lead the nation in repressive gun laws. And remain light years ahead of the Feds in restriction of our 2A rights.

Just introduced SB 776 - which would basically criminalize the mere possession of high cap mags and cause the existing hi-caps to be registered.

AN excerpt follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 776, as amended, Hancock. Punishment: community-based
punishment programs. Firearms: large-capacity
magazines.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain
certain information related to firearms transactions.
This bill would extend those provisions to information concerning
the registration of large-capacity magazines, as specified.

Existing provides that commencing January 1, 2000, and subject to
exceptions, any person who manufacturers or causes to be
manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends any large-capacity magazine
is guilty of an offense.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
specified exceptions, prohibit the possession of large-capacity
magazines. Violation of these provisions would be punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
exceptions, require registration of large-capacity magazines with the
Department of Justice. The bill would require registration of
large-capacity magazines no later than January 1, 2011, for magazines
that are already possessed, as specified, and would provide that
large-capacity magazines acquired after January 1, 2011, be
registered within 30 days of taking possession. The bill would
establish exceptions to these provisions. The bill would require
local and state entities to register their large-capacity magazines
as institutionally owned, as specified, and would require those
entities to report to the department the disposition of
large-capacity magazines by those entities that constitute a
nuisance, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of
Justice to charge a fee, not to exceed $20, for registration of
large-capacity magazines, and would authorize increases in that fee,
as specified. The bill would exempt local and state entities from
that registration fee.
By imposing additional duties on local governments in connection
with the registration of large-capacity magazines and the disposition
of large-capacity magazines that are a nuisance, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Justice to issue a
permit to a licensed firearms dealer for the purpose of transporting,
possessing, and selling a large-capacity magazine to an out-of-state
purchaser.
This bill would require the registration of large-capacity
magazines that are subject to those provisions, and notification to
the department of the identity of the purchaser, as specified

1BigPea
04-16-2009, 11:02 AM
From the NRA, so calls and emails can be send...



California: High-Capacity Magazines in the Crosshairs!
Please Contact the Senate Public Safety Committee Today!

Senate Bill 776, sponsored by State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9), has been introduced in Sacramento. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Public Safety Committee and could be heard on Tuesday, April 21 or Tuesday, April 28.

Simply put, SB776 would mandate the registration of all magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. The possession of unregistered magazines would be a crime and punishable up to a year in prison.

It is critical that gun owners voice their opposition to SB776. Please contact the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose this bill. Contact information can be found below.

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4037

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9)
(916) 651-4009

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29)
(916) 651-4029

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025

Nullzero
04-16-2009, 11:03 AM
Great... need to mobilize against this to stop it.

gregshin
04-16-2009, 11:05 AM
i called all the senators already!

stormy_clothing
04-16-2009, 11:05 AM
so basically what this bill is saying is that if you happen to find 10,000 extra hi-caps in the desert they will be legal if you register them ?

lol

Untamed1972
04-16-2009, 11:07 AM
How in the heck do you register a magazine? It's not like they have serial numbers on them or anything.

I'm glad the law-makers of our cash strapped state are spending the taxpayers dollars on such worthwhile activities.

If that law goes thru I may just hafta throw in the towel and get the heck out of this state for good!

JOEKILLA
04-16-2009, 11:08 AM
so basically what this bill is saying is that if you happen to find 10,000 extra hi-caps in the desert they will be legal if you register them ?

lol

Registering is not good at all. Call these people up, e-mail them....this has to be stopped.

Fate
04-16-2009, 11:08 AM
How do you register an unserialized part? :rolleyes: Madness.

gbran
04-16-2009, 11:09 AM
Designed solely to create 10's of thousands of new felons.

shark92651
04-16-2009, 11:14 AM
It also states that I, as an FFL dealer that can legally import large-caps, would have to register them (and pay the $20 fee - is that per magazine?) and I would also have to notify the state who I sold the magazines to. This would effectively KILL my ability to sell high-caps as who in their right minds wants to buy mags from me if it means their name ends up in a Sacramento registration database!?

Also, what happens if I import a high-cap and then convert it to a 10 rounder for sale in Caifornia? Do I still have to register it and then notify them that it has been "disposed"?

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

bwiese
04-16-2009, 11:18 AM
This of course must be stopped.

I am hoping that those who don't have hicap magaines see the problems for those that do and still participate in the fight.

It's one more piece of bad law that can cause folks trouble. It's one more thing to repeal even after we kill the CA AW ban.

I do sense some 'poison pill' material and this may not get thru budgeting but we need to do a full court "feel the pain" press on this.

I believe the AG's office is going to need to set up a marking standards & compliance unit along with a serialization database. Where IS the budget for that?

oaklander
04-16-2009, 11:20 AM
I just called everyone on the list. It's simple - just call and say that you are against SB776. They will ask for your zip code, and sometimes phone number.

That's it. Do it.

timdps
04-16-2009, 11:22 AM
Instantly becomes unconstitutional after incorporation...

wildhawker
04-16-2009, 11:27 AM
Instantly becomes unconstitutional after incorporation...

But is quite a thorn for potentially another couple of years...

bwiese
04-16-2009, 11:28 AM
Hmm this might present an opportunity to 'legalize' or sanitize illegal hicap magazines.

[DO NOT GO AHEAD WITH THIS YET. THIS IS JUST OPEN DISCUSSION.]

If one had post-2000 hicap magazines in CA and had the receipt stored safely outside CA, and the acquisition/import date was over 3 years ago (i.e, greater than statute of limitations) - one could defend against illegal hicap mag possession charges - and yet still register mags in 2011 with this new law.

I'd still be leery of unique mags for guns designed/made after 2000.

Thanks, Loni!

domokun
04-16-2009, 11:29 AM
Registration is great for them but I hope they have bigger prisions because they could just refuse to register any magazines already out there and we'd be all setup for a painful journey.

domokun
04-16-2009, 11:32 AM
It also states that I, as an FFL dealer that can legally import large-caps, would have to register them (and pay the $20 fee - is that per magazine?) and I would also have to notify the state who I sold the magazines to. This would effectively KILL my ability to sell high-caps as who in their right minds wants to buy mags from me if it means their name ends up in a Sacramento registration database!?

Also, what happens if I import a high-cap and then convert it to a 10 rounder for sale in Caifornia? Do I still have to register it and then notify them that it has been "disposed"?

Or am I reading this incorrectly?

Yep, you're reading it correctly.

Darklyte27
04-16-2009, 11:32 AM
great.....

sorensen440
04-16-2009, 11:34 AM
I dont get how they will register them
There are no numbers on most of mine

spyderco monkey
04-16-2009, 11:36 AM
Hey everyone, make sure to call about this one. I just finished, took less than 5 minutes to call everyone on the list. Easy and fun; it feels very democratic, a unique freedom that billions of people around the world will never experience.

Give 'em a call, and be polite to their chick secretaries :thumbsup:

domokun
04-16-2009, 11:42 AM
I dont get how they will register them
There are no numbers on most of mine

Then you'll have to give them up or lose them in a tragic boating accident. :TFH:

Vin496
04-16-2009, 11:44 AM
I dont get how they will register them
There are no numbers on most of mine

I guess they want you to list your guns then also list how many Hi Caps you own for said gun?

Example(purely as an example) I have a Glock 19 with 5 Hi Caps, so I pay 20x5 for a total of $100 to now have those mags registered.

I go out shooting, some LEO checks my hi caps, but I only have 3 on me, so how is he supposed to know which 3 of the 5 I brought? How is this enforceable?

