PDA

View Full Version : SB 124: 2011 DeLeon Ammunition Bill


Pages : [1] 2

puppy8a9
01-27-2011, 2:25 PM
Looks like California State Senator Kevin DeLeon was not sufficiently embarrassed when his ammo registration bill, AB 962, was struck down as unconstitutional in federal court. Clearly not having learned his lesson, he is now getting into a pissing match by introducing another ammo bill in SB 124. These anti-gunners in California just don't get it.

MAIN BILL PAGE: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_124&sess=CUR&house=B

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_124_bill_20110126_introduced.html

INTRODUCED BY Senator De León

JANUARY 26, 2011

An act to amend Sections 189, 12022.2, 16650, 16660, 30315, 30320,
and 30325 of the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 124, as introduced, De León. Ammunition.
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 115, adopted by the voters
at the November 7, 1990, statewide general election provides that
all murder which is perpetrated, among other means, by knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, is murder
in the first degree. Proposition 115 may be amended by a bill passed
by majority vote of the Legislature if that bill becomes operative
upon approval of the voters.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast that
provision to provide that all murder which is perpetuated by knowing
use of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor is murder in
the first degree. The bill would also provide that this provision is
operative if approval by the voters and directs the Secretary of
State to place this provision on the ballot of the next statewide
election.
Existing law provides that any person who, while armed with a
firearm in the commission or attempted commission of any felony, has
in his or her immediate possession ammunition for the firearm
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, shall upon conviction
of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to
the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of 3, 4, or 10 years.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
crime to be based on the immediate possession of ammunition for the
firearm designed to penetrate metal or armor. The bill would further
omit reference to ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle and
instead define "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor" to mean ammunition, except a shotgun shell, capable of
penetrating a body vest or body shield when discharged from a
handgun.
Existing law defines "handgun ammunition" to mean ammunition
principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the
ammunition may also be used in some rifles. Other provisions of
existing law regulate the sale, transfer, delivery, and possession of
handgun ammunition, and violations of certain of those provisions
are crimes.
This bill would delete the phrase "principally" from that
definition, and recast the definition of handgun ammunition to mean
ammunition for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the
ammunition may also be used in some rifles.
Existing law provides that "handgun ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor" means any ammunition, except a shotgun
shell or ammunition primarily designed for use in a rifle, that is
designed primarily to penetrate a body vest or body shield, and has
either of 2 characteristics, one of which is that it is primarily
manufactured or designed, by virtue of its shape, cross-sectional
density, or any coating applied thereto, including, but not limited
to, ammunition commonly known as "KTW ammunition," to breach or
penetrate a body vest or body shield when fired from a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
phrase to read "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor."
Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public
offense, with specified penalties.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to be based on knowingly possessing
handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor.
Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, manufactures, imports, sells, offers to sell, or
knowingly transports any handgun ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison, or by a
fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to be based on handgun ammunition
designed to penetrate metal or armor.
Existing law authorizes the possession of handgun ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor by a person who found
the ammunition, if that person is not otherwise prohibited from
possessing firearms or ammunition, and the person is transporting the
ammunition to law enforcement for disposition.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to read handgun ammunition designed to
penetrate metal or armor.
By expanding the definition of "handgun ammunition" and the
definition of "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor," this bill would expand the scope of certain crimes relating
to the sale, transfer, delivery, and possession of handgun
ammunition, and thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 189 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 51
of Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:
189. (a) All murder which is perpetrated by
means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass
destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait,
torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and
premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of,
or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary,
mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under
Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As
(b) As used in this section,
"destructive device" means any destructive device as defined in
Section 16460, and "explosive" means any explosive as defined in
Section 12000 of the Health and Safety Code.
As
(c) As used in this section,
"weapon of mass destruction" means any item defined in Section 11417.

