PDA

View Full Version : AB2728 Now in Senate Safety Comm


DRH
06-27-2006, 9:16 AM
xyz

Shane916
06-27-2006, 9:43 AM
I read the entire bill, very interesting! Although I didn't quite understand what they will do with the lowers that are already here. I saw something about destruction then I saw something else that mentioned the 90 day registration period :confused:

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 9:54 AM
SO if this bill passes to the status of law amounst other things if I understand it correctly

" This bill provides that the attorney general's duty to
promulgate a list of all firearms designated as assault weapons
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007 but that any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list.

The AG or "Bill" as I will refer to him here will only have to do a job that he hasn't been doing until January 1, 2007.

Im sure he will be relieved to hear this.

SO legal scholars answer me this.

what will happen if they aren't listed by make and model #

What will be the outcome if this passes ?

Will all of the OLL receiver owners be heading to the grey bar hotel ?

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 10:14 AM
Well, there you have it! It is not clear whether or not they would allow us to register this first "batch" of receivers, or find a way to have them confiscated and destroyed (although I doubt that they are saying that). It looks like someone did know what was going on, and told a friend in the legislature ;)

According to the author:

The Attorney General intends to clarify the scope of
California's assault weapons laws with Assembly Bill
2728. The purpose of this legislation will be to
clean up provisions of the Penal Code dealing with
assault weapons. Specifically, this bill will
clarify that the possession of the lower receiver of
an assault weapon listed in Penal Code Section 12276
is equivalent to possession of an assault weapon. In
addition, this measure will remove the obsolete
"add-on" procedure, which allows the Attorney General
to deem certain weapons "assault weapons." This bill
will also make the possession of an unregistered
assault weapon in violation of the Penal Code a
nuisance, allowing for its destruction. Currently,
there is no provision in law that allows law
enforcement to dispose of seized unregistered assault
weapons.


1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

The Attorney General intends to clarify the scope of
California's assault weapons laws with Assembly Bill
2728. The purpose of this legislation will be to
clean up provisions of the Penal Code dealing with
assault weapons. Specifically, this bill will
clarify that the possession of the lower receiver of
an assault weapon listed in Penal Code Section 12276
is equivalent to possession of an assault weapon. In
addition, this measure will remove the obsolete
"add-on" procedure, which allows the Attorney General
to deem certain weapons "assault weapons." This bill
will also make the possession of an unregistered
assault weapon in violation of the Penal Code a
nuisance, allowing for its destruction. Currently,
there is no provision in law that allows law
enforcement to dispose of seized unregistered assault
weapons.

2. Background - "Series Weapons," Frames and Receivers

According to the bill's sponsor, existing law prohibits the
manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, and
possession of unregistered assault weapons (with limited
exceptions). Currently, assault weapons are classified by their
make and model (Penal Code 12276) and by their characteristics
(Penal Code 12276.1). The Attorney General also has the power
to deem specific firearms to be assault weapons through judicial
and administrative add-on procedures. (Penal Code 12276.5.) In
Harrott v. County of Kings (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1138, the Supreme
Court determined that in order to satisfy due process, the
Attorney General must list a "series" weapon, i.e., a firearm with
similar characteristics to a named model specifically listed under
Section 12276, before it can be identified as an assault weapon.
Consequently, firearms that are identical to named
assault weapons except for their markings cannot be considered
assault weapons unless and until the Attorney General lists them
pursuant to Section 12276.5 or they are assembled to have the
characteristics of assault weapons specified in Penal Code
Section 12276.1. The named "series" assault weapons are listed
in the Attorney General's Assault Weapons Identification Guide.
(http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide/index.html.)
Several months ago, the Attorney General received an inquiry as
to whether a person may possess a "lower receiver" in California
so long as it is not a "named" receiver and so long as it does
not possess the prohibited characteristics under Section
12276.1. Although such a receiver is nearly identical to a Colt
AR-15 receiver except for its markings, the Attorney General's
Office determined that such a "lower receiver" is legal to
possess in California. These "clone" receivers are legal to
possess because they are not "series weapons" under Section
12276 (since the Attorney General has not listed them pursuant
to Section 12276.5), and because they do not contain any of the
characteristics that would make them assault weapons, e.g., a
pistol grip or flash suppressor. Although these receivers can
be made into lawful centerfire rifles, they are primarily
designed so that they can be made into Colt AR-15 clones, which
are "characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1.<1>
Kits are readily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so that anyone can transform their legal-to-own
receiver into an illegal assault weapon.

Due to the growing popularity of lower receivers, the Attorney
General's Office has determined that updating the assault weapons
list with new makes and models will serve no purpose other than
to completely undermine California law by allowing the
proliferation of registered assault weapons. When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the[/B]

<1> These are not "series" weapons under Section 12276,
subdivisions (e) and (f), because of the Harrott decision.
<2> It should be noted that there is some doubt as to whether
the Attorney General's Office has the statutory authority to
list a bare receiver as an assault weapon since it lacks the
characteristics of an assault weapon, including its ability to
fire.


[B] person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.

To address the problem of the Attorney General having to
repeatedly update the list of "series" weapons and thereby, as a
matter of law, "grandfathering-in" a new batch of owners of
knock-off assault weapons or their constituent parts each time,
this bill proposes that the Attorney General's duty to
promulgate a list of all firearms designated as assault weapons
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007 but that any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list.

Additionally, this bill will clarify that the possession of the
lower receiver of an assault weapon is equivalent to possession
of an assault weapon.


Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire
rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make
"characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1. Kits
are easily purchased and instructions are available on the
Internet so anyone can transform their legal-to-own receiver
into an illegal assault weapon. (See below.)

mow
06-27-2006, 10:20 AM
I will not support this bill.

It would remove the judicial process for declaring firearms assault weapons. This bill would allow the AG to name firearms as assault weapons. Potentially he could name the ruger mini 14 30 and anything else that he saw fit.

This bill needs to be defeated.

blacklisted
06-27-2006, 10:25 AM
I will not support this bill.

It would remove the judicial process for declaring firearms assault weapons. This bill would allow the AG to name firearms as assault weapons. Potentially he could name the ruger mini 14 30 and anything else that he saw fit.

This bill needs to be defeated.

I agree, that is a horrible prospect. I don't know the author sneaked that one in...it has nothing to do with off-list lowers (except for the fact that people are brining in PTR-91 clones and a few others).

bwiese
06-27-2006, 10:35 AM
This bill has some good and bad aspects, and some gaping holes since this was a quick job of initial lawriting.

Again, please, let's not publicly do the legislature's work for them. This is different than discussing an unenforceable DOJ memo.

Also, this was just the first cut - a trial run. There's only one more Pub. Safety committee meeting (today) left in legislative session.

PanzerAce
06-27-2006, 11:38 AM
This bill has some good and bad aspects, and some gaping holes since this was a quick job of initial lawriting.

Again, please, let's not publicly do the legislature's work for them. This is different than discussing an unenforceable DOJ memo.

Also, this was just the first cut - a trial run. There's only one more Pub. Safety committee meeting (today) left in legislative session.

agreed though. But I will say that this law is far more interesting than I at first thought it was going to be.

bwiese
06-27-2006, 11:40 AM
agreed though. But I will say that this law is far more interesting than I at first thought it was going to be.

Yes, this prospective law as currently written opens many many side issues :)

PanzerAce
06-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Yes, this prospective law as currently written opens many many side issues :)

yup. Especially how it will relate to the newest DOJ 'capacity to accept' ploy. Since it seems to me that he is declaring stuff AWs, but this would remove his legal ability to.

I noticed in the citations for the pictures though that while they had the lower reciever of an AR (no picture, so no idea who made it), and 2 CA-Illegal builds (one just a receiver, one a full gun), they did not have a complete CA-LEGAL-AR.

bbq_ribs
06-27-2006, 12:48 PM
I noticed in the citations for the pictures though that while they had the lower reciever of an AR (no picture, so no idea who made it), and 2 CA-Illegal builds (one just a receiver, one a full gun), they did not have a complete CA-LEGAL-AR.

you mean this?

" (Picture of a lower receiver - legal to possess in CA.)



(Picture of assembled lower receiver with pistol grip - illegal
in CA.)



(Picture of fully assembled Colt AR15A3 Tactical Carbine -
illegal in CA.)"