I can imagine this State wanting to issue some bar code sticker to apply to each magazine, that of course you will have to pay extra for, and when it wears off, you will have all sorts of hassle to prove this was one of the 5 registered, and will have to pay again to get a "duplicate" sticker

mfmayes49
04-16-2009, 11:59 AM
WOW!! I'm sure glad I'm moving out of state in June, this is insane.

Legasat
04-16-2009, 12:00 PM
They are mandating all of this registration so they know exactly where to go to collect them, when they feel the is "right" and the "proper" laws get passed.

This is absolute idiocy. Lunacy!

From my cold, dead hands....

jello2594
04-16-2009, 12:05 PM
Results of my calls. All I said was, "I would like to voice my opposition to an upcoming senate bill, SB776." Took less than 4 minutes and did actually feel pretty good. :

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair - Nobody in office to answer phone - straight to machine. I'll call back after lunch.

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair - "We have gotten many calls today regarding this. Because it was only submitted yesterday, the senator has not yet had a chance to read it, but because he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, he will most likely vote against it."

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22) - "Yeah, can I have your zip code, please?" (gave my zip code) "OK, I'll record your call." (click)


State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9) - "Can I have your name and zip code, please?" (gave both) "Thank you, I will pass this on."

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29) - "May I have the city you're calling from?" (gave it) "Thank you so much for your call. I will be sure to pass that along."

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6) - "May I have the city you're calling from?" (gave it) "Thank you. I will log in your call."

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25) - "OK, thank you." (click)

oaklander
04-16-2009, 12:13 PM
Let's keep those calls coming! When the ILA sends out a message to call - we need to call!!!!

MonsterMan
04-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Everyone rebuild your mags now with new parts. When you register them, what are the chances you are going to be able to swap you mag body out with a new one? Probably none.

I made my calls. Hopefully this thing wont pass.

Spelunker
04-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Results of my calls. All I said was, "I would like to voice my opposition to an upcoming senate bill, SB776." Took less than 4 minutes and did actually feel pretty good. :

State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair - Nobody in office to answer phone - straight to machine. I'll call back after lunch.

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair - "We have gotten many calls today regarding this. Because it was only submitted yesterday, the senator has not yet had a chance to read it, but because he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, he will most likely vote against it."

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22) - "Yeah, can I have your zip code, please?" (gave my zip code) "OK, I'll record your call." (click)


State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9) - "Can I have your name and zip code, please?" (gave both) "Thank you, I will pass this on."

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29) - "May I have the city you're calling from?" (gave it) "Thank you so much for your call. I will be sure to pass that along."

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6) - "May I have the city you're calling from?" (gave it) "Thank you. I will log in your call."

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25) - "OK, thank you." (click)

Pretty much got the same thing. I guess they have had hundreds of calls already according to Senator Huffs office. Good job guys and gals.

Nanook
04-16-2009, 12:15 PM
Results of my calls...

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair - "We have gotten many calls today regarding this. Because it was only submitted yesterday, the senator has not yet had a chance to read it, but because he is a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment, he will most likely vote against it."Yup, the guy in his office just told me they've had over 100 calls about this today and it's just noon. ;)

[EDIT] Haha. Misdialed and actually got my district, even though I apparently don't have a senator at the moment...

...and Senator Wright's secretary said she's had over 300 calls today and was trying to get to the bathroom. LOL

timdps
04-16-2009, 12:23 PM
But is quite a thorn for potentially another couple of years...


Need to revise my statement:
Unconstitutional NOW and will be struck down after incorporation...

Could be a point to politicians to say that the law is unconstitutional now and will certainly be struck down after incorporation. Why waste time and effort passing it?

tim

Clodbuster
04-16-2009, 12:32 PM
How effective is it to call Mark Leno... His office doesn't pick up the phone because he doesn't care what the "People" thinks...

Clod

Pretty much got the same thing. I guess they have had hundreds of calls already according to Senator Huffs office. Good job guys and gals.

aklon
04-16-2009, 12:43 PM
I dont get how they will register them
There are no numbers on most of mine

I asked that same question when talking to Hancock's office and their answer is: "We'll put serial numbers on them."

I had to hang up I was laughing so hard. Its not for nothing they call her "Looney" Hancock.

wildhawker
04-16-2009, 12:44 PM
Could be a point to politicians to say that the law is unconstitutional now and will certainly be struck down after incorporation. Why waste time and effort passing it?

tim

Same reason they will not pass shall-issue CCW leg now, even though it is inevitable post-Nordyke. Theirs isn't a strategy based on logic and reason.

Mazilla
04-16-2009, 12:44 PM
I called everybody on the list, glad to hear that two already oppose the bill. I was not excited that one tried to get my name and address, nice try.

deebix
04-16-2009, 12:50 PM
I called and gave my dissent. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALL NOW and keep an eye on this!

Blacky
04-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Was this bill amended NOT to enforce punishment? What is all the strike through text about?

truthseeker
04-16-2009, 12:57 PM
The next thing the "Anti's" will try to pass is a law that requires ALL semi auto firearms to be modified to have a firing rate of one round per 10 seconds!:rolleyes:

CA_Libertarian
04-16-2009, 1:01 PM
so those of us that own "large capacity" mags would have to pay to register them... and $20 is more than I paid for most of them in the first place... (assuming it's fee per mag).

Another nail being hammered into the coffin of our 2A rights. We MUST stop this nonsense.

CAL.BAR
04-16-2009, 1:03 PM
I just called everyone on the list. It's simple - just call and say that you are against SB776. They will ask for your zip code, and sometimes phone number.

That's it. Do it.

Better yet - Write real letters with real stamps. This is muchmore influential on the legislators as it leaves a paper trail and causes them to general a responsive letter.

My seven letters are in the mail.

lorax3
04-16-2009, 1:05 PM
I understand people are against "registration" of things, but I would rather have a reg. AW than an OLL (For evil feature reasons). But that is another story.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2011, and subject to
exceptions, require registration of large-capacity magazines with the
Department of Justice. The bill would require registration of
large-capacity magazines no later than January 1, 2011, for magazines
that are already possessed, as specified, and would provide that
large-capacity magazines acquired after January 1, 2011, be
registered within 30 days of taking possession.

*Note is says 2011, not 2001.

If this were to replace the current law, then all large capacity magazines you already own would need to be registered by 1/1/2011. All magazines you acquire after than need to be registered within 30 days.

So this bill effectively legalizes importation if it replaces the current law.

So that means it may as Mr. Wiese states, "sterilizes" illegally constructed high capacity magazines currently owned. In addition it will allow you to import mags after 1/1/2011

If I am reading this correctly, then it seems like more good then evil.

Again, I understand the "I dont want big brother knowing what I have" position; however would you give this up to legally be able to import all the high caps you want?'

-lorax

Hoop
04-16-2009, 1:09 PM
I understand people are against "registration" of things, but I would rather have a reg. AW than an OLL (For evil feature reasons). But that is another story.



*Note is says 2011, not 2001.

If this were to replace the current law, then all large capacity magazines you already own would need to be registered by 1/1/2011. All magazines you acquire after than need to be registered within 30 days.

So this bill effectively legalizes importation if it replaces the current law.

So that means it may as Mr. Wiese states, "sterilizes" illegally constructed high capacity magazines currently owned. In addition it will allow you to import mags after 1/1/2011

If I am reading this correctly, then it seems like more good then evil.