To
(d) To prove the killing was
"deliberate and premeditated," it shall not be necessary to prove the
defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of
his or her act.
SEC. 2. Section 12022.2 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section
14 of Chapter 256 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:
12022.2. (a) Any person who, while armed with a firearm in the
commission or attempted commission of any felony, has in his or her
immediate possession ammunition for the firearm designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor, shall upon
conviction of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and
consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted
felony, be punished by an additional term of three, four, or 10
years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.
(b) Any person who wears a body vest in the commission or
attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 12021.1, shall, upon conviction of that felony or
attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has
been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or
five years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.
(c) As used in this section, "body vest" means any
bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma
protection for the wearer.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2012.
SEC. 3. Section 16650 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16650. (a) As used in this part, "handgun ammunition" means
ammunition principally for use in pistols,
revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some
rifles.
(b) As used in Section 30312 and in Article 3 (commencing with
Section 30345) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4, "handgun
ammunition" does not include either of the following:
(1) Ammunition designed and intended to be used in an antique
firearm.
(2) Blanks.
SEC. 4. Section 16660 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16660. As used in this part, "handgun ammunition designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor" means any
ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily
designed for use in a rifle , that is designed
primarily to penetrate capable of penetrating a
body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun ,
and has either of the following characteristics:
(a) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(b) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by
virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as
"KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield
when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
SEC. 5. Section 30315 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30315. Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state
knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public offense
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison, or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one
year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or
by both that fine and imprisonment.
(more)

cvc04
01-27-2011, 2:25 PM
Kevin De Leon is up to his old tricks again!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F27%2Fstate%2F n140415S80.DTL

puppy8a9
01-27-2011, 2:25 PM
SEC. 6. Section 30320 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30320. Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state,
manufactures, imports, sells, offers to sell, or knowingly transports
any handgun ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison, or by a
fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both that
fine and imprisonment.
SEC. 7. Section 30325 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30325. Nothing in this article shall apply to or affect the
possession of handgun ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor by a person who found the
ammunition, if that person is not prohibited from possessing firearms
or ammunition pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 30305, Chapter
2 (commencing with Section 29800) or Chapter 3 (commencing with
Section 29900) of Division 9 of this title, or Section 8100 or 8103
of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and the person is transporting
the ammunition to a law enforcement agency for disposition according
to law.
SEC. 8. Section 1 of this act shall only become operative if
submitted to and adopted by the electors. The Secretary of State
shall place Section 1 of this act on the ballot of the next statewide
election.
SEC. 9. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Carlosa
01-27-2011, 2:38 PM
Oh wait is this the same thing...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F27%2Fstate%2F n140415S80.DTL

Librarian
01-27-2011, 2:44 PM
Aaaand we have our second 'official' bill thread for 2011-2012.

Thanks, puppy.

16660 is new numbering for 12320. New numbering is used because the effective date of this bill would be the same date as the effective date of the new PC Dangerous Weapons renumbering.

And I just read all the way through it: SEC. 8. Section 1 of this act shall only become operative if
submitted to and adopted by the electors. The Secretary of State
shall place Section 1 of this act on the ballot of the next statewide
election.This is a proposed ballot measure for the 'murder' part.

mdimeo
01-27-2011, 2:57 PM
How did this guy get elected/re-elected? Hope you voters in his district are taking notes for the next election. ALL liberals must be removed from office they are systematically destroying this state let alone the country.

Keep in mind that gun owners are a minority in California. Restrictions get passed because they're popular, and banners get re-elected for the same reason.

Now go write it 100 times on the chalkboard: "I am in the minority. Most of the state thinks I'm crazy."

POLICESTATE
01-27-2011, 2:59 PM
Would be nice if Kevin would stop wasting his time (and taxpayer money) on stupid crap and start working on fixing our financial woes? One day this state will be so broke and the people so desperate that armor piercing ammo is going to be the least of our concerns.

kcbrown
01-27-2011, 3:10 PM
Note that the bill talks about rounds "designed to" penetrate armor or metal.

But I see no clarification of what, specifically, "designed to" means here.

If it means "created specifically with the intent to ..." then I'd think this would be trivial to avoid. But if it really means "is capable of" then that would make this into a full-on ban (except for law enforcement, of course) of all ammunition except perhaps certain types of shotshell, since even the lowly .22LR is capable of penetrating metal.

Librarian
01-27-2011, 3:25 PM
According to this bill there are enhancements for crimes committed while wearing a vest. So as written, if a police officer is doing his job and later found to have erred and committed a crime as defined in the specific section - he's on the hook, correct?