Yeah, that was kind of interesting. IIRC, the second & third lines are incorrect - if the mag is 10 round and pinned. Right?

Strange. I think we all need to head up to that public hearing. I'll bring the BBQ. we can make a massive picnic outside the hearing.

SemiAutoSam
06-27-2006, 12:56 PM
you mean this?

" (Picture of a lower receiver - legal to possess in CA.)



(Picture of assembled lower receiver with pistol grip - illegal
in CA.)



(Picture of fully assembled Colt AR15A3 Tactical Carbine -
illegal in CA.)"

Yeah, that was kind of interesting. IIRC, the second & third lines are incorrect - if the mag is 10 round and pinned. Right?

Strange. I think we all need to head up to that public hearing. I'll bring the BBQ. we can make a massive picnic outside the hearing.

Ill setup a kiosk selling mag locks maybe ill engrave bills likeness on them as a special limited edition.

Charliegone
06-27-2006, 5:04 PM
It would save them a hellauva lot of pain if they just let us have at least one feature and remove the outdated RR list.

grammaton76
06-27-2006, 5:21 PM
I do find it kind of annoying that they whine on about how the "only true purpose" of these receivers is to build prohibited configurations. How do they get off deciding what my true purpose is? Maybe I *like* having a non-AW I can take to the range without worrying about cops getting cranky at me, but still play with all the lego-gun parts!

James R.
06-27-2006, 7:07 PM
"Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire
rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make
"characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1"

Yes, nobody would ever build them up into legal centerfire rifles. We only see people here doing it in droves...

Regards,

James R.

James R.
06-27-2006, 7:08 PM
I do find it kind of annoying that they whine on about how the "only true purpose" of these receivers is to build prohibited configurations. How do they get off deciding what my true purpose is? Maybe I *like* having a non-AW I can take to the range without worrying about cops getting cranky at me, but still play with all the lego-gun parts!

Doh, Heh...I just reposted you...ohh well :-P Hadn't read the whole thread yet...

Regards,

James R.

Evil Gun
06-27-2006, 7:09 PM
Good Lord, I am so happy I live in Arizona.

Shane916
06-27-2006, 7:10 PM
So any results on this bill?

bwiese
06-27-2006, 7:17 PM
So any results on this bill?

It's apparently out of the Assy Public safety committee, and over in Senate comittee.

Not sure when a floor vote is...

TKo_Productions
06-27-2006, 7:23 PM
Do we have any word how Kehls find out about all of this? Was he tipped off by Lockyer? So much for the "slow wheels of government."

Also, in the notes of todays committee meeting it sounds like they ripped some information directly from BWiese's AW FAQ and from this board.

We screwed up big time and have contributed quite a bit to the formation of this thing. Lets not continue to feed the beast.

Shane916
06-27-2006, 7:39 PM
It's apparently out of the Assy Public safety committee, and over in Senate comittee.

Not sure when a floor vote is...

thanks for the quick reply. im interested in hearing what the Senate has to say :)

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 8:09 PM
Heres the link to how the Bill is written as of now:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html

It was rewritten on 15 June 2006

Opposition:Crossroads of the West Gun Shows; California
Association of Firearm Retailers; National Shooting
Sports Foundation, Inc.


You notice who isn't on the list of Opposition?

Jicko
06-27-2006, 8:57 PM
Can we write to our Senate regarding this??

HOW can we help to avoid this bill being passed?

WHERE the hell is NRA!?!??!?

James R.
06-27-2006, 9:14 PM
You notice who isn't on the list of Opposition?

Ooooo Ooooohhhh *waves hand* pick me, pick me...

I presume you meant the NRA? They're not there cause they don't care to fight this IMHO. They seem to take on the battles they stand a good chance of winning and leave us flapping in the breeze on the rest.

Regards,

James R.

Mudvayne540ld
06-27-2006, 9:27 PM
Any word on this yet? Pass or Fail?

jemaddux
06-27-2006, 9:36 PM
Any word on this yet? Pass or Fail?


Its strange, it says it was suppose to be reviewed today but I can't find anything that it was:confused:

Mudvayne540ld
06-27-2006, 9:37 PM
same here...... it looks as tho it wasnt even voted on today :?

tenpercentfirearms
06-27-2006, 10:44 PM
I presume you meant the NRA? They're not there cause they don't care to fight this IMHO. They seem to take on the battles they stand a good chance of winning and leave us flapping in the breeze on the rest.
So with a full time lobbyist in Sacramento, do you guys honestly believe the NRA has nothing to do with this? Mike Haas is always trying to convince you guys that the NRA doesn't just come out and run their mouth at will like we do on Calguns. What they do do is work behind the scenes to get us minor victories in California. It is so sad that because they don't broadcast every move they make in enemy territory that people mistake that for a lack of action.

Just be patient and lets see where this thing goes. As others have said, we aren't 100% fully sure what this legislation would mean. It has good and bad points and it is still in committee. Lets see what happens when it comes out.

m1aowner
06-27-2006, 11:08 PM
One thing is for certain, the judicial process is never removed from anything. No matter what is written into the legislation, and passed.

hoffmang
06-27-2006, 11:55 PM
1. Bill's FAQ states nothing but the truth. That only helped them in the same way we help Al-Qeada trim the herd of the slow and the stupid first.

2. Making too many comments on this or the definition change before the arpopriate times, could hurt us.

Please think about the difference in these two/three cases.

Maddog5150
06-28-2006, 2:55 AM
Can we write to our Senate regarding this??

HOW can we help to avoid this bill being passed?

WHERE the hell is NRA!?!??!?

They are too busy trying making random phonecalls to get you to send more money as they scream into the phone "the sky is falling!"....

vonsmith
06-28-2006, 7:56 AM
I do find it kind of annoying that they whine on about how the "only true purpose" of these receivers is to build prohibited configurations. How do they get off deciding what my true purpose is? Maybe I *like* having a non-AW I can take to the range without worrying about cops getting cranky at me, but still play with all the lego-gun parts!
+1 grammaton76

I can't believe how presumptuous and arrogant their statement is:

Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire
rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make
"characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1.

So therefore anyone who legally buys an OLL is automatically assumed to be commencing a criminal act. Gee, the author hasn't thought this through very well. Maybe the DOJ should start arresting everyone who bought an OLL since we know they are going to build an illegal configuration.

There are a couple of legal holes elsewhere in the text, one of them pretty big. I'll leave it to the DOJ to try to figure out where.


=vonsmith=

Ford8N
06-28-2006, 8:16 AM
I can't believe how presumptuous and arrogant their statement is:





=vonsmith=


Look up 12275.5

That is presumptuous and arrogant. You little people can not be trusted. The rulers have spoken.

PIRATE14
06-28-2006, 9:30 AM
Everyone was waiting for this bill to be rewritten or amended before the Senate Public Safety meeting, but it was not and it has passed 4-0. With the terrible, vague langauge all still intact. The next stop is the Senate appropriations committee. I do not think anything with AW in the language of the bill can be stop short of the Governor, but it can't hurt to try.

AB 2728 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2728&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email

STATUS http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060627_status.html

Well since it passed this phase quickly......start writing your reps not to support this bill.

NRAhighpowershooter
06-28-2006, 9:31 AM
Sue 'em for slander!!! 30,000people in on a class action suit!!!

bwiese
06-28-2006, 10:01 AM
Sometimes there's a 1-day or lag on posting of new information to 'leginfo' website.

I called Kleh's office and the phone girl didn't really know, other than it passed out of the Assembly Committee and is in the Senate Committee.

I dunno how many more Senate Crime/Safety committee meetings are left (if any) this session.

It apparently is forwarded to the appropriations committee. I suppose calls and emails about its poor structuring and possible legal costs to the state if it turns into an SKS buyback fiasco could be warranted :)

anotherone
06-28-2006, 1:02 PM
Maybe it's just me but it looks like the only thing AB2728 really changes is giving law enforcement the ability to destroy "Assault Weapons". The fact that they are removing the ability of the AG to list is a moot point. If they are determined to rely on the SB-23 features ban and not list when there are 30,000 of these puppies in the state then they won't be listing when there are 300,000 of them in the state either.