Again, I understand the "I dont want big brother knowing what I have" position; however would you give this up to legally be able to import all the high caps you want?'

-lorax

Unless they amend current law to allow us to legally import hi-cap mags rather than kits to REPLACE our current mags then it might be okay. I don't think it's the loophole you think it is though.

weber_2
04-16-2009, 1:14 PM
Next on the list is registering your Monster Man grip!

lorax3
04-16-2009, 1:15 PM
Unless they amend current law to allow us to legally import hi-cap mags rather than kits to REPLACE our current mags then it might be okay. I don't think it's the loophole you think it is though.

If it did not replace the current law how would the following be viable.

and would provide that
large-capacity magazines acquired after January 1, 2011, be
registered within 30 days of taking possession.

If they stayed with the current law, what would be a legal way of taking possession after 1/1/2011? I doubt legislators are referring to "finding" magazines.

Stan_Humphries
04-16-2009, 1:17 PM
Dear Senators,

I am writing to oppose SB 776. This bill would require the registration of all firearms magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This bill is unnecessary, unenforceable, and unfair to low-income Californians like myself. Ultimately, SB 776 reflects a dramatic departure in long-standing public policy by requiring law-abiding long-gun owners to register themselves with the state to avoid criminal prosecution.

The importation, sale or transfer of magazines with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds has been prohibited since the year 2000, (with some exceptions for law enforcement, armored car guards, and firearms dealers). This has effectively stopped law-abiding citizens from obtaining such magazines for the last nine (9) years. A mandated registration of magazines that are still within California would do nothing to curb the flow of these magazines into and throughout California, as such activity is already illegal. SB 776 simply does not modify California Penal code section 12020 in any manner that would further the state's interest in outlawing these magazines. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation.

SB 766 is also realistically unenforceable. The bill proposes to register the large capacity magazines already in California. However, unlike firearms, magazines are not serialized or individually identifiable. Magazines are interchangeable by design - particular designs look alike, and one can be swapped out for another. How any law enforcement officer would distinguish between a magazine that was registered by the owner, and one that was not registered, is difficult to fathom. Further, magazines undergo wear-and-tear that often requires replacement of either their main body, floor plate, follower or internal springs. Even if some serialization method were to be attempted, there would need to be provisions to permit the replacement of old worn out parts with newer (and un-serialized) new part. Ultimately, the law enforcement officer saddled with the burden would only be able to determine whether the person in possession of a large capacity magazine was registered, not whether the magazine being held was the particular magazine registered. The only realistic effect of SB 776 would be to register the people and not the items held.

Also, the cost of registration (currently proposed to be "no more than $20") would be prohibitive for many owners in these tough economic times. It ultimately amounts to a government taxation on continued lawful possession. It is unclear whether this fee would be required for each individual magazine (as it is for registered firearms) or simply per person. For those of us who are at presently in economic distress, I must tell you, there is not an extra $20 to spare in the budget - especially to register items already lawfully owned.

Finally, the registration of all large capacity magazines will only act as a back-door method to identify and register owners of certain types of long-guns. Most handguns in the state are already required to be registered, as are assault weapons, but long-guns (rifles and shotguns) are specifically not required to be registered. In fact, while most long-guns are still required to undergo a Dealer Registration of Sale (DROS) as well as the ensuing 10-day wait period and DOJ background check, the DOJ is required to destroy the information of a long-gun buyer shortly after the background check is complete.This destruction requirement reflects a long-standing public policy in California that long-gun ownership is largely a private matter, and (except in the case of assault weapons) is not something that the State should keep records of. Yet, by forcing owners to register their large capacity magazines, SB 776 would monitor individuals who are likely to own the long-guns that correspond to those magazines. While magazine registration may not identify each specific rifle or shotgun owned by the registrant, it would ultimately be a method of clearly identifying which Californians own what types of long guns. If the Senate wishes to compile and maintain such a list of long-gun owners, it should propose (and open to public discussion) clear and direct legislation, not through the back door registration that SB 776 would accomplish.

For the above reasons, I ask each of you to reject SB 776.

Sincerely,

hoffmang
04-16-2009, 1:22 PM
Instantly becomes unconstitutional after incorporation...

Do not be so sure. There is not a slam dunk case against it constitutionally.

-Gene

bwiese
04-16-2009, 1:25 PM
Unless they amend current law to allow us to legally import hi-cap mags rather than kits to REPLACE our current mags then it might be okay. I don't think it's the loophole you think it is though.

That won't happen.

And if passed and implementable they would just not allow registration of new mags.

So DO NOT HOPE FOR THIS TO PASS - it's not like late 2005, hoping for certain OLLs to be declared AWs and "rinse lather repeat" for the next brand.

hoffmang
04-16-2009, 1:33 PM
Was this bill amended NOT to enforce punishment? What is all the strike through text about?
This is a tactic called a "gut and amend." The old bill was gutted out and a new bill was amended in.



So this bill effectively legalizes importation if it replaces the current law.

So that means it may as Mr. Wiese states, "sterilizes" illegally constructed high capacity magazines currently owned. In addition it will allow you to import mags after 1/1/2011


You're missing that the import or manufacture of new large-capacity magazines is currently prohibited and will remain so. That is very, very bad.

-Gene

foxtrotuniformlima
04-16-2009, 1:35 PM
I called. :)

nick
04-16-2009, 1:38 PM
The bill would exempt local and state entities from
that registration fee.

As usual.

gregorylucas
04-16-2009, 1:40 PM
Took less than 3 minutes.

Greg

sfwdiy
04-16-2009, 1:47 PM
Called 'em all, was very polite and so were they. Easy to do, takes no time at all. Tell these people what you think. Don't forget, these people work for us! Even that clown Cedillo, whether he thinks so or not! :p

Experimentalist
04-16-2009, 1:49 PM
Made my calls today.

For what it's worth, the operator / secretary / poll takers for State Senators Mark Leno and John J. Benoit said they opposed the bill.

223andme
04-16-2009, 1:50 PM
Just got done calling all of them!

bwiese
04-16-2009, 1:52 PM
Made my calls today.

For what it's worth, the operator / secretary / poll takers for State Senators Mark Leno and John J. Benoit said they opposed the bill.

Mark Leno is an interesting guy.

Macadelic4
04-16-2009, 2:01 PM
Done. Confirming that Benoit is opposed according to his desk guy.

bigcalidave
04-16-2009, 2:12 PM
Def called on this one. How absurd! They don't even consider the possibility of laws like this being enforced when they write this crap!

Untamed1972
04-16-2009, 2:26 PM
Def called on this one. How absurd! They don't even consider the possibility of laws like this being enforced when they write this crap!

Nope and how many otherwise "good, law abiding" citizens will end up in legal hassles because of it vs. the criminal dirtbags it was intended for, who don't give a crap about the law anyway.

trinydex
04-16-2009, 2:40 PM
If it did not replace the current law how would the following be viable.



If they stayed with the current law, what would be a legal way of taking possession after 1/1/2011? I doubt legislators are referring to "finding" magazines.

perhaps law enforcement need to register high capacity magazines also...

goober
04-16-2009, 2:41 PM
Mark Leno is an interesting guy.
yeah isn't he the sponsor of SB585 (against gun shows @ Cow Palace)?

bwiese
04-16-2009, 2:47 PM
yeah isn't he the sponsor of SB585 (against gun shows @ Cow Palace)?

Yes, but that is the exception.

CCWFacts
04-16-2009, 2:48 PM
Mark Leno is an interesting guy.