And who defines "for use in a pistol" regarding ammunition?Are you looking at this? (b) Any person who wears a body vest in the commission or
attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 12021.1, shall, upon conviction of that felony or
attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has
been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or
five years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.
If so, that's existing law, not something introduced by this bill. See also http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873 - there are typography conventions in bill text.

AndrewMendez
01-27-2011, 5:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n

His current page now tells about AB962 ruled unconstitutional, however, he is introducing something similar.

Interfan
01-27-2011, 5:21 PM
I would think that the good people of Senate District 22 would rather have jobs, better roads, better schools, etc. than another extension of Mr. DeLeon's ego and personal causes. Perhaps CGF should help whoever runs against him. Think of it as taking baby aspirin to help prevent a heart attack...

vincnet11
01-27-2011, 5:52 PM
What's "armor piercing" or ammo that "penetrates metal" again, does this include fmj? Technically some fmj ammo will penetrate metal.

PyroFox79
01-27-2011, 5:52 PM
Isn't AP ammo already banned or something like that? So would this just be beating a dead rotting horse?

NytWolf
01-27-2011, 6:56 PM
If I'm reading the new proposal correctly, all he is doing is taking out the word "primarily" out of a law that was in place from 1990.

"designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor"
to
"designed to penetrate metal or armor"

To me, he has his head so far up his rear-end, he has actually done the opposite of what he intended. He wanted to broaden the coverage of the law, but to me, the way it reads now, it actually narrows the coverage of that law.

"De Leon said that in his new bill, he had amended the language so that no future gun rights lawsuit could challenge the state's ban on armor-piercing bullets." If that's his way of amendments, let him amend all he wants.

To me, all I see is a kid who got his butt chewed so bad, he just wants to do something to make himself happy.

DeLeon: "Errgh, unconstitutionally vague! Hmph! I'll show 'em. I'll show 'em, yeah! I'll pass an amendment. See if they can say this one is unconstitutionally vague."

timdps
01-27-2011, 8:34 PM
If I'm reading the new proposal correctly, all he is doing is taking out the word "primarily" out of a law that was in place from 1990.

"designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor"
to
"designed to penetrate metal or armor"

To me, he has his head so far up his rear-end, he has actually done the opposite of what he intended. He wanted to broaden the coverage of the law, but to me, the way it reads now, it actually narrows the coverage of that law.

Interesting point. How many specific calibers/brands of handgun ammo are specifically "designed to penetrate metal or armor"? Are there any? Or is he talking about any jacketed handgun round? I guess this completely exempts hollowpoints since they are specifically designed not to "penetrate" anything.


What's "armor piercing" or ammo that "penetrates metal" again, does this include fmj? Technically some fmj ammo will penetrate metal.

From the bill
The bill would further
omit reference to ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle and
instead define "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor" to mean ammunition, except a shotgun shell, capable of
penetrating a body vest or body shield when discharged from a
handgun.

This appears to be a completely new definition of handgun ammo to mean ANY ammunition fired from a handgun, so would include 7.62x39 and 223/5.56 ammo fired from AK and AR handguns.


Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, manufactures, imports, sells, offers to sell, or
knowingly transports any handgun ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison, or by a
fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to be based on handgun ammunition
designed to penetrate metal or armor.

Looks to me like anyone owning an AK or AR pistol that imports 7.62x39 or 223/5.56 ammo would be subject to this provision. If you do not own an AK or AR pistol, you MIGHT be legally able to import 7.62x39 or 223/5.56 ammo.

Looks to me like an end run around the handgun/rifle ammo question by defining ANY ammo used in a handgun as handgun ammo (certain amount of logic there...). Given the vest penetration characteristics of 7.62x39 and 223/5.56 ammo, it would seem certain that any variety of these ammo types would be classified as handgun ammunition and be completely banned - including possession: 30315. Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public offense.

"handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" is probably constitutionally vague, but I think passage of this law could cause a lot of problems.

Still confused about this part because it is talking about exempting ammo primarily designed for use in a rifle which contradicts with the part above that says any ammo fired from a handgun is handgun ammo.