I'm going to advance the thought that the reason they are going this route is for the short term political edge it will give them come election time. It's hard to argue that this direction will achieve their goals in the long run. By not listing, removing the ability to list, and then just updating the CCRs they have effectively told the public AR-15s and AK-47s are no longer banned and you can buy and build as many as you like without evil features.

I predict that years down the road when there are hundreds of thousands of these in the state and there are a lot of arrests from people building these into illegal Assault Weapons, they'll have to take action. The demand for off-list lowers has seemed to continue at some level regardless of what action the DOJ and Legislature has taken. The number of these puppies in the state is just going to continue to grow. But then again, these guys won't be in office when that happens will they :)?

vonsmith
06-28-2006, 1:13 PM
Maybe it's just me but it looks like the only thing AB2728 really changes is giving law enforcement the ability to destroy "Assault Weapons". The fact that they are removing the ability of the AG to list is a moot point. If they are determined to rely on the SB-23 features ban and not list when there are 30,000 of these puppies in the state then they won't be listing when there are 300,000 of them in the state either.

I'm going to advance the thought that the reason they are going this route is for the short term political edge it will give them come election time. It's hard to argue that this direction will achieve their goals in the long run. By not listing, removing the ability to list, and then just updating the CCRs they have effectively told the public AR-15s and AK-47s are no longer banned and you can buy and build as many as you like without evil features.

I predict that years down the road when there are hundreds of thousands of these in the state and there are a lot of arrests from people building these into illegal Assault Weapons, they'll have to take action. The demand for off-list lowers has seemed to continue at some level regardless of what action the DOJ and Legislature has taken. The number of these puppies in the state is just going to continue to grow. But then again, these guys won't be in office when that happens will they :)?
Could it be that simple?

I've always been sure they wouldn't list 30,000 new AW's. That would be political suicide.

But I sense another shoe waiting to drop...


=vonsmith=

jemaddux
06-28-2006, 1:37 PM
Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
(AYES 4. NOES 0.) (PASS)


So this is were it stands right now. Wonder when they will vote on it?

Mudvayne540ld
06-28-2006, 2:56 PM
So is this going to the senate?
I have already sent Jim Battin a letter urging a NO vote on this matter. It also helps that he is in my district (37)

Jicko
06-28-2006, 3:34 PM
HOW can we help to avoid this bill being passed?


Or are we just SITTING and NOT DOING anything!?!?

BIWESE, please advice....

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 3:45 PM
Or are we just SITTING and NOT DOING anything!?!?

BIWESE, please advice....
You don't need BIWESE to tell you to contact the people on the Appropriations Committee list above with your oposition to this bill do you? This isn't rocket science. If you want to fight it, call and mail your representatives or the representatives on the list under the pretext that if they vote on bills that affect your life, then you are their constituent.

anotherone
06-28-2006, 6:24 PM
How about this for a letter:

If you're writting to an anti-gun legislator:

I urge you to vote no on 2728. California gun owners have proved to be a resourceful group and as a result the DOJ is having to update regulations. Who knows what this group of individuals might think of next? Wouldn't it be wise to continue to allow the AG to have the authority to list in the event the DOJ is unable to utilize regulatory updates next time something like this happens?

If you're writting to a pro-gun legislator I suppose you could simply urge them to vote no and protect your 2nd amendment rights. Being that my rep is a dem :( I used the above blurb.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 6:29 PM
How about this for a letter:

If you're writting to an anti-gun legislator:

I urge you to vote no on 2728. California gun owners have proved to be a resourceful group and as a result the DOJ is having to update regulations. Who knows what this group of individuals might think of next? Wouldn't it be wise to continue to allow the AG to have the authority to list in the event the DOJ is unable to utilize regulatory updates next time something like this happens?

If you're writting to a pro-gun legislator I suppose you could simply urge them to vote no and protect your 2nd amendment rights. Being that my rep is a dem :( I used the above blurb.
I think I am slowly becoming a second amendment purist. Siding with the democrats for our short term gain just gives me a dirty feeling. I think I might feel better if they don't have the ability to list anymore and all guns are safe from getting the axe. Of course this bill doesn't do that just yet.

dwtt
06-28-2006, 8:14 PM
Or are we just SITTING and NOT DOING anything!?!?

BIWESE, please advice....
Just write to your senator. You don't need anyone's permission. If you need someone to tell you to write, check out the following web site then write. http://calnra.com/legs.shtml#contact%20info

xenophobe
06-28-2006, 8:53 PM
I think I am slowly becoming a second amendment purist. Siding with the democrats for our short term gain just gives me a dirty feeling. I think I might feel better if they don't have the ability to list anymore and all guns are safe from getting the axe. Of course this bill doesn't do that just yet.

You're becoming a die hard Republican. Traditional Democrats are not the enemy, progressive liberals are. There are a LOT of pro-gun southern Democrats.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2006, 9:20 PM
I don't consider myself a republican, I am a conservative.

anotherone
06-29-2006, 8:06 PM
I think I am slowly becoming a second amendment purist. Siding with the democrats for our short term gain just gives me a dirty feeling. I think I might feel better if they don't have the ability to list anymore and all guns are safe from getting the axe. Of course this bill doesn't do that just yet.

Although I'm a die hard republican myself, I've had to learn to address my concerns in a manner that is digestible by the sea of socialists I live in. California socialists are extremely intolerant of most conservative ideas and because they're gerrymandered in there's no incentive for them to do anything other than vote strictly along party lines even on the most insane bills.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 3:00 AM
Amended 6/29

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060629_amended_sen.html

This is interesting (not new, I just noticed it though):


(b) (1) Until January 1, 2007, the Attorney General shall
promulgate a list that specifies all firearms designated as assault
weapons in Section 12276 or declared to be assault weapons pursuant
to this section. The Attorney General shall file that list with the
Secretary of State for publication in the California Code of
Regulations. Any declaration that a specified firearm is an assault
weapon shall be implemented by the Attorney General who, within 90
days, shall promulgate an amended list which shall include the
specified firearm declared to be an assault weapon. The Attorney
General shall file the amended list with the Secretary of State for
publication in the California Code of Regulations. Any firearm
declared to be an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2007, shall
remain on the list filed with the Secretary of State.


Would this possibly create a new list "pursuant to this section (12276.5)" with no provision for registration?

/Tinfoil

bwiese
06-30-2006, 11:05 AM
Amended 6/29

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060629_amended_sen.html

This is interesting (not new, I just noticed it though):

Would this possibly create a new list "pursuant to this section (12276.5)" with no provision for registration?

No that's just the add-on procedure.

DRH
06-30-2006, 12:09 PM
They did also add the blue colored text below in the last revision. It looks like they are tweaking it more and more. How much revision can a bill receive and not be required to go back for re approval through the various committees or is it just the final senate and assembly floor votes that count.

SEC. 3. Section 12282 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
12282. (a) Possession of any assault weapon, as defined in
Section 12276, 12276.1 or 12276.5, or of any .50 BMG rifle, in
violation of this chapter is a public nuisance. The Attorney General,
any district attorney, or any city attorney may , in lieu of
criminal prosecution, bring an action in superior court to
enjoin the possession of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. Any
assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed in violation of, or
otherwise in violation of this chapter shall be destroyed in a manner
so that it may no longer be used, except upon the filing of a
certificate of a judge of a court of record, or the district
attorney, or the Department of Justice stating that the preservation
of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle is necessary to serve the ends
of justice.

ketec_owner
06-30-2006, 12:39 PM
Not sure about this - but it looks like this to me:

1. The CA DOJ AG will have the power to list AW by name until the start of 2007. Removal of the judicial process to declare a weapon an assault wepon and therefore the explicit 90-day registration process.

2. It's not explicitly stated. But it's assumed the AG will promulgate a list all known AW in an updated "list" until Jan 1, 2007. I don't know if they would have to - if the receiver is considered a assault weapon all unto itself.

3. All lower receivers of a listed assault weapon are considered to be an assault weapon all unto themselves. (perhaps they are going to rely on the "series" definition).

4. The city attorney/DA will have the power to bring a non-criminal lawsuit against the owner of an "AW", in the interest of public safety, to force the turnover of any "assault weapon" or lower receiver.

but I didn't notice in any of the revisions that the registration period was EXPLICITLY mentioned (at least anymore - it was there at one point). What was mentioned was that the lower receivers were an attempt to circumvent current law and this legislation was explicitedly aimed at preventing circumvention of the spirit of the AW Ban (i.e. the 30,000 OLL receivers in the state).