Huh? Please do explain! I thought he was among the worst of the worst?

goober
04-16-2009, 2:54 PM
Huh? Please do explain! I thought he was among the worst of the worst?
you might be thinking of De Leon maybe? the ridiculous ammo bill sponsor (AB962, which btw is back again for another try...)?

eflatminor
04-16-2009, 2:56 PM
Seven letters written, stamped and mail. Old school style.

fairfaxjim
04-16-2009, 3:11 PM
Mark Leno is an interesting guy.

As a gay liberal state senator, that alone would make him "an interesting guy." He is an improvement over Migden, however slight. He is backed and supported by some extremely left and anti-gun folks, but doesn't seem to have the same "off the shelf" knee jerk reaction to guns and anti-gun legislation. I am willing to see what comes. The Cow Palace ban the gun shows thing is sort of a "San Franciso Treat", every legislator from there seems to want to try that one. It may have more to do with the politics of the neighborhood the CP is in rather than a gun thing for Leno.

ProlificARProspect
04-16-2009, 3:12 PM
Just made all the calls.... There is nothing good about this bill.

AdamM
04-16-2009, 3:47 PM
I called all of them!

Smokin
04-16-2009, 3:48 PM
I called all of them as well.

RRangel
04-16-2009, 3:49 PM
This bill is just another example of some of the anti-gun lunacy that has become common in California. This bill is pure insanity. Will be contacting these people ASAP.

383green
04-16-2009, 3:56 PM
Would disintegrating-link belts need to be registered per link? And would there be a charge of $20 per link?

It would be amusing if a 1000-round box of .30 links (an entirely normal and inexpensive order quantity) ended up costing more than a transferrable full-auto M1919 due to the registration fee... :eek:

Seesm
04-16-2009, 4:13 PM
State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair (lady said she was not sure his view on it)yeah right. was fast to get me OFF the phone.
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37), Vice-Chair (TOTALLY against it) was a cool guy took time with me.
(916) 651-4037

State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22) (cedillo will not offer if for or against until he gets to commitee) Lady BLEW me off the phone FAST.
(916) 651-4022

State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9) (hancock is for it)
(916) 651-4009

State Senator Robert Huff (R-29) (huff is NOt for it)
(916) 651-4029

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6) (steinberg is not sure how he will vote on this)
(916) 651-4006

State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25) (hung up on me 1 time, not sure of his position they said)
(916) 651-4025

TOOK ME less than 2 minutes TOTAL PLEASE keep the call going... Thanks folks
Let's NOt complain LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!! Come on!!

383green
04-16-2009, 4:15 PM
I just called the whole list from post #2. Each office asked for zero or more of: name, zip code, where calling from. Senator Benoit's office stated that he shares my opposition and plans to vote "no". The other offices did not comment about their senators' positions.

This is quick and easy to do, and it's generally not even necessary to say why you're opposed. I just opened with "Hello, I'm calling to voice my opposition to Senate Bill 776". The receptionists would variously ask for name/city/zip code, and that would be the end of it.

dchang0
04-16-2009, 4:26 PM
Yeah, guys, don't bother spending a lot of time writing long letters, etc. The gatekeepers (interns, mostly) simply enter the info into a computer database, usually just: OPPOSE/SUPPORT, your name, and basic info to figure out which district you live in such as city and zip code. They also record your phone number, which is usually shown on their call systems.

That's it. Most of the letters and calls never get through to the legislator directly unless they are from "important" people or are of such a situation that the legislator might face bad press if he/she doesn't handle the call/letter personally.

Knowing this, get as many of your buddies to call/email in. Some guys might be assuming that it'll take a lot of time to write a long letter several times and might not join in out of laziness.

bwiese
04-16-2009, 4:27 PM
dchang0 is correct.

Which means it's IMPORTANT to KEEP THE PRESSURE UP and repeat calls/faxes/emails.


SHARE THE PAIN.

Tweak338
04-16-2009, 4:29 PM
How do you register an unserialized part? :rolleyes: Madness.
Thats what im wondering.

mdouglas1980
04-16-2009, 4:35 PM
I'm writing e-mails right now! one has been sent off and I'm going down the list!
:thumbsup:

mdouglas1980
04-16-2009, 4:43 PM
lol on the state website if you try to send them an e-mail through their service. If you're not in their "District" it won't let you send them anything.

eflatminor
04-16-2009, 4:48 PM
After I mailed my letters, I had my girlfriend call each Senator to voice opposition. She's very pro Bill of Rights, but I did have to bribe her with a shoulder massage. Guys, get another family member/friend to call. Have them use a number other than the one you used, if possible. Double your voice!

ProlificARProspect
04-16-2009, 5:43 PM
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/markleno.jpg
^^^^^State Senator Mark Leno (D-3), Chair
(916) 651-4003
senator.leno@senate.ca.gov

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/Benoit_Portrait.jpg
^^^^State Senator John J. Benoit (R-37),
(916) 651-4037


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/gilbertcedillo.jpg
^^^^State Senator Gilbert Cedillo (D-22)
(916) 651-4022


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/StateSenatorLoniHancock.jpg
^^^^State Senator Loni Hancock (D-9) (hancock is for it)
(916) 651-4009


http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/StateSenatorRobertHuff.jpg
^^^State Senator Robert Huff (R-29) (huff is NOt for it)
(916) 651-4029



http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/StateSenatorDarrellSteinberg.jpg
^^^^State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006

ProlificARProspect
04-16-2009, 5:44 PM
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj8/ProlificARProspect/StateSenatorRoderickWright.jpg
^^^^State Senator Roderick Wright (D-25)
(916) 651-4025

SkatinJJ
04-16-2009, 5:50 PM
I called and I have to say, the feeling I get is when they get your city, or zip, if it's not their district, it's in the waste bin.

But I still called and voiced my opposition!

Capt. Speirs
04-16-2009, 7:08 PM
Next they will have us register all our ammo...crap, all that ammo we horded?

510dat
04-16-2009, 7:29 PM
for the record, here's a link to a pdf of the amended bill:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_776_bill_20090415_amended_sen_v98.pdf

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-16-2009, 7:31 PM
If one had post-2000 hicap magazines in CA and had the receipt stored safely outside CA, and the acquisition/import date was over 3 years ago (i.e, greater than statute of limitations) - one could defend against illegal hicap mag possession charges - [I]and yet still register mags in 2011 with this new law.

12044. (a) (1) A person who acquired ownership of a
large-capacity magazine prior to January 1, 2000, or after January 1,
2000, and prior to January 1, 2011, acquired a large-capacity
magazine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12020, shall register
the magazine with the Department of Justice no later than January 1,
2011.

xxG3xx
04-16-2009, 7:32 PM
this is freaking stupid im so glad im leaving this state at the end of the month...but i will do what i can to help you guys out with this stupid bill

510dat
04-16-2009, 7:33 PM
12044. (a) (1) A person who acquired ownership of a
large-capacity magazine prior to January 1, 2000, or after January 1,
2000, and prior to January 1, 2011, acquired a large-capacity
magazine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 12020, shall register
the magazine with the Department of Justice no later than January 1,
2011.

What a weird phrasing. What about people who acquired them on January 1, 2000?

Experimentalist
04-16-2009, 7:35 PM
dchang0 is correct.

Which means it's IMPORTANT to KEEP THE PRESSURE UP and repeat calls/faxes/emails.


SHARE THE PAIN.

I agree that this is the optimal path forward.

