PDA

View Full Version : AB2728 headed for the Senate Floor


DRH
08-15-2006, 8:36 AM
xyz

MrTuffPaws
08-15-2006, 9:55 AM
I read the link, but I have no idea of what this bill does. Can some one drop out the layman's term?

Shane916
08-15-2006, 10:23 AM
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=38176&highlight=ab2728

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=36469&highlight=ab2728

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=36901&highlight=ab2728

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34991&highlight=ab2728

blacklisted
08-15-2006, 1:18 PM
Basically, the bill now does two things:

1) After 1/1/07, the AG can no longer list new assault weapons.

2) Simple possession of an assault weapon can be considered a "public nuisance" in lieu of criminal prosecution. Any district attorney, city attorney, or attorney general can bring civil action and have the firearm destroyed.

MrTuffPaws
08-15-2006, 2:26 PM
Basically, the bill now does two things:

1) After 1/1/07, the AG can no longer list new assault weapons.

2) Simple possession of an assault weapon can be considered a "public nuisance" in lieu of criminal prosecution. Any district attorney, city attorney, or attorney general can bring civil action and have the firearm destroyed.

I kinda thought that, but something this good can't be on the floor of the senate in california.

Thanks

nosewitdot
08-15-2006, 3:00 PM
but i still don't understand how this can be good if they can simply take our guns and destroy them at their own discretion

blacklisted
08-15-2006, 3:45 PM
By eliminating the process of listing AW weapons in 12276, does the protection granted in the Harrott ruling still exist?
If the Harrott ruling is invalidated are the OLLs now AWs without any list or declaration?
If the OLLs are not AWs and the AG is never going to list, this bill does nothing but remove the ability to list from future AGs, decriminalize possession and provide for the destruction of AWs. Something or some angle is not adding up on how this is going to fix the OLL stituation as it has declared it will in the bills summary of intent. Can someone explain how this will eliminate the OLLs if they are not AWs????

I do not believe that this removes the protection provided by Harrott, but we can't be 100 percent sure.

This "fixes" the "OLL situation" by removing the expectation that the AG will list. In his mind, the problem was that as soon as he listed one batch of models, a whole new set would appear as manufacturers changed product names. Thus, the cycle would continue and people would keep buying them.

If this passes as it is now, it will slow sales. People will have to build a SB-23 compliant AR, which could mean gripless with no evil features thanks to the new regulations.

TKo_Productions
08-15-2006, 4:08 PM
This "fixes" the "OLL situation" by removing the expectation that the AG will list. In his mind, the problem was that as soon as he listed one batch of models, a whole new set would appear as manufacturers changed product names. Thus, the cycle would continue and people would keep buying them.

If this passes as it is now, it will slow sales. People will have to build a SB-23 compliant AR, which could mean gripless with no evil features thanks to the new regulations.

Which is exactly what our old friend BL wants.

nosewitdot
08-15-2006, 4:21 PM
so fixed mag wont work anymore?

Richie Rich
08-15-2006, 4:26 PM
I have read it and re read it and I am still confused...

Does it declare fixed mag and gripless builds to be a "public nuisance"??

Does it repeal the manufacturing or transportation of AWs as a felony charge?

Does it authorize the seeking out and disposal of said "public nuisance"? (See also door to door confiscation)

What about the owners of pre 2k rifles that are unregistered?

This bill sounds so all over the place and open to being read in so many ways it is not even funny....

One way of looking at it leads me to believe that everyone could un pin their mags or add the evil pistol grip and have a good time with their full fledged "assault rifles". We all know how much time cops spend looking for "public nuisances" (think jaywalking or littering.) As long as we adhere to the laws pertaining to transporting firearms and not doing anything stupid then we should be fine....

The other way of looking at it leads me to believe that anything even remotely fitting the description of an "assault weapon" would be subject to seizure, even going as far as door to door confiscation of legally purchased and configured (under the current law) OLLs.