From my understanding - while the tradition of government/law has been not to enjoin transfer/mandate/confiscate the private property of citizens. I think this stems from article 7 of the US Constitution.

However, it's possible this legislation aims to do just that.

I would believe, while it's pretty vague at this point, that the lack of a specific statement about a registration period and the explicit statement about public interested lawsuits has the effect of legislation aimed at having a court issue an injunction to turn over personal property - in the interest of public safety. I suppose that this would be cheaper and faster to the state en masse to get the OLL receiver off the street - than to go with criminal prosecution.

I think there is a fair and valid arguement for compensation of private property. If you notice the bill says no budget or funding impact. I don't know if the assembly or senate would be so eagar to pass if the issue was more $$ impacting (i.e fund the compensation of OLL due to seizure from private hands - since it's in the "public interest"). After all, what is the difference between real estate siezed for the public interest and an OLL siezed for the public interest? But this is really in the perview of each DA - so that would make it a city/county issue - not a state issue. Further - a civil suite is in leiu of a criminal prosecution - so it's really blackmail. Either turn it over via a civil injunction or face criminal charges - that's the way it reads to me.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 1:05 PM
That's what I'm worried about...

Why would they put in the part about a DA/City Attorney being able to have assault weapons destroyed if they didn't intend to seize these somehow? Why not mention registration?

Note that the revisions in AB 2728 are to 12276.5.

But this may be paranoia. Section 12285 clearly outlines registration procedure:

12285. (a)(1) Any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon, as defined in Section 12276, prior to June 1, 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5 shall register the firearm within 90 days, with the Department of Justice pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5, shall register the firearm within one year of the effective date of Section 12276.1, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate. The department may charge a fee for registration of up to twenty dollars ($20) per person but not to exceed the actual processing costs of the department. After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustment for the department's budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account.


Not sure about this - but it looks like this to me:

1. The CA DOJ AG will have the power to list AW by name until the start of 2007. Removal of the judicial process to declare a weapon an assault wepon and therefore the explicit 90-day registration process.

2. It's not explicitly stated. But it's assumed the AG will promulgate a list all known AW in an updated "list" until Jan 1, 2007. I don't know if they would have to - if the receiver is considered a assault weapon all unto itself.

3. All lower receivers of a listed assault weapon are considered to be an assault weapon all unto themselves. (perhaps they are going to rely on the "series" definition).

4. The city attorney/DA will have the power to bring a non-criminal lawsuit against the owner of an "AW", in the interest of public safety, to force the turnover of any "assault weapon" or lower receiver.

but I didn't notice in any of the revisions that the registration period was EXPLICITLY mentioned (at least anymore - it was there at one point). What was mentioned was that the lower receivers were an attempt to circumvent current law and this legislation was explicitedly aimed at preventing circumvention of the spirit of the AW Ban (i.e. the 30,000 OLL receivers in the state).

From my understanding - while the tradition of government/law has been not to enjoin transfer/mandate/confiscate the private property of citizens. I think this stems from article 7 of the US Constitution.

However, it's possible this legislation aims to do just that.

I would believe, while it's pretty vague at this point, that the lack of a specific statement about a registration period and the explicit statement about public interested lawsuits has the effect of legislation aimed at having a court issue an injunction to turn over personal property - in the interest of public safety. I suppose that this would be cheaper and faster to the state en masse to get the OLL receiver off the street - than to go with criminal prosecution.

I think there is a fair and valid arguement for compensation of private property. If you notice the bill says no budget or funding impact. I don't know if the assembly or senate would be so eagar to pass if the issue was more $$ impacting (i.e fund the compensation of OLL due to seizure from private hands - since it's in the "public interest"). After all, what is the difference between real estate siezed for the public interest and an OLL siezed for the public interest?

ketec_owner
06-30-2006, 1:28 PM
Don't know. Doesn't look like two statements. Looks like one with a conjunctive "And" in there. But if so - then that reads well for OLL owners.

blacklisted
06-30-2006, 1:42 PM
"prior to June 1, 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991,"

That registration period is long over. Different registration period.


I'm talking about this 90-day registration add on period. Which is missing from the bill.

Read the section I highlighted:

and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.5 shall register the firearm within 90 days

The amendment in AB 2728 is to 12276.5. If declared an assault weapon pursuant to 12276.5 there would be a 90 day registration.

12285 and 12276 work together in many ways, and the legislature foresaw new banned weapons so the registration procecure applies to any new ones as well (ex: .50 BMG).

ketec_owner
06-30-2006, 2:00 PM
If that's the case - and the revisions are just to the definition of an AW - and the 90-registration period after an AW is declared and AW - then this reads well for registration. My concern is over the "AND". Either they didn't write in plain english or my understanding of logic is flawed. "AND" in logic states both conditions must be true for the entire statement to be true. If it read "OR" - then only one condition would have to be true for the statement to read entirely true.

kenc9
07-07-2006, 9:48 AM
I just got around to reading the entire bill SB2728. :eek:

It is scary that the same folks that wrote that bill also legislate the entire state.
In its present form it is…HAHA…Well I can’t quiet put it into words. :p
How does this state work at all? I guess it is good that various guns are complicated to some. :rolleyes:

tcrpe
07-07-2006, 11:43 AM
You notice who isn't on the list of Opposition?




Sure, the NRA is missing. I did find a catalog and money pitch from them in my mailbox this week, though.

chris
07-07-2006, 12:43 PM
I just got around to reading the entire bill SB2728. :eek:

It is scary that the same folks that wrote that bill also legislate the entire state.
In its present form it is…HAHA…Well I can’t quiet put it into words. :p
How does this state work at all? I guess it is good that various guns are complicated to some. :rolleyes:

ken you said it all. this state is so jacked up it's amazing the feds have not come to retake by force and restore our freedoms legislated away. but that won't happen either. no one cares about this state anyway. it's a joke and it will be until the hippies in office are retired. it's amazing how things turn out. these are the people who protested the government 40 years ago. and now they are royally screwing us all in the name of "public safety".

what a crock this state has become. may they all burn in hell one day.

Tzvia
07-09-2006, 7:21 AM
If that's the case - and the revisions are just to the definition of an AW - and the 90-registration period after an AW is declared and AW - then this reads well for registration. My concern is over the "AND". Either they didn't write in plain english or my understanding of logic is flawed. "AND" in logic states both conditions must be true for the entire statement to be true. If it read "OR" - then only one condition would have to be true for the statement to read entirely true.

I saw that too. As in 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Yes the death penalty is cruel, but it is not unusual. How to administer it? Hanging, or firing squad or... they are not unusual, however creul they are. Yes AND means both.

Tzvia

mblat
07-09-2006, 8:55 AM
I just got around to reading the entire bill SB2728. :eek:

It is scary that the same folks that wrote that bill also legislate the entire state.
In its present form it is…HAHA…Well I can’t quiet put it into words. :p
How does this state work at all? I guess it is good that various guns are complicated to some. :rolleyes:
Who said it works? There is difference between living and not dying..

Justang
07-10-2006, 7:24 PM
They say this:

It should be noted that there is some doubt as to whether
the Attorney General's Office has the statutory authority to
list a bare receiver as an assault weapon since it lacks the
characteristics of an assault weapon, including its ability to
fire.

Then they say this:

Additionally, this bill will clarify that the possession of the
lower receiver of an assault weapon is equivalent to possession
of an assault weapon.

WTF? They say they can't list it, because they aren't sure it's an AW, but they will deem it illegal as an AW.

Seems like a blatant contradiction.

glen avon
07-10-2006, 7:45 PM
after AB2728 clarifies that receivers are AWs, there will be no contradiction. as the law is currently written, receivers are conspicuously not defined as AWs.

a point I raised to some criticism on this board, might I add.

6172crew
07-11-2006, 8:41 AM
after AB2728 clarifies that receivers are AWs, there will be no contradiction. as the law is currently written, receivers are conspicuously not defined as AWs.

a point I raised to some criticism on this board, might I add.

Problem with AB2728 is your DA could call your M1A receiver a public nuisance and they could take it from you and destroy the receiver.