I would like to share that back when Jackie Speier sponsored legislation to close the Cow Palace show I faxed an eloquent letter to whatever committee was reviewing it at the time.

I actually got a personal letter in response from Speier. To which I mailed a counter-arguement, to which I received a terse "It's what the community wants" sort of response. Predictable, but still fun to interact with the sponsor of the bill.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
04-16-2009, 7:41 PM
If you acquired ownership of the large cap mag on or after 1/1/00, but not through any of the PC 12020(b) exceptions, you can't register the large cap mag, therefore you can't lawfully possess the mag. Not certain about this, just my first impression after a quick read of the legislation.

CAL.BAR
04-16-2009, 7:49 PM
Do not be so sure. There is not a slam dunk case against it constitutionally.

-Gene

Exactly - until the AW registration and ban gets knocked over there's nothing to stop this ban, actually it's amazing they didn't think of it when they outlawed high caps in the first place. The State may always propound legislation to "reasonably restrict" gun ownership. (i.e no RPG's guys)

oaklander
04-16-2009, 8:58 PM
Better yet - Write real letters with real stamps. This is muchmore influential on the legislators as it leaves a paper trail and causes them to general a responsive letter.

My seven letters are in the mail.

Don't forget to also call.

CAL.BAR
04-16-2009, 9:07 PM
Don't forget to also call.

Yes, but calls are etherial - letters are recorded and responded to

lioneaglegriffin
04-16-2009, 9:25 PM
stated opposition of this bill to my Senator, Senator Rod Wright

esskay
04-16-2009, 9:45 PM
Dear Senators,

I am writing to oppose SB 776. This bill would require the registration of all firearms magazines with the ability to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. This bill is unnecessary, unenforceable, and unfair to low-income Californians like myself. Ultimately, SB 776 reflects a dramatic departure in long-standing public policy by requiring law-abiding long-gun owners to register themselves with the state to avoid criminal prosecution.

The importation, sale or transfer of magazines with the capacity to hold more than ten rounds has been prohibited since the year 2000, (with some exceptions for law enforcement, armored car guards, and firearms dealers). This has effectively stopped law-abiding citizens from obtaining such magazines for the last nine (9) years. A mandated registration of magazines that are still within California would do nothing to curb the flow of these magazines into and throughout California, as such activity is already illegal. SB 776 simply does not modify California Penal code section 12020 in any manner that would further the state's interest in outlawing these magazines. It is an unnecessary piece of legislation.

SB 766 is also realistically unenforceable. The bill proposes to register the large capacity magazines already in California. However, unlike firearms, magazines are not serialized or individually identifiable. Magazines are interchangeable by design - particular designs look alike, and one can be swapped out for another. How any law enforcement officer would distinguish between a magazine that was registered by the owner, and one that was not registered, is difficult to fathom. Further, magazines undergo wear-and-tear that often requires replacement of either their main body, floor plate, follower or internal springs. Even if some serialization method were to be attempted, there would need to be provisions to permit the replacement of old worn out parts with newer (and un-serialized) new part. Ultimately, the law enforcement officer saddled with the burden would only be able to determine whether the person in possession of a large capacity magazine was registered, not whether the magazine being held was the particular magazine registered. The only realistic effect of SB 776 would be to register the people and not the items held.

Also, the cost of registration (currently proposed to be "no more than $20") would be prohibitive for many owners in these tough economic times. It ultimately amounts to a government taxation on continued lawful possession. It is unclear whether this fee would be required for each individual magazine (as it is for registered firearms) or simply per person. For those of us who are at presently in economic distress, I must tell you, there is not an extra $20 to spare in the budget - especially to register items already lawfully owned.

Finally, the registration of all large capacity magazines will only act as a back-door method to identify and register owners of certain types of long-guns. Most handguns in the state are already required to be registered, as are assault weapons, but long-guns (rifles and shotguns) are specifically not required to be registered. In fact, while most long-guns are still required to undergo a Dealer Registration of Sale (DROS) as well as the ensuing 10-day wait period and DOJ background check, the DOJ is required to destroy the information of a long-gun buyer shortly after the background check is complete.This destruction requirement reflects a long-standing public policy in California that long-gun ownership is largely a private matter, and (except in the case of assault weapons) is not something that the State should keep records of. Yet, by forcing owners to register their large capacity magazines, SB 776 would monitor individuals who are likely to own the long-guns that correspond to those magazines. While magazine registration may not identify each specific rifle or shotgun owned by the registrant, it would ultimately be a method of clearly identifying which Californians own what types of long guns. If the Senate wishes to compile and maintain such a list of long-gun owners, it should propose (and open to public discussion) clear and direct legislation, not through the back door registration that SB 776 would accomplish.

For the above reasons, I ask each of you to reject SB 776.

Sincerely,

Don't forget these economic times with the state of California struggling with all its budget issues -- can you even imagine the costs to the state & local agencies to somehow serialize unserialized items, register & record lord knows how many of them, and administer & enforce all that?!

Charliegone
04-16-2009, 9:59 PM
If you acquired ownership of the large cap mag on or after 1/1/00, but not through any of the PC 12020(b) exceptions, you can't register the large cap mag, therefore you can't lawfully possess the mag. Not certain about this, just my first impression after a quick read of the legislation.

incrimination...hmmm...that's a no,no I think.

bluthandwerk
04-16-2009, 10:14 PM
Senator Leno,

I'm writing to ask you to oppose Senate Bill 776, which was recently amended to propose a ban on possession of firearm magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds, accompanied by the registration of all such magazines legally owned prior to the commencement of the law.

Unlike firearms, magazines have no uniquely identifying characteristics, which makes the practical enforcement of registration functionally impossible. It is already illegal to manufacture or sell these magazines here in California.

I am a registered Democrat and one of your constituents here in San Francisco, and I hope that you will agree with me that this legislation is impractical and ill-considered.

Thank you very much for your time,

P----------
-----------St.
San Francisco, CA 9----


I knew that not bothering to change my registration to Independent yet would come in handy some day :D

MacDaddy
04-16-2009, 10:32 PM
To answer the big question...

Engraving.

hoffmang
04-16-2009, 10:37 PM
To answer the big question...

Engraving.

Mr. or Mrs DOJ BoF,

Every single large-capacity magazine I own has been transcribed with the serial number FU1. Yep. FU1.

No, I only had a few hundred large-capacity magazines with the serial number FU1.

-Gene

sigsauer887
04-17-2009, 1:41 AM
So what about the magazines we rebuilt with PMAGS? Do we still get to register those?

DRH
04-17-2009, 7:11 AM
To answer the big question...

Engraving.

What are you going to engrave my cloth belts with? How about the curved spring steel links? Good Luck!
I am not qualified or have any equipment to perform engraving who is going to engrave my hundreds of hi capacity devices and who is going to pay for the cost to have them all properly engraved. Something like that should only cost a few thousand dollars per person. The one time $20 fee would be the same as the assault weapon ban and most likely cover all registered items. But the expenses to educate hundreds of thousands of people and to execute the program properly with engraving, databases, verification and management would fall into the hundreds of millions of dollar range. I am sure that the state with all of its current problems and priorities can find a better way to spend my tax dollars. To my knowledge no one has every been killed by a magazine. Firearms are already regulated and registered, this type of needless redundancy is "feels good" pathetic legislation of the style that is killing this state financially.

leitung
04-17-2009, 9:34 AM
I wouldn't register ****.. they can kiss it. I would take my stuff out of state, I would not give this socialist state any money to use my rights.

jb7706
04-17-2009, 9:39 AM
Called and spoke to all offices except for Loni Hancock. They couldn't be bothered to answer a call from the unwashed masses so I left VM.

anhero
04-17-2009, 9:57 AM
thanks for the template Stan_Humphries. i just emailed all the senators involved, my state senator and state representive.