SEC. 4. Section 16660 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16660. As used in this part, "handgun ammunition designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor" means any
ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily
designed for use in a rifle, that is designed
primarily to penetrate capable of penetrating a
body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun ,
and has either of the following characteristics:
(a) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(b) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by
virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as
"KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield
when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.

SwissFluCase
01-27-2011, 8:51 PM
So far none of us have figured out exactly what this bill is supposed to accomplish. That in itself should indicate that it is unconstitutionally vague.

This could go both ways:

A) It would be a felony to load marshmallows into primed .38 special cases and shoot at tin foil targets

or

b) Steel core 9mm ammo would be OK, so long as it was only designed and intended to be cheap

Confused?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

SupportGeek
01-27-2011, 9:24 PM
After reading it, seems to me its an attempt to cause as much ammunition as possible to be illegal. "penetrating metal" is vague, all metal? Does tinfoil count then? Even a 22LR FMJ will penetrate clean through a refrigerator with little problem, which is aluminum and/or thin sheet steel.
Cant we introduce an amendment that will force any politician to be ejected from their state seat/position if they attempt to introduce any legislation that is unconstitutional? Make it retroactive too so that we can have him dropped sooner.

RedFord150
01-27-2011, 9:28 PM
State Senator De Leon was just interviewed on Fox News LA by Carlos Anescua. De Leon discussed AB962 without referring to it as AB962. Instead. he kept talking about 'Cop Killer' Bullets becoming available after a 29 year ban. This was his whole piece. No mention of ammo registration. He than went on to say the NRA went 'Judge Shopping' to get the injunction. Carlos Anescua pointed out that vague language was the reason for the injunction. De Leon went on to say he drafted AB124 to clarify what handgun ammunition is. Anescua asked if De Leon was going after 2A. De Leon says 2A adddresses firearms, not ammunition.
At the end, De Leon says ammunition is sold without control. Anyone fresh out of prison can buy all the ammo they want and we need to control the ammunition.
LAPD Chief Charlie Beck appeared with De Leon and clearly supports De Leon's view. LASD Sheriff Lee Baca was also credited as supporting De Leon, as well as several other chiefs.
Look out for SB124.

Paul S
01-27-2011, 11:37 PM
Crackpot that he may be....do not ignore Deleon. When he gets the main players in Southern California law enforcement on his team that is no small feat
The average voter who is neither gun savy nor a gun owner will automatically be convinced DeLeon is some sort of savior. The very sound of "cop killer bullets" just makes the anti's swoon. We can kavetch to each other all we want...but keep your eye on the prize and the very skillful political moves DeLeon is making. :43:

Me thinks he plays the bumbling legislator on purpose.

Jack L
01-28-2011, 5:40 AM
I can only assume each type of ammo would have to be listed just like a handgun list in CA. otherwise it's still vague. A 18" shotgun can be concealed under a long coat. Will he try to say that next time?

Not all sheriffs are ignorant of politicians and do not fall for this kind of nonsense. Many sheriffs in CA do not like this ammo ban and they do not like the fact this does nothing regarding crime. This is a court fight and debate that will not end anytime soon. Game on CA gun owners!


God Bless John Moses Browning..........Utah has it right. Last night MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell called John M. Browning, "The Merchant Of Death". O'Donnell tongue lashed Utah good for making the 1911 the state gun. O'Donnell conveniently forgets one of the only reason Mr. O'Donnell is able to have a nightly show is because John Browning invented a superior weapons system that was used in many wars to allow us our freedoms. God Bless the Browning 1911 and the Browning Automatic Rifle as well as many other exceptional firearms that gave the USA her freedoms we enjoy.

ALSystems
01-28-2011, 6:10 AM
This is so vaguely written that it could ban all ammunition for firearms as well as ammunition used in various type of toy guns. It is very easy to penetrate metal such as an aluminum soda can or aluminum foil. Tinfoil hats are probably considered body armour now.

GettoPhilosopher
01-28-2011, 7:47 AM
Is this just "in addition to" AB 962, or would it replace AB 962? Because as of now, AB 962 is unenforceable and defunct. To keep AB 962 as valid law, dont they have to appeal the court's decision successfully?