I guess you could register every rifle/pistol that way they couldnt take it...that is if they allow for a 90 period of registration.

Edited for spelling!

gose
07-11-2006, 10:24 AM
I don't know how stupid they are, but one guess would be that there is a misunderstanding and that they think that people are using some "loophole" to import illegal (ie listed) lowers and then assembling them to legal rifles. If you think of it that way the reasoning almost makes sense...

glen avon
07-11-2006, 10:46 AM
Problem with AB2728 is your DA could call your M1A receiver a public nuicense(sorry no spell check here at work). and they could take it from you and destroy the receiver.

how does AB2728 do that?

ArmedBear
07-11-2006, 10:46 AM
I don't understand the bill, or the point of the bill.

I know what they want, but I can't understand how this bill would accomplish what they want.

blacklisted
07-11-2006, 1:12 PM
how does AB2728 do that?

It doesn't, but it seems to make it possible to do so. Since it removes the judicial procedure for add-ons, the AG could theoretically list anything he wants (not just AR/AK), including the M1A without going through the courts. Of course, that's assuming that the bill is not just poorly written or that the author thought that the AG had to go through the courts to add on AR/AK...;) And since it also allows for a district or city attorney to bring civil action against you to destroy the "public nuisance" in lieu of criminal prosecution, an M1A receiver could be destroyed (if listed).

That's my interpretation.

But I suspect that for this bill to have any chance of passing they would have to remove that section and only allow the listing of ARs and AKs.

blacklisted
07-11-2006, 3:41 PM
If the AG cant list anymore, then the AG cant list an M1A or any other weapon .

It has to meet the SB 23 features list.

the bill clearly say sthat the AG will have no power to list.

and by list, I mean list.

Read it again, it says he can list ANYTHING from when the bill passes until January 1st, 2007. After that, he can no longer list, and we're back to the SB 23 features ban.

6172crew
07-11-2006, 4:03 PM
Read it again, it says he can list ANYTHING from when the bill passes until January 1st, 2007. After that, he can no longer list, and we're back to the SB 23 features ban.

That is how I read it, and it also looked like a DA could call your receiver a public nuisance, maybe just the receievr/frame apllies to the AG and not the other DAs.

This taken from the NRA website:

Existing law establishes a list of certain firearms by make and model as assault weapons and otherwise describes or defines certain firearms as firearms. This bill would provide that the term "assault weapon" for those purposes includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.
Existing law provides a judicial procedure for declaring a firearm an assault weapon, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions.

Existing law authorizes the Attorney General to declare a firearm an assault weapon. This bill would provide that authorization ends January 1, 2007.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles. This bill would provide that possession of any assault weapon or of any .50 BMG rifle in violation of specified provisions of law would be a public nuisance. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any city attorney to bring an action in superior court to enjoin the possession of the assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle. The bill would further provide that any assault weapon or .50 BMG rifle possessed in violation of specified provisions of law would, subject to exception, be destroyed, as specified. The bill would also provide that upon conviction of any misdemeanor or felony involving an assault weapon, the assault weapon would be deemed a nuisance and disposed of as specified.

6172crew
07-11-2006, 4:47 PM
I Agree ....

So only the AG (before Jan 2007) can name a unbuilt receiver/frame a AW.:rolleyes:

Is it the job of lawmakers to make thing so complicated?:D

xenophobe
07-11-2006, 5:36 PM
Up until Jan 2007 the AG can either promulgate a list of 'series' weapons AND/OR file Court Add-On motions to declare new AWs. He cannot bypass the court add-on motion with this bill. It does not give him the power to do anything he can't already do. It just revokes it after Dec 31, 2006.

glen avon
07-11-2006, 5:48 PM
So only the AG (before Jan 2007) can name a unbuilt receiver/frame a AW.:rolleyes:

but he can't, that's the crux, unless you are teasing us.

6172crew
07-11-2006, 6:12 PM
but he can't, that's the crux, unless you are teasing us.

Sorry, I thought I posted that part also.

AB 2728 ASSAULT WEAPONS - Existing law establishes a list of certain firearms by make and model as assault weapons and otherwise describes or defines certain firearms as firearms. This bill would provide that the term "assault weapon" for those purposes includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.

Am I wrong on this? It looks like they are looking to call a frame or receiver a AW.

xenophobe
07-11-2006, 6:50 PM
... the term "assault weapon" for those purposes includes the frame or receiver of the weapon.

Am I wrong on this? It looks like they are looking to call a frame or receiver a AW.


For series weapons, they already are. Kasler affirmed this, and it is the sole reason the AG does not need to go through an 'add-on motion' for AR and AK series firearms. However, they aren't illegal assault weapons if they don't meet SB-23 definition unless they are listed.

glen avon
07-11-2006, 7:27 PM
Am I wrong on this? It looks like they are looking to call a frame or receiver a AW.

no sir, you are correct, I thought you were speaking of the current law, not post-AB2728.

JALLEN
07-11-2006, 9:50 PM
What it means is that when this passes and is signed into law, when it becomes effective, all these off-list derivatives are unlawful assault rifles, whether they have features or not, unless you had one and registered it before the last registration period ended.

xenophobe
07-11-2006, 10:31 PM
What it means is that when this passes and is signed into law, when it becomes effective, all these off-list derivatives are unlawful assault rifles, whether they have features or not, unless you had one and registered it before the last registration period ended.

DWCL'89 (Roberti-Roos) tried this and was affirmed by Kasler, and then Harrott struck it down. They're basically trying to legislate around the ruling of Harrott v. King's County.

phobos512
07-12-2006, 10:40 PM
Here's a thought that I don't think I've seen yet in this thread...

Yes, on 1 jan 07 AG will no longer have the power to list. However I'm pretty sure he isn't being COMPELLED to list, anymore than he is now. Everyone assumes that there HAS to be a registration window. I think this bill is trying to circumvent these OLLs ever being registered...like they're trying to make a retroactive law or something, that was the first thing that popped into my head on reading this (I'm pretty sure you can't do that though, right? Seems like what they want to do is say "the OLLs are AWs just like these other ones we listed in 1990whatever and so they've been illegal just as long, round em up!").

I guess I'm just thinking out loud about this...Did anyone else think this might be? I'm not a student of law, I'm an engineer, I just break what they tell me to break :)

Stevil
07-13-2006, 12:26 AM
Isn't the intent of this to make the list irrelevant so anything that is remotely AR/AK etc. would be illegal regardless... damn these devious people I don't know how to interrupt intent anymore. :mad: My teeth hurt.

6172crew
07-13-2006, 6:32 AM
Im pretty sure if the whole frame/receiver deal waht taken out it wouldnt be that bad, but as it stands I think everyone should urge a no vote but Im waitning to see the NRA say yes or no.

Mute
07-13-2006, 8:59 AM
Regardless of how this law will be enforced or interpreted, it's pretty clear that they are basically attempting to circumvent the Harrotts decision. They want to have their cake and eat it too. That's my opinion. This thing needs to die a quick death.

glen avon
07-13-2006, 9:11 AM
it is not "circumventing" harrott. the courts only make laws as they must. it is properly the legislature's province. it is ENTIRELY proper for the legislature to address a court decision with corrective legislation. it happens all the time.

the legislature is acting 100% properly and in good faith. you may not like *what* they are doing, but the fact is they have the right to do it.

glen avon
07-13-2006, 9:14 AM
...like they're trying to make a retroactive law or something, that was the first thing that popped into my head on reading this (I'm pretty sure you can't do that though, right? Seems like what they want to do is say "the OLLs are AWs just like these other ones we listed in 1990whatever and so they've been illegal just as long, round em up!")....

AAAAIIIiiiiieeeeeeeeee nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

this is not retrocative. you can always ban something that was previously allowed. you just can't punish somebody for having done somethiong that was legal at the time. you can make it illegal and punish them for continuing to do it.

Mute
07-13-2006, 11:30 AM
I didn't say they were acting outside of their authority. That doesn't change the fact of what they are trying to do.

glen avon
07-13-2006, 11:39 AM
that's true

grammaton76
07-13-2006, 11:40 AM
Isn't the intent of this to make the list irrelevant so anything that is remotely AR/AK etc. would be illegal regardless... damn these devious people I don't know how to interrupt intent anymore. :mad: My teeth hurt.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the temporarily expanded powers permit the AG to remove weapons from the list. I have the feeling that CA would like to forget listed/not-listed and just use SB23 from now on. For one thing, sooner or later they're likely to get sued by Colt, Armalite, etc, for prohibiting their commerce but not the rest of the lower manufacturers.