DRH
04-17-2009, 11:32 AM
**Important notes**
When a bill goes before the Senate public safety committee a report is prepared for the committee members outlining a brief synapsis of the bill, arguments pro and con for the bill and a list of people/organizations for and against the bill. Here is an example memo from a bill last year outlining what the individual committee members will receive (look at the end):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_821_cfa_20070625_094345_sen_comm.html
You personally can be listed as against the bill and any company you represent can be listed as against the bill. We need to get the individuals listed against this bill to be in the thousands, not just one person like happen in the example given above. We also need every business we know that care about firearms to be listed. Hopefully we can get the companies that oppose this bill to take up a few pages. Imagine what that would look like to a committee member :eek:.
The only way to be offically listed as opposing this bill on the record is to send a written response directly to the committee!
The fax number for the senate public safety committee is (916) 445-4688.
To be listed you do not have to post any reasons or comments why you oppose it, just that you oppose SB776. Even if you have already called, emailed and faxed every member please burn up the committee fax line and send in your opposition.

JOEKILLA
04-17-2009, 11:49 AM
THX.........Faxing now.

I hope we have everyone that viewed this thread doing the same thing.




**Important notes**
When a bill goes before the Senate public safety committee a report is prepared for the committee members outlining a brief synapsis of the bill, arguments pro and con for the bill and a list of people/organizations for and against the bill. Here is an example memo from a bill last year outlining what the individual committee members will receive (look at the end):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_821_cfa_20070625_094345_sen_comm.html
You personally can be listed as against the bill and any company you represent can be listed as against the bill. We need to get the individuals listed against this bill to be in the thousands, not just one person like happen in the example given above. We also need every business we know that care about firearms to be listed. Hopefully we can get the companies that oppose this bill to take up a few pages. Imagine what that would look like to a committee member :eek:.
The only way to be offically listed as opposing this bill on the record is to send a written response directly to the committee!
The fax number for the senate public safety committee is (916) 445-4688.
To be listed you do not have to post any reasons or comments why you oppose it, just that you oppose SB776. Even if you have already called, emailed and faxed every member please burn up the committee fax line and send in your opposition.

esskay
04-17-2009, 12:11 PM
Wrote out my fax, will send today, thanks for the info.

AlexDD
04-17-2009, 12:51 PM
Made the calls.

Librarian
04-17-2009, 1:11 PM
Doesn't need to be much - mine was
Name
Address

April 17, 2009

Senate Public Safety Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA

Please record that I am OPPOSED to Senator Hancock’s SB 776.

Don't count on that having a lot of influence by itself; I recall one a couple years ago that seemed to have an honest count of 5000+ individuals opposed, and it passed out of committee.

ChrisSig
04-17-2009, 3:31 PM
I called, going to mail letters soon.

supersonic
04-17-2009, 4:09 PM
This is REALLY a pathetic stretch. Hopefully, the "ones" that will have to do all the paperwork & data entry will show even more disdain for this than we are already. Can you imagine all the work that would have to go into actually registering ALL the "HI"-caps in PRK???!!!??? Well, we all know how little "they" want to actually work, so I (personally) am not giving this a chance in HELL. But, BOY, what a waste of time & resources!! It seems that's all they are becoming capable of now.:rolleyes:

otteray
04-17-2009, 6:07 PM
I emailed Benoit so far, and Leon.
Benoit's website refused my address- "we can only accept our district" crap.
So I put in his office address.
Worked fine.:D

swift
04-17-2009, 7:53 PM
I called them all today to voice my opposition. I got as far as "i'm calling in opposition to a bill.." and the woman on the line responded "SB776?"

I guess she got a lot of calls today! Let's keep it up!

Chunky_lover
04-17-2009, 9:19 PM
So is this only for centerfire mags, or all caliber high cap mags? If they are in parts is it considered a high cap mag?

cdtx2001
04-17-2009, 9:23 PM
What about tube feed rifles, where does it stop???


I sent my email

aklon
04-17-2009, 9:25 PM
Def called on this one. How absurd! They don't even consider the possibility of laws like this being enforced when they write this crap!


Just think how well The Great California Assault Weapons Ban has worked. I daresay, thanks to the OLL thing, there's probably more AR15 type rifles in California than there were when the law was passed.

This doesn't even consider how many original AW weren't registered when they said to do so.

cdtx2001
04-17-2009, 9:25 PM
And another thing, ENFORCEMENT is going to be interesting.

JDS
04-19-2009, 9:45 AM
Just read the whole thread and will make my calls Monday morning. Hope it's not too late!

Had a couple questions regarding contacting officials on this and future matters. Have always wanted to get involved with the politics of gun rights. Here's my noob thoughts;

So the best plan for an individual to make his/her beliefs known are to call, write AND fax their opinion?

When e-mailing (since they only seem to accept e-mails from their area) is it horrible to make up an address like putting in the senators own address (like someone did earlier in this thread)? Will that e-mail be credible?

Would it be sacrilegious to keep calling, faxing and writing with different (made up) names/info? Maybe use all your friends (with their permission).

If they ask for a name and address on the phone, can you just give them a fake one? Do they actually cross reference any of em' or really call back? At least just a fake address in their district so you seem more pertinent? Is there really any repercussions?

Obviously you see what I'm getting at. It seems like everyone could technically be 50 people increasing their power.

In doing so are you weakening your cause in any way. Can they really catch you doing that?

What address are you supposed to use to write letters, each senator has more than one on their site?

p7m8jg
04-19-2009, 9:54 AM
I'm so grateful our omniscient legislators have discovered the penultimate pinnacle of persuasion that will parsimoniously satisfy all. Hallelujah!

:censored:

I hvae no idea what I just wrote. But I was thinking like a legislator, it doesn't have to make sense....right?

Mazilla
04-19-2009, 10:50 AM
I'm so grateful our omniscient legislators have discovered the penultimate pinnacle of persuasion that will parsimoniously satisfy all. Hallelujah!

:censored:

I hvae no idea what I just wrote. But I was thinking like a legislator, it doesn't have to make sense....right?

I think you need one more word that starts with P. :thumbsup:

Librarian
04-19-2009, 12:13 PM
Just read the whole thread and will make my calls Monday morning. Hope it's not too late!

Had a couple questions regarding contacting officials on this and future matters. Have always wanted to get involved with the politics of gun rights. Here's my noob thoughts;

So the best plan for an individual to make his/her beliefs known are to call, write AND fax their opinion?

When e-mailing (since they only seem to accept e-mails from their area) is it horrible to make up an address like putting in the senators own address (like someone did earlier in this thread)? Will that e-mail be credible?

Would it be sacrilegious to keep calling, faxing and writing with different (made up) names/info? Maybe use all your friends (with their permission).

If they ask for a name and address on the phone, can you just give them a fake one? Do they actually cross reference any of em' or really call back? At least just a fake address in their district so you seem more pertinent? Is there really any repercussions?

Obviously you see what I'm getting at. It seems like everyone could technically be 50 people increasing their power.

In doing so are you weakening your cause in any way. Can they really catch you doing that?

What address are you supposed to use to write letters, each senator has more than one on their site?

Pretending to be who you are not, or more than one person, is probably a bad idea.