Furthermore, I dont see anything in this new bill that would restrict the online sale of handgun ammunition, unless I am missing something? It seems to be more about defining what "handgun ammunition" is (which is still REALLY vague), armor piercing ammunition, and using body armor while committing a crime.

What am I missing here?

I think I finally got the "logic", lemme explain and then you good folks can correct me if I'm wrong.

*AB962 tries to ban handgun ammo sales without various stupid restrictions
*AB962 is overthrown due to unconstitutionally vague language about what constitutes "handgun ammo"
*DeLeon says if the stock CA definition of handgun ammo is unconstitutionally vague in AB962, it's only a matter of time before We, The Boogeymen get a court ruling saying that definition is unconstitutionally vague, period.
*This would make enforcement of other provisions, like the AP handgun ammo ban, dubious at best
*DeLeon takes a strategic step back, decides to first "reinforce" the AP bans, and then once those are solidified he can reintroduce a AB962 with new (allegedly non-vague) wording

As I see it, he's actually using his head, despite all the "lol dumazz" reactions.

timdps
01-28-2011, 7:56 AM
What pistol, revolver or other firearm that uses 5.56/.223 or any other rifle ammo is capable of being concealed upon the person?

ALL handguns are defined as "capable of being concealed upon the person", so AK and AR pistols are legally defined as "capable of being concealed upon the person". This law appears to make 5.56/.223 and 7.62x39 magically turn into "handgun ammunition" when used in an AK or AR pistol.

All 5.56/.223 and 7.62x39 will penetrate ballistic vests, so IMO this law is an attempt to completely ban these calibers of ammo.

Tim

timdps
01-28-2011, 8:06 AM
I think I finally got the "logic", lemme explain and then you good folks can correct me if I'm wrong.

*DeLeon takes a strategic step back, decides to first "reinforce" the AP bans, and then once those are solidified he can reintroduce a AB962 with new (allegedly non-vague) wording


The "new" definition of handgun ammo is already in this bill:

The bill would further omit reference to ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle and instead define "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor" to mean ammunition, except a shotgun shell, capable of penetrating a body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun.

ANY ammo fired from a handgun is defined as handgun ammo, so 5.56/.223 and 7.62x39 would become handgun ammo. He is eliminating the exception "ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle" that would exempt these two calibers from being considered handgun ammo.

Tim

J.D.Allen
01-28-2011, 8:06 AM
Then there's this court decision that may have some effect on all this. I'm no legal expert, but seems to me ammunition is covered by the 2nd. I often hear anti's saying that ammunition isn't covered by the 2nd Amendment so we can just take away all the ammo.

www.islandlawblog.com/washington-d-c-ammunition-ban-violates-second-amendment/

Didn't Heller specifically state that the 2A protects FUNCTIONAL firearms? How is a firearm functional without ammunition?

bodger
01-28-2011, 8:44 AM
Rome is burning and DeLeon is playing his anti-gun fiddle.

Pretty ironic, a bankrupt state in which the legislators are spending time on feel good laws that will supposedly eradicate "cop killer" bullets.

Forget jobs and the economy, let's do things that make us look good when we run for re-election.

Anti-gun is job security for the likes of DeLeon. He'll never stop doing this.

SwissFluCase
01-28-2011, 8:53 AM
It is time to mock the "cop killer bullets" line like we did with the "for the children" line. The one weapon that will end DeLeon's career is ridicule. No politician can withstand ridicule, and no politically charged phrase can withstand it either.

I think that is our best bet to nip DeLeon in the bud. DeLeon is certainly making it easy for us in this regard.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

b_k
01-28-2011, 9:07 AM
http://i.imgur.com/QONVIyz.gif

Don29palms
01-28-2011, 9:08 AM
ALL handguns are defined as "capable of being concealed upon the person", so AK and AR pistols are legally defined as "capable of being concealed upon the person". This law appears to make 5.56/.223 and 7.62x39 magically turn into "handgun ammunition" when used in an AK or AR pistol.

Tim

Can you please refer me to where it says that all hand guns are capable of being concealed upon the person? I can't find it.

stix213
01-28-2011, 9:09 AM
Still not defining handgun ammo... lol

joefreas
01-28-2011, 9:12 AM
Is there anything we can do to prevent this from becoming law?