6172crew
07-13-2006, 11:55 AM
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the temporarily expanded powers permit the AG to remove weapons from the list. I have the feeling that CA would like to forget listed/not-listed and just use SB23 from now on. For one thing, sooner or later they're likely to get sued by Colt, Armalite, etc, for prohibiting their commerce but not the rest of the lower manufacturers.

Im not so sure about that, the Colts and Bushys are being sold here all the time.

Cabon15 and the HBAR Elite are just 2 of them.

xenophobe
07-13-2006, 12:35 PM
it is not "circumventing" harrott. the courts only make laws as they must. it is properly the legislature's province. it is ENTIRELY proper for the legislature to address a court decision with corrective legislation. it happens all the time.

Well, if you want Harrott to stand, yes, it's circumventing the court ruling. :p

Okay, technically you're correct, but my observation is not incorrect. ;) The DOJ and the legislature do not like the ruling, so they are pushing new legislation, which may still be struck down again. Harrott was pretty clear.


the legislature is acting 100% properly and in good faith. you may not like *what* they are doing, but the fact is they have the right to do it.

Absolutely.

ketec_owner
07-14-2006, 7:43 PM
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html

Looks like someone up in the senate in Sac-o-tomatoes really paid attention in school and rewrote it in a more english like language. Finally!

But I'm a little concerned about this section still:

"Due to the growing popularity of lower receivers, the Attorney
General's Office has determined that updating the assault weapons
list with new makes and models will serve no purpose other than
to completely undermine California law by allowing the
proliferation of registered assault weapons. When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.

To address the problem of the Attorney General having to
repeatedly update the list of "series" weapons and thereby, as a
matter of law, "grandfathering-in" a new batch of owners of
knock-off assault weapons or their constituent parts each time,
this bill proposes that the Attorney General's duty to
promulgate a list of all firearms designated as assault weapons
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007 but that any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list.

Additionally, this bill will clarify that the possession of the
lower receiver of an assault weapon is equivalent to possession
of an assault weapon."

So - what is their strategy by discharging the DOJ from listing? To prevent the future updating of the list and thereby the 90-registration period in the future? When do they plan to pass this bill? December 31, 2006?

Ford8N
07-15-2006, 6:40 AM
"...it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California."


This is the first time I have seen them admit an amount of receivers in the state. All this law will do is stop the AG from listing and allow the cops to destroy any rifle that they find that has a "scary pistol grip" and detachable mag. It will not stop OLL's from entering the state. So the 30,000 figure will continue to grow.

<snip>"Due to the growing popularity of lower receivers, the Attorney
General's Office has determined that updating the assault weapons
list with new makes and models will serve no purpose other than
to completely undermine California law by allowing the
proliferation of registered assault weapons. When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.<snip>


Looks like somebody has been following the CalGuns discussion. :eek: :D

TheMan
07-15-2006, 3:43 PM
When the Attorney
General's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.<snip>


Looks like somebody has been following the CalGuns discussion. :eek:
:D

This can't be correct. Glen Avon convinced everyone here that they could call them Category 4 AWs, and not allow features to be be added, right?:D

Charliegone
07-15-2006, 4:19 PM
The legislature and the ag would be doing themselves a favor if they just repealed the RR act and to allow ONE feature for something to be an AW rather than passing ill conceived laws. The banning of receivers will not solve a damn thing! The costs of legal battles etc do they really want all that? Its better to have no list, a laxer law only allowing one feature, and everyone will be happy...but of course they don't want that...they want to have their cake and eat it too.:mad:

anotherone
07-15-2006, 9:52 PM
You know it's amazing how much tax dollars and time can be sucked up by an overzealous state government having a panic attack looking at a couple photos of perfectly legal fixed mag rifles being built by well educated upstanding citizens.

Mudvayne540ld
07-16-2006, 4:14 AM
yea.... fix our freeways.... dont take away our rights.

Cato
07-18-2006, 6:06 PM
...and deport all illegals please. Don't selectively enforce laws. Or, on election day, I might have to go 3rd party on yah!

Geoff C
07-19-2006, 12:07 PM
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html

The passage that really bothers me is from Page I:

Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make "characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1. Kits are easily purchased and instructions are available on the Internet so anyone can transform their legal-to-own receiver into an illegal assault weapon.

I realize that this false assumption may help us, but I hate seeing legislation that relies on premises of lies and exaggeration. Yes, it is very easy to break the law and build an illegal rifle from an OLL, but that doesn't mean all OLL owners are criminals.

-Geoff

vonsmith
07-19-2006, 2:09 PM
The legislature and the ag would be doing themselves a favor if they just repealed the RR act and to allow ONE feature for something to be an AW rather than passing ill conceived laws. The banning of receivers will not solve a damn thing! The costs of legal battles etc do they really want all that? Its better to have no list, a laxer law only allowing one feature, and everyone will be happy...but of course they don't want that...they want to have their cake and eat it too.:mad:
I believe this is hopeful thinking. In fact this thread (like many on this forum) are thick with optimistic rationalizations. I liken it to thumbing through a thick gun catalog and dreaming about owning lots of cool stuff. What if I had this, or this, or bought that? We've all done it. However the idea of negotiating individual points of a bad law bothers me. The thought, "If they would allow just one feature, just one, then I'll be happy." If logic ruled the day we would be allowed all of the contested features. A rational person can't make a logical case against any of the "evil" features. The law in question is based on cosmetics and wild inferences, no compelliing substance or fact. Show me where a flash hider or fore grip has put society in jeopardy.

Sadly facts don't count for much in opposing the CA DOJ. We are fighting over ideology and emotions, on both sides. We either have to overwhelm them with our numbers or with arguments that their ideological theories can't counter.

What bothers me the most about the current Kalifornia gun laws is the ease with which someone can unintentionally become a felon. Such as:

a) You disassemble your fixed magazine AR rifle in the wrong order. You unbolt or unrivet your fixed magazine leaving an open mag well before removing the pistol grip.
b) You buy a rifle somewhere that comes with a muzzle break not realizing the manufacturer actually lists it as a flash suppressor. You know, wrong shape, number or placement of holes.
c) You see a rail mount pistol grip at the local store, think it's cool, buy it, and screw in on in place of your bipod.
d) You replace the pistol grip on your AR rifle with a non-pistol grip, but the local DA has a different opinion about what a pistol grip is.
e) You build up your AR with a dedicated rimfire upper so that you can use a pistol grip and removable mag. You unpin the upper to work on it. Whoops, you have a lower with a pistol grip and open mag well sitting on your bench.

I could go on with examples. I think you all understand what I'm getting at.


=vonsmith=

Note to moderators: If my posting contains too much sensitive detail please edit it as you see fit. No harm, no foul.

ecounter
07-19-2006, 6:04 PM
Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make "characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1. Kits are easily purchased and instructions are available on the Internet so anyone can transform their legal-to-own receiver into an illegal assault weapon.

Then the same can be said for an M1A, Mini 14/30, SKS or a M1 Carbine all of which can be made into assualt weapons in this state if the owner wishes to break the law. The point is we do not wish to break the law and an oll bulit up to comply with the law is the same as any of these other rifles that can be easily converted to an AW. Heck an M1A or Mini 14/30 does not even require a tool to switch out to a pistol grip stock. In about 30 seconds I can have an AW if I order a pistol grip stock from brownells. The point is I obey the law and refrain. Am I missing something here? Secondly if a criminal wanted an assault weapon(A rifle with a pistol grip) he could legally get all the parts to do so(A mini 14 and a pistol grip stock) and then break the law with his AW. I know this has been said a hundred times before, but how does this law stop any potential crime? All it does is put law abiding citizens in danger of being prosecuted by laws that are not clearly defined. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Mudvayne540ld
07-19-2006, 8:12 PM
no... it is the CA DOJ that is missing it.