But some of our self-appointed masters public servants "forget" that while they are elected by district, the things they do affect the whole state. Therefore, it is good for them to hear and consider the concerns of everyone who cares to offer criticism, and defeating their ill-considered filter is a contribution to good government in California.

ETA while the legislature is in session, send letters to Sacramento.

Theseus
04-19-2009, 9:09 PM
I tried calling on Friday and kept getting a voice-mail for Cedillo. He is a douche bag anyway. . . I remember him sending me an e-mail claiming it was all the republicans fault the CA budget wasn't passing and wanted my support to eliminate the 2/3 requirement.

I sent my response to that and have not longer received any of his memo's. . . Kind of funny actually.

Solidsnake87
04-19-2009, 11:33 PM
......If only Darwinism applied to law makers..............

hoffmang
04-20-2009, 12:45 AM
......If only Darwinism applied to law makers..............

It used to. Now we have term limits removing all selection pressure.

-Gene

bwiese
04-20-2009, 12:57 AM
If only Darwinism applied to law makers...........

It used to. Now we have term limits removing all selection pressure.

Yup. And we even have a bit of a rough biological equivalent - Speigelmann's Monster. (one writeup is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegelman_Monster

By applying term limits, we remove the legislator from the competitive pool for that house and jettison him into another (assembly->Senate, Senate to statewide seat, etc.) [Spieglemann's parallel: viral 'broth' extracted/sampled earlier and moved into another 'pool'.]

The results (legislative) are harried, rapid, and incomplete. [Spiegelmann's parallel: shortened/incomplete strands of RNA, many replication errors, reduced information content).

cousinkix1953
04-20-2009, 7:04 AM
I dont get how they will register them
There are no numbers on most of mine
That brain dead politician from Berzerkeley was heard saying that "new technology" makes it possible to stamp serial numbers on sheet metal magazines. Just never mind if the original German Luger pistols and magazines had matching serial numbers on them more than 100 years ago.

I also have some Enfield no.1 MkIII magazines with a serial number on them too. Unfortunately most of our US military surplus and commercial magazines have no serial numbers on them. It isn't a common practice here. Can you just imagine those idiots setting up shop to issue serial numbers to millions of our used magazines?

Futurecollector
04-20-2009, 12:03 PM
Ok should we still call on this?

AaronHorrocks
04-20-2009, 12:31 PM
That brain dead politician from Berzerkeley was heard saying that "new technology" makes it possible to stamp serial numbers on sheet metal magazines. Just never mind if the original German Luger pistols and magazines had matching serial numbers on them more than 100 years ago.

I also have some Enfield no.1 MkIII magazines with a serial number on them too. Unfortunately most of our US military surplus and commercial magazines have no serial numbers on them. It isn't a common practice here. Can you just imagine those idiots setting up shop to issue serial numbers to millions of our used magazines?

Okay, how are you going to stamp a serial number on a cloth belt? :confused:

bluestaterebel
04-20-2009, 7:49 PM
This would effectively KILL my ability to sell high-caps

do you have any high-cap 10/22 mags?

cousinkix1953
04-20-2009, 9:08 PM
Okay, how are you going to stamp a serial number on a cloth belt? :confused:
They can do it with ink; but that won't last long after it goes through a machinegun action a few times. They'll be hard pressed to stop anybody from selling unserialed magazines and proving when somebody did it.

jjperl
04-21-2009, 1:03 AM
I don't understand how registration of standard cap mags would even be possible. Some people have hundreds of mags. The database would be impossible to keep up.

jjperl
04-21-2009, 1:05 AM
**Important notes**
When a bill goes before the Senate public safety committee a report is prepared for the committee members outlining a brief synapsis of the bill, arguments pro and con for the bill and a list of people/organizations for and against the bill. Here is an example memo from a bill last year outlining what the individual committee members will receive (look at the end):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_821_cfa_20070625_094345_sen_comm.html
You personally can be listed as against the bill and any company you represent can be listed as against the bill. We need to get the individuals listed against this bill to be in the thousands, not just one person like happen in the example given above. We also need every business we know that care about firearms to be listed. Hopefully we can get the companies that oppose this bill to take up a few pages. Imagine what that would look like to a committee member :eek:.
The only way to be offically listed as opposing this bill on the record is to send a written response directly to the committee!
The fax number for the senate public safety committee is (916) 445-4688.
To be listed you do not have to post any reasons or comments why you oppose it, just that you oppose SB776. Even if you have already called, emailed and faxed every member please burn up the committee fax line and send in your opposition.

Good to know!

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 1:24 AM
I don't understand how registration of standard cap mags would even be possible. Some people have hundreds of mags. The database would be impossible to keep up.
We are up to our eyeballs in US military surplus magazines for M-1 carbines, AR-15s and other firearms. We are not Germany. Ours are only marked with a 2 letter code which is an abbreviation for the defense contractor who made them decades ago. Some have no markings at all.

There is no way to register them either. The best they can do is date the brand news ones and mark them with "police or military use only" as the feds did before...

AaronHorrocks
04-21-2009, 10:03 AM
I don't understand how registration of standard cap mags would even be possible. Some people have hundreds of mags. The database would be impossible to keep up.

Yeah, I would have a truckload of mags, belts, and links. mostly links. I'd show up at registration day with crates of links for them to mark. That is, if I was the kind of guy to go along with this scam. :rolleyes:

Rhys898
04-21-2009, 12:15 PM
**Important notes**
When a bill goes before the Senate public safety committee a report is prepared for the committee members outlining a brief synapsis of the bill, arguments pro and con for the bill and a list of people/organizations for and against the bill. Here is an example memo from a bill last year outlining what the individual committee members will receive (look at the end):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0801-0850/ab_821_cfa_20070625_094345_sen_comm.html
You personally can be listed as against the bill and any company you represent can be listed as against the bill. We need to get the individuals listed against this bill to be in the thousands, not just one person like happen in the example given above. We also need every business we know that care about firearms to be listed. Hopefully we can get the companies that oppose this bill to take up a few pages. Imagine what that would look like to a committee member :eek:.
The only way to be offically listed as opposing this bill on the record is to send a written response directly to the committee!
The fax number for the senate public safety committee is (916) 445-4688.
To be listed you do not have to post any reasons or comments why you oppose it, just that you oppose SB776. Even if you have already called, emailed and faxed every member please burn up the committee fax line and send in your opposition.

Does anyone have a sample letter??? I've got time, a fax machine, and lots of people who wont object to me sending something on this in their name.

Jer

EDR
04-21-2009, 1:39 PM
Called them all. Thanks for posting the numbers.

DRH
04-21-2009, 2:56 PM
The bill is scheduled to be heard on April 28th at the end of a long list of bills to be heard that day. It might or might not be heard that day. That means we have one week possibly two long weeks to continue our effort to let our legislators know we are tired of this crap. Let your voice be heard!

You do not need a beautifully written letter that details every point. A simple " I oppose SB776 the high capacity magazine registration bill" will do. If also you want to tell them it is a poorly written piece of legislation that will waste money and achieve nothing, it can't hurt.

Tillers_Rule
04-21-2009, 4:48 PM
This sickens me to no end. WTF are they thinking will be accomplished by doing this? How many crimes have been committed where the bad guys have fired off more than ten rounds from their weapons? Is this like an epidemic now? And what has changed since they banned 'hi cap' magazines in the first place, has crime gone down because of it?

I now realize that politics don't really care about our safety, they simply care about making more laws, so when something happens they sit back and say, "It's not my fault, I created this law".