Someone unconfuse me please.... I am ready to start spending the $ to actually build my OLLs and I don't want to wind up donating $3,000 worth of rifles to the local swat team... (or them being lost forever in a tragic boating accident)

MonsterMan
08-15-2006, 4:43 PM
I am pretty sure that it has to meet the definition of a "AW" before they can take it. So if you have a OLL configured legally, then you should be fine. If they convict you of having a true "AW" (mis/fel), then they will take the rifle and destroy it. If you get caught with a "AW" and they can only charge you with a nuisance charge of possesion, I think they still could throw some felonies you way by the way of "constructing an AW, transporting, etc.". If the definition change goes through this week pertaining to the fixed mag issue, then you only need to reconfigure your rifle to be a non SB23 feature rifle. You can have a detachable mag, but with no other features. SRB Tactical makes a device for retaining the spring, and of course I sell my grip. I don't know if they can make you change your configuration though. You have legally built a rifle a certain way, and I don't think they can just change the "regs" and make you spend a bunch of money to stay in compliance with the law. We'll see. The bill also states that the AG can no longer list weapons as AW's after 1-1-07. I wonder if they can just keep tweeking the "regs" so eventually it covers all rifles as "AW's":rolleyes: .

If I am wrong on any of this, please someone jump in and correct me. This is just from what I have read or have heard.

MM

blacklisted
08-15-2006, 4:50 PM
so fixed mag wont work anymore?

This has nothing to do with that. Read up on the proposed rulemaking by the DoJ.

MonsterMan
08-15-2006, 5:31 PM
Ok, after all this blather and analysis...what's the bottom line?

No assault weapon, No worries. Legally configured OLL=Legal rifle, not assault weapon.

MM

TKo_Productions
08-15-2006, 5:39 PM
No assault weapon, No worries. Legally configured OLL=Legal rifle, not assault weapon.

MM

While it does accomplish that, it's purpose as introduced and designed, is to remove the AG's authority to list assault weapons.

Another way for BL to get off scott free.

MonsterMan
08-15-2006, 5:42 PM
While it does accomplish that, it's purpose as introduced and designed, is to remove the AG's authority to list assault weapons.

Another way for BL to get off scott free.


I agree. :)

xenophobe
08-15-2006, 6:57 PM
but i still don't understand how this can be good if they can simply take our guns and destroy them at their own discretion

This bill pretty much decriminalizes Assault Weapons. It turns unlawful felony possession into less than a misdemeanor, it declares them a public nuisance, and instead of being arrested, having your right to keep and bear arms removed from felony conviction, turns AWs into an unenforcable non-issue. And, I would say that it's a good bill and a next step to removing the AWB altogether.


No change. 1-3 years in prison or reduced to an infraction if you can prove you legally owned it before the ban.

Read:


This bill provides that illegal possession of any assault
weapon or .50 caliber BMG rifle is a public nuisance and
authorizes the AG, any district attorney or city attorney
to enjoin the possession of such firearms in lieu of
criminal prosecution.

Indeed this is blanket decriminalization of the possession of Assault Weapons. The next paragraph deals with Felony and Misdemeanor offenses committed (like rape, murder, burglary, or even shoplifting) with an assault weapon in immediate possession.


This bill provides that illegally possessed assault weapons
or .50 caliber BMG rifles will be destroyed, except as
specified, and that upon conviction of any misdemeanor or
felony involving an assault weapon, the weapon shall be
deemed a nuisance and disposed of, as specified.

Richie Rich
08-15-2006, 7:22 PM
I do not see any part of the bill that repeals or changes the other charges of manufacturing or transporting (both felonies IIRC).... Sadly, nor the possession of high cap mag laws...

One has to wonder if they are trying to confuse us and by doing so make us all felons (to take away our RKBA) or if they realize that the AW laws are a joke, unenforceable and they are quietly giving up..

Politically they can brag about the passing of the "sweeping reform of the CA AWB" while in reality the law amounts to a defacto decriminalization..

Is the DOJ VS the DA case still pending?? If so, and the court sides with the DAs office, that could actually sink the CA AWB once and for all....

I would love that, my young rifles would never have to remember a time when they had to have their magazines locked in place or their pistol grips removed...

Rumpled
08-15-2006, 10:12 PM
This was introduced by the AG, correct?
Voila, it can't be good.

We're trying to get him to list OLL's as AW's to make them usable.
In doing so, current models cannot be sold, but new ones could.
If the AG no longer has power to list, nothing else could make the jump.