I agree with you 100%
I could easily make my Mini-14 an AW.... but I choose to follow the law... even if it is a crappy unfair one. Same with my AR-15.... I keep the mag spring out and that screw in tight.... it never comes out unless I remove upper, pg and stock.
They need to see that people actually can be responsible.

Racefiend
07-21-2006, 9:18 PM
I don't see how this bill changes anything other than the AG can no longer list.

1. A lower receiver that is on the list is considered an illegal assault weapon. Duh, it already is. I see no mention towards a lower that is NOT on the RR list.

2. A DA can prosecute you and confiscate your AW. Well, they already can. Nothing new there.

3. The AG cannot add to the list. Woohoo. No more assault weapons being created! Now to just undo the ones that are listed....

6172crew
07-21-2006, 10:53 PM
Although these receivers can be made into lawful centerfire rifles, their only true purpose is to be used to make "characteristics" weapons prohibited by Section 12276.1. Kits are easily purchased and instructions are available on the Internet so anyone can transform their legal-to-own receiver into an illegal assault weapon.

Then the same can be said for an M1A, Mini 14/30, SKS or a M1 Carbine all of which can be made into assualt weapons in this state if the owner wishes to break the law. The point is we do not wish to break the law and an oll bulit up to comply with the law is the same as any of these other rifles that can be easily converted to an AW. Heck an M1A or Mini 14/30 does not even require a tool to switch out to a pistol grip stock. In about 30 seconds I can have an AW if I order a pistol grip stock from brownells. The point is I obey the law and refrain. Am I missing something here? Secondly if a criminal wanted an assault weapon(A rifle with a pistol grip) he could legally get all the parts to do so(A mini 14 and a pistol grip stock) and then break the law with his AW. I know this has been said a hundred times before, but how does this law stop any potential crime? All it does is put law abiding citizens in danger of being prosecuted by laws that are not clearly defined. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Proof that post count means nothing. A almost perfect argument for this Aug16th meeeting. What makes the AR15 and the semi-auto AK different than any other "already DOJ approved" semi-auto rifle that can be made into a AW?

Hell we can make a AW out of just about any semi-auto rifle that is magazine fed but we dont because its against the law.:cool:

6172crew
07-21-2006, 10:57 PM
I don't see how this bill changes anything other than the AG can no longer list.

1. A lower receiver that is on the list is considered an illegal assault weapon. Duh, it already is. I see no mention towards a lower that is NOT on the RR list.

2. A DA can prosecute you and confiscate your AW. Well, they already can. Nothing new there.

3. The AG cannot add to the list. Woohoo. No more assault weapons being created! Now to just undo the ones that are listed....

I think your wrong about #1, post2728 could bring a DA to call your lower a pain in the arse and destroy it.

vonsmith
07-28-2006, 11:47 AM
I think this is the latest amended version.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060629_amended_sen.pdf

BTT


=vonsmith=

DrjonesUSA
07-28-2006, 12:21 PM
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_cfa_20060626_145001_sen_comm.html




I read most of that bill/analysis, and don't understand what it will accomplish.

My understanding, based on what I read, is that if it passes, the main thing it will accomplish is to revoke the AGs ability to list.

What this would mean for us is that OLLs will still be legal to import into the state & build up into fixed-mag rifles.

It does entirely remove the hope that some have of registering their weapons in order to have fully-functional, detach-mag ARs.

If that is a correct analysis, and please correct me if I'm wrong, then I don't see the big deal as the DOJ has stated through both words & actions that they will not ever list these OLLs.


HOWEVER, the one provision of 2728 which could prove quite troublesome is this, found at the very bottom of the link above:


SHOULD THE PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON
INCLUDE THE FRAME OR RECEIVER USED TO MAKE SUCH WEAPONS?

3. Declaring Unlawful Weapons a Nuisance and Authorizing Their
Destruction

This bill provides that illegal possession of an assault weapon
or .50 caliber BMG rifle is a public nuisance, that the Attorney
General, any district attorney or any city attorney may enjoin
the possession of the weapon and that any such weapon "shall be
destroyed in a manner so that it may no longer be used," except
where a judge orders that its preservation is necessary to serve
the ends of justice.

SHOULD POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BE DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SHOULD ALL SUCH WEAPONS BE DESTROYED, EXCEPT UPON A COURT ORDER?
*************************


The way I read that, it could possibly open the door for confiscation of OLLs.

Does anyone else see that in the language above?


Further, isn't the "frame or receiver" ALREADY prohibited by current law?? I mean, I cannot import the frame or receiver of "listed" weapon into CA, no matter what configuration it is in; the frame/receiver IS the weapon.

I don't really see the purpose of that language and it seems redundant, unless that is some half-assed attempt to get around the Harrott decision, which it may well be.


As always, knowing full well that the DOJ monitors these forums, if I have posted anything that could help them, please notify me immediately and I will remove it.

gose
07-28-2006, 12:59 PM
1. Revoke DOJs listing capability
2. Declare that lowers are also AWs (unless they hav a perm mag)
3. Declare that any OLLs are indeed AWs and therefor a public nuisance
4. Collect all OLLs and destroy them

Might be one way they dream about solving this...

(Im not saying it will work, but its not less flawed than anything else they've come up with ;))

DrjonesUSA
07-28-2006, 1:53 PM
2. Declare that lowers are also AWs (unless they hav a perm mag)



But that's why Harrott is so important to us, right?? Harrott ruled that a lower has to be listed by make, model, etc., right?

So how can they make such a broad statement "all lowers are 'AW'" and expect to enforce it in any way, shape or form?

I fully realize that most laws that are past are 100% assinine and of course all gun control laws are stupid, ineffective and are only attempts to give the state a monopoly on violence, but I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of 2728 and how it could be enforced in any way.

DrjonesUSA
07-28-2006, 2:10 PM
Did anyone else catch this??



AB 2728 (Klehs)

[/u] Support: None known[/u]


Opposition:Crossroads of the West Gun Shows; California
Association of Firearm Retailers; National Shooting
Sports Foundation, Inc.


NO bill should be allowed to go ANYWHERE if it has ZERO support outside of a few fascists in the state legislature!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Assembly Floor Vote: Not relevant. This is an entirely new
bill as of June 15, 2006.


So does this mean it will have to go back through the Assembly if it passes the Senate??

At least that helps a bit, if it will.....

AxonGap
07-28-2006, 2:39 PM
Read the lndex of bill "revisions/amendments" and post dates starting w/ ab_2728_:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/

AxonGap
07-28-2006, 2:54 PM
This Bill is “NO GOOD” at all! The way I am reading this is that AB2728 is “authorizing” the DOJ and subsequent local DA’s to “confiscate” all firearms that are deemed assault weapons at the bare receiver level! A “procedure” will no longer be needed to deem these lowers as AW’s! Note (as quoted from the bill):

“Existing law provides a judicial procedure for declaring a firearm an assault weapon, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions.”

Are they essentially getting rid of the 90 day waiting period as well? Also, if you read further:

“SECTION 1.Section 12001 of the Penal Code is AMENDED to read: 12001.(a) (1) As used in this title, the terms “pistol,” “revolver,” and “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. THESE TERMS ALSO INCLUDE ANY DEVICE THAT HAS A BARREL 16 INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERCHANGED WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 16 INCHES IN LENGTH.

If I’m reading this correctly (and I hope I’m not), are they attacking the interchangeability of the upper receiver as well?? I know the upper is not considered a firearm but it is a "DEVICE" This bill seems to be attacking the OLL issue from ALL sides.

Aaarrgh!!

blacklisted
07-28-2006, 4:28 PM
As I have said before:

It already says that!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12000.htm


12001. (a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.


So stop worrying!

Also, it only allows them to confiscate unregistered ones or those that were used in a crime. It makes it so that the AG can't list after a certain date, but the ones listed before that are still allowed to be registered. The bill does not remove 12285. Read the analysis:

When the Attorney eneral's Office lists a new assault weapon, it is required to
open up a registration period. (Penal Code 12285.)
Consequently, any person who has imported a legal receiver could
then register their receiver as an assault weapon.<2> This would
then theoretically allow the registrant to add any and all of the
features prohibited under Section 12276.1, and would allow the
person to possess a fully functioning assault weapon.
Unfortunately, as soon as a new list is promulgated, all the
current makes/models of lower receivers will immediately receive
new "markings" and monikers and the whole process will repeat
itself. Recently, because of the expectation that the Attorney
General will list new receivers, thereby opening up a
registration period for new weapons, it has been estimated that
more than 30,000 receivers have been imported into California.