What a bunch of cowards.

hawk81
04-21-2009, 5:30 PM
I am not registering ****. **** them.

Texas Boy
04-21-2009, 6:01 PM
For those without a FAX machine - I just sent a FAX to the committee through a web site called www.faxzero.com - the site allows you 2 free faxes per day, no software to download, etc - just type in the info and hit send. You get a confirmation email in your inbox a few minutes later with a link you must click on to confirm your email and send the fax - that's it.

Here is what I sent:

Dear Representative,

I STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 776 (the Hi Cap Mag Possession Ban) as a useless waste of public funds. This bill spends tax dollars, restricts the rights of law abiding citizens, and does NOTHING to reduce crime.

Sincerely,

name
city

AaronHorrocks
04-21-2009, 6:31 PM
I am not registering ****. **** them.

Which is what many people said in reguards to thier full-autos and similar NFA items. Given a few decades we forget how unconstitutional these "laws" are, and just go with the flow of the ATF, DOJ and MSM, that there's such a thing as an illegal firearm.

VW*Mike
04-21-2009, 6:39 PM
I did it, and urged about 3-4 gun owners at work to do the same! Took a whopping 3-4 minuets. I like the liberal offices, the basically just took my stance and before I could get where I was calling from out of my mouth, they hung up on me.

cousinkix1953
04-21-2009, 9:01 PM
There is no talk of tracing the guns that Lovelle Mixon used to kill four cops in Oakland. Nobody is threatening to jail the unlicensed arms dealer(s), who sold a banned SKS carbine, to a convicted felon, off the books. No DROS paperwork either. They aren't after the guy who sold a handgun and didn't pay the $19 registration fee.

Only the fruit and nuts really believe that gun control laws are intended to harass the criminals in Kommiefornia...

Ugly Dwarf
04-21-2009, 9:44 PM
I made the calls today...

... and then emailed ~30 of my pro-gun friends asking them to do the same.

savasyn
04-22-2009, 10:41 AM
Called 'em all and am about to fax. Senator John J. Benoit's guy said he was planning on voting no on this bill :)

Theseus
04-22-2009, 11:14 AM
Don't we need to actually call the committee and not the individual reps?

Texas Boy
04-22-2009, 11:20 AM
Don't we need to actually call the committee and not the individual reps?

My understanding (from a previous poster) is you need to FAX the committee so you show up on the report as being opposed. Otherwise, you can call, email, what ever, all day long and there is nothing on that summary report that mentions anything about the 1,000,000 people who called in protest.

If you don't have a FAX, there are free web sites that will send a Fax for you at no charge.

jmbbmg
04-22-2009, 11:32 AM
Made calls as well as faxed opposition. Wife too. Also 3 CA corps and 2 DBA's I control faxed opposition.

Thanks to all for the excellent info!

DRH
04-22-2009, 11:47 AM
Faxing the committee should be done in addition to contacting the individual members. Sorry for not making that clear.

Smokin
04-22-2009, 11:56 AM
Seems like what we've all have been doing worked! The bills author pulled the bill this morning

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4788

I wouldnt stop the phone calls and letters though. We NEED to make a strong point that we wont tolerate this leftist bs.

Blackhawk556
04-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Seems like what we've all have been doing worked! The bills author pulled the bill this morning

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4788

I wouldnt stop the phone calls and letters though. We NEED to make a strong point that we wont tolerate this leftist bs.

excellent,

people should continue to call just to make sure that the bill isn't brought up again

Texas Boy
04-22-2009, 1:53 PM
Yes...keep up the calls/faxes. Very satisfying though!

Bills like this are the real Zombies - they keep coming back and you have to keep putting them down. Lets make sure the politicians learn these type of bills are politically unwise.

otteray
04-23-2009, 6:30 AM
Amazing! Any way to see just how just many faxes were sent to the committee opposing this?

Greg-Dawg
05-24-2009, 9:47 AM
Any updates on this bill?

I found this: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_776_bill_20090415_amended_sen_v98.html

Vote: majority.
Appropriation: no.
Fiscal committee: no
yes .
State-mandated local program: no
yes .


So has it been turned down?

Will the high cap ban expire? I've asked this before and wondering if it can or will?

383green
05-24-2009, 9:50 AM
Will the high cap ban expire? I've asked this before and wondering if it can or will?

The existing high-cap ban will not expire. We'll need to kill it in the court system. :43:

Unfortunately, laws don't expire unless they have an explicit expiration clause. The 1994 federal AWB was an example of a law with one of those clauses, but I think such things are very uncommon.

hoffmang
05-24-2009, 10:13 AM
The update on the law is that it has been withdrawn. It is not impossible that it might return this legislative session but the odds aren't high that we'll see it again.

More excellent work by the quiet professionals in Sacramento with a three letter acronym that starts with 'N'.

-Gene

Nessal
05-24-2009, 10:35 AM
Are you f'ing serious? We shouldnt be having these restrictions PERIOD.



I understand people are against "registration" of things, but I would rather have a reg. AW than an OLL (For evil feature reasons). But that is another story.



*Note is says 2011, not 2001.

If this were to replace the current law, then all large capacity magazines you already own would need to be registered by 1/1/2011. All magazines you acquire after than need to be registered within 30 days.

So this bill effectively legalizes importation if it replaces the current law.

So that means it may as Mr. Wiese states, "sterilizes" illegally constructed high capacity magazines currently owned. In addition it will allow you to import mags after 1/1/2011

If I am reading this correctly, then it seems like more good then evil.

Again, I understand the "I dont want big brother knowing what I have" position; however would you give this up to legally be able to import all the high caps you want?'

-lorax

gunsmithcats
05-24-2009, 11:02 AM
how would they deal with all us active military folk entering and leaving the state. They issue us anywhere from 6-20000000 Ar magazines, and technically it is in your possession. F that.

lomalinda
05-24-2009, 11:04 AM
"More excellent work by the quiet professionals in Sacramento with a three letter acronym that starts with 'N'."

I agree with Gene.

I haven't followed the NRA's actions historically, so I cannot comment on what I think they've done negatively regarding the gun laws here in CA or nationwide.

But Wayne has done a good job of handling the sham "semi-auto" AK demonstration foisted on the public by CNN, forcing them to retract their assertion.

The NRA is has also been involved in other things including the proposed magazine limitations and working against the ammo rationing silliness.

Swatter911
05-25-2009, 8:45 AM
The update on the law is that it has been withdrawn. It is not impossible that it might return this legislative session but the odds aren't high that we'll see it again.

More excellent work by the quiet professionals in Sacramento with a three letter acronym that starts with 'N'.

-Gene

As well as at least one major LEO organization who lobbied the bills author to withdraw it. ;)

I would wager this will become a two-year bill and we'll most likely see another gut and ammend.

tankerman
05-25-2009, 9:02 AM
If you don't have a FAX, there are free web sites that will send a Fax for you at no charge.Use Fax Sr. it allows you to email to a fax machine.

Figures our friggin backwards state is still using fax machines, worthless 70's technology, that does nothing more than waste paper.

hoffmang
05-25-2009, 10:02 AM
As well as at least one major LEO organization who lobbied the bills author to withdraw it. ;)


I'm assuming here, but my assumption is that PORAC (http://www.porac.org/) continues to be an excellent friend of the gun owner.

-Gene

Surefire
01-31-2010, 5:30 PM
Did this bill pass?

Mssr. Eleganté
01-31-2010, 5:34 PM
Did this bill pass?

No.