It's bad for the future models and future owners.

I've written my rep to oppose it including that the AG should do his job as it currently is.

grammaton76
08-15-2006, 11:39 PM
I do not see any part of the bill that repeals or changes the other charges of manufacturing or transporting (both felonies IIRC).... Sadly, nor the possession of high cap mag laws...

Correct. The main thing I see, is that it gives the DA other options. What if the guy doesn't feel like pressing charges on the more hardcore charges, but believes you should lose your weapon? This law permits him to do that.

However, it does NOT require him to only do that!

PIRATE14
08-16-2006, 12:21 PM
Correct. The main thing I see, is that it gives the DA other options. What if the guy doesn't feel like pressing charges on the more hardcore charges, but believes you should lose your weapon? This law permits him to do that.

However, it does NOT require him to only do that!

This is an easy out law.....DAs normally don't like trying to prosecute AW felonies w/ no ill intent and you have a spotless record, plus they have no power to state what is and what is not an assault weapon.

This would give them a lot of leeway and you can see it now......they pick up someones rifle cause the LEO doesn't know what to make of it so better to conficate on the spot.

DA takes said rifle, yep looks like an AW to me, so your choices are.....we'll try and get you on AW charges of a felony, you gotta spend 5-10K defending yourself......or we keep your rifle nothin happens to you except you're out of a rifle........jeez mister DA thx........

Plus it removes power of the State DA to list......now how many times have you seen a politician give up power?????

My .02 is thumbs down..........

jemaddux
08-16-2006, 1:14 PM
This is an easy out law.....DAs normally don't like trying to prosecute AW felonies w/ no ill intent and you have a spotless record, plus they have no power to state what is and what is not an assault weapon.

This would give them a lot of leeway and you can see it now......they pick up someones rifle cause the LEO doesn't know what to make of it so better to conficate on the spot.

DA takes said rifle, yep looks like an AW to me, so your choices are.....we'll try and get you on AW charges of a felony, you gotta spend 5-10K defending yourself......or we keep your rifle nothin happens to you except you're out of a rifle........jeez mister DA thx........

Plus it removes power of the State DA to list......now how many times have you seen a politician give up power?????

My .02 is thumbs down..........

I guess this is where I am confused on this whole thing. I understand the meaning of what they are doing but what about all the OLLs that are already here? Do they allow a registration period, leave them as is and they can continue to be sold as a ten round fixed? Anyone have any ideas on this?

MrTuffPaws
08-16-2006, 1:45 PM
I guess this is where I am confused on this whole thing. I understand the meaning of what they are doing but what about all the OLLs that are already here? Do they allow a registration period, leave them as is and they can continue to be sold as a ten round fixed? Anyone have any ideas on this?

OLLs will remain OLLs. As long as they don't have evil features, you will not have an AW. If you do have evil features, then your gun is a AW, and will be considered a public nuisance and can be confiscated and you get a slap on the wrist. OOORRRRRRRR, they can give you two felonies from transporting and manufacturing an AW.

blkA4alb
08-16-2006, 1:50 PM
OLLs will remain OLLs. As long as they don't have evil features, you will not have an AW. If you do have evil features, then your gun is a AW, and will be considered a public nuisance and can be confiscated and you get a slap on the wrist. OOORRRRRRRR, they can give you two felonies from transporting and manufacturing an AW.
Then can you explain how my rifle that is currently legal with a fixed magazine and a pistol grip, is now an illegal AW and they did not open a registration period? This is not over, and is not a clear cut deal.

However they change the definitions or try to go around a registration the second that they make my presently legal rifle illegal requires registration. Since under current law it is not a "public nuisance." They will not be taking it from me.

Cato
08-16-2006, 2:22 PM
I wonder why the "public nuisance" was included in the bill. A public nuisance wouldn't even include a fine (except the confication of your rifle). Seems like this is a de facto repeal of SB23. Could it be argued that if no one was annoyed by a citizen's possession of an unregisterd AW, then that citizen may own a Cali AW?

ketec_owner
08-16-2006, 9:56 PM
The bill is currently on it's second reading, by senate rules - from what I can tell it needs a third reading before voting.