To address the problem of the Attorney General having to
repeatedly update the list of "series" weapons and thereby, as a
matter of law, "grandfathering-in" a new batch of owners of
knock-off assault weapons or their constituent parts each time,
this bill proposes that the Attorney General's duty to
promulgate a list of all firearms designated as assault weapons
shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007 but that any
firearm declared to be an assault weapon prior to that date
shall remain on the list.

This Bill is “NO GOOD” at all! The way I am reading this is that AB2728 is “authorizing” the DOJ and subsequent local DA’s to “confiscate” all firearms that are deemed assault weapons at the bare receiver level! A “procedure” will no longer be needed to deem these lowers as AW’s! Note (as quoted from the bill):

“Existing law provides a judicial procedure for declaring a firearm an assault weapon, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions.”

Are they essentially getting rid of the 90 day waiting period as well? Also, if you read further:

“SECTION 1.Section 12001 of the Penal Code is AMENDED to read: 12001.(a) (1) As used in this title, the terms “pistol,” “revolver,” and “firearm capable of being concealed upon the person” shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. THESE TERMS ALSO INCLUDE ANY DEVICE THAT HAS A BARREL 16 INCHES OR MORE IN LENGTH WHICH IS DESIGNED TO BE INTERCHANGED WITH A BARREL LESS THAN 16 INCHES IN LENGTH.

If I’m reading this correctly (and I hope I’m not), are they attacking the interchangeability of the upper receiver as well?? I know the upper is not considered a firearm but it is a "DEVICE" This bill seems to be attacking the OLL issue from ALL sides.

Aaarrgh!!

AxonGap
07-28-2006, 5:22 PM
As I have said before:

It already says that!

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12000.htm



So stop worrying!

Also, it only allows them to confiscate unregistered ones or those that were used in a crime. It makes it so that the AG can't list after a certain date, but the ones listed before that are still allowed to be registered. The bill does not remove 12285. Read the analysis:

Blacklisted, thanks for the clarification of section 12001.

Per the possibility of a “confiscation”, if they don’t list and wait until 1/1/2007 when the listing provision lapses, wouldn’t the requirement to open a registration period be nullified or is that a mandatory law designed to keep a large group of people from becoming “instant felons”?

The wording in AB2728 states;
“Existing law provides a judicial procedure for declaring a firearm an assault weapon, as specified. This bill would repeal those provisions.”

Am I deciphering this incorrectly? How do we define “judicial procedure”? If an OLL (still not listed) is suddenly declared an AW at the receiver level after 1/1/2007 would a registration period open then, or does the phrase “receiver level” only address ones listed before 2007?

BTW, I'm worrying because I fear there is a leak in my lead helmet! (Aluminum does'nt fully filter out the coercive voices and cosmic radiation!) :)

blacklisted
07-28-2006, 8:19 PM
There are many problems with this bill, but it appears that the "judicial procedure" they are referring to is the one that the AG must go through to list non AR/AK "series" clones. Basically, if he wanted to list something like the M14 or FAL, he would have to go through the courts. It appears that the people purchasing PTR-91s and other similar things has not been overlooked. The other possibility is that the author thinks that AR/AK series have to go through the court add on procedure. We'll see.

It is not clear if this bill is actually going anywhere, but if it does get passed and somehow causes people's lawfully purchased firearms to become contraband it is likely that the court will have to step in again and force registration (or something else).

JOEKILLA
07-29-2006, 12:54 AM
It is not clear if this bill is actually going anywhere, but if it does get passed and somehow causes people's lawfully purchased firearms to become contraband it is likely that the court will have to step in again and force registration (or something else).


I sure hope so.

anotherone
07-29-2006, 3:21 AM
I may be venturing out on a limb to make a few guesses here, but even if the legislature did give the AG unlimited listing power they're not gonna use it. The current course of action by the DOJ confirms that there will be no more additions to the list ever. If registration occurs at this point it will be a reg period for fixed magazine builds opened as a result of court action. They're out to confiscate.

chris
07-29-2006, 3:36 AM
we all know that registration leads to confiscation. who knows where this will lead. but we should have a good idea after the hearing in august.

The SoCal Gunner
07-29-2006, 3:52 AM
What is actually amended in section 12001? I've read the others but section 12001 is the longest.

From what I read, the lower reciever itself will be defined as an assualt weapon. The AG will have the power to declare assualt weapons and list them up til Jan 1, 2007 (but will he?).

So, I can go out a buy a bunch of lowers, and if the AG updates his list and my lowers are on them, I can register them in their stripped condition as assualt weapons and build them in the future when funds are available.

If the bill doesn't pass, I have a bunch of lowers that I can build in the future, or sell.

Question though, if the AG gives up the power to declare assualt weapons, how are they determined? do we only use the laws in place and existing list?

The amended bill does not address the so called loophole of off list lowers being imported. The original bill wanted to stop this, so is something else cooking?

anotherone
07-29-2006, 4:43 AM
What is actually amended in section 12001? I've read the others but section 12001 is the longest.

From what I read, the lower reciever itself will be defined as an assualt weapon. The AG will have the power to declare assualt weapons and list them up til Jan 1, 2007 (but will he?).

So, I can go out a buy a bunch of lowers, and if the AG updates his list and my lowers are on them, I can register them in their stripped condition as assualt weapons and build them in the future when funds are available.

If the bill doesn't pass, I have a bunch of lowers that I can build in the future, or sell.

Question though, if the AG gives up the power to declare assualt weapons, how are they determined? do we only use the laws in place and existing list?

The amended bill does not address the so called loophole of off list lowers being imported. The original bill wanted to stop this, so is something else cooking?

Nah they're only really concerned with those AR-15, AK-47, etc recievers having a pathway to becomming lawfully possessed fully operational firearms. They could care less if people can lawfully buy them and build them into "Assault Weapons" with a credit card and a computer hooked up to the internet. If they're acting to "protect" the people of California from "Assault Weapons" then they dropped the ball back in 2002 when they decided not to keep the list updated.

Summary: We Win, They Lose. They are now admitting it.

DRH
08-03-2006, 7:46 AM
This bill is scheduled to be heard on 8/07/06 in the Senate appropriations committee. Any letters of opposition should be sent in now.

CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE : A.B. No. 2728
AUTHOR(S) : Klehs.
TOPIC : Firearms.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/29/2006


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/29/2006
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE : 08/07/2006
COMM. ACTION : Senate Rule 28.8.
HEARING DATE : 08/07/2006

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 12001 and 12276.5 of, and to
add Section 12282 to, the Penal Code, relating to
firearms.

6172crew
08-03-2006, 9:11 AM
Urge them to remove the frame/receiver wording from this bill, nothing good can come of this if a DA is allowed to claim a receiver is a AW and takes it away and destroys it.

Everyone should call, write etc or we will have only ourselves to blaim.

DRH
08-04-2006, 9:45 AM
Today the bill status page changed again to not show the 8/7/06 appropriations committee review. Something funky is going on. Whether or not it will be heard on the 7th, send in your letters in opposition to AB2728 to the committee.

Here are some talking points:
Poorly written - exceptionally vague language in bill does not clearly specify intent or how it will be achieved.
Puts in place legislation that could lead to seizure of legally own and purchased firearms without compensation and ex post facto.
No support from any law enforcement - A solution looking for a problem.
Other legal mechanisms already in place to address AW issues - The AG office needs to perform it job as specified by the penal code and judical rulings.
No additional gun laws are needed as gun crime is already dropping each year
and further unconsitutional infringement on our right are not need.


CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 2728
AUTHOR(S) : Klehs.
TOPIC : Firearms.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/29/2006


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
Non-State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/29/2006
LAST HIST. ACTION : Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on
APPR.

TITLE : An act to amend Sections 12001 and 12276.5 of, and to
add Section 12282 to, the Penal Code, relating to
firearms.

grammaton76
08-04-2006, 12:45 PM
This bill will likely look a whole lot better on Monday Aug 7th.

Right, because clearly they'll gut + amend it to overturn the AWB entirely.

Aw c'mon now, I'm allowed to dream, right?