Untamed1972
01-28-2011, 9:32 AM
Where does it say that? Where is that legal definition?

Here you go.....if it's got a barrel under 16" it's it's considered "concealable"

CPC 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.


Satisfied? Under this definition even SBRs and SBSs would be onsidered concealable too.

Kodemonkey
01-28-2011, 11:12 AM
Had to google KTW ammunition to figure out what it was:

http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo06dec.htm

After some experimentation with steel rounds, the officers settled on a brass core with a 'lubricating' jacket of Teflon. Although a myth persists that the Teflon is there to either penetrate "bullet-proof" vests more effectively, or protect the bore of the firearm that fires it, Dr. Kopsch himself has testified that the Teflon actually reduces these bullets' penetration in Kevlar, and is only there to reduce the likelihood of ricochets.

Jack L
01-28-2011, 5:09 PM
Hopefully the DOJ or somebody who knows ammunition and firearms will read this over and have coffee with Brown or Harris and tell them it's totally wacked and no chance of going anywhere and a waste of $ and time when CA is in dire straits.

Goosebrown
01-28-2011, 6:07 PM
Hopefully the DOJ or somebody who knows ammunition and firearms will read this over and have coffee with Brown or Harris and tell them it's totally wacked and no chance of going anywhere and a waste of $ and time when CA is in dire straits.

But it isn't. It is really well thought out. It doesn't matter what is handgun or rifle or shotgun ammo if there is a clear definition of it. In this case he is making the case that if the ammo fits in a "handgun" (which is defined) then that is handgun ammo. Next up? Limits on the now specifically defined "handgun ammo".

There are .223 pistols. I guess there are 7.62x39 as well. I hope no one has a 308 handgun or I am well and truly screwed.

I am not advocating for this, I am just guessing why he is doing it legally.

timdps
01-28-2011, 6:32 PM
There are two things going on in this bill, one is less important, that is it makes it impossible to own ammunition that will penetrate armor even if it is NOT specifically designed to do so. The important one is that it it re-classes handgun ammunition to be any ammunition that fits in a handgun. This is what got his previous bill thrown out because it was vague. Now he is making it not vague in the legal sense.

Next step is to reintroduce SB962 and this time it won't fail for being vague.



Yay, somebody else gets it! That said i don't think he needs to reintroduce a 962 clone if this passes:

Quotes from the bill summary:

"Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public
offense, with specified penalties."

"By expanding the definition of "handgun ammunition" and the
definition of "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor," this bill would expand the scope of certain crimes relating
to the sale, transfer, delivery, and possession of handgun
ammunition, and thereby impose a state-mandated local program."

IMO this bill will ban completely (import, transfer, possession) any high powered ammo that can be used in ANY handgun: 7.62x25, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 and probably many more. Anything usable in any kind of handgun that can penetrate a vest will be completely banned if this bill passes.

Tim

Petro6golf
01-28-2011, 9:27 PM
How much metal is penetrating metal? Are they talking an Abrams tank or a pepsi can?
Seems silly that an elected official is worrying about this when california released 47000 inmates from prison last year on non revocable parole, fired most of the cops and messed everything else up. Hey, at least I80 from Dixon to Fairfield got paved

Jack L
01-29-2011, 6:22 AM
This bill could outlaw hunting rifle ammo. Once you mess with hunters, that's another group that often has many silent players. They too would come out in force to join forces against this nonsense.

Kid Stanislaus
01-29-2011, 6:35 PM
In my opinion, this bill IS

IMO this bill will ban completely (import, transfer, possession) any high powered ammo that can be used in ANY handgun: 7.62x25, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 and probably many more.

Tim

Virtually EVERY rifle cartridge has been shot from a T/C contender.

hoffmang
01-29-2011, 7:51 PM
So according to this pile of crap bill, it will be illegal to POSSESS any ammo that can penetrate a vest AND fit into a handgun???? Am I reading this right? That pretty much bans ALL rifle rounds.

If the bill were interpreted this way, it would be unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it would ban practically all rifle rounds as you say.

DeLeon's office knows little about guns...

-Gene

hoffmang
01-29-2011, 10:15 PM
granted, but I'd rather an inept opponent than an adept one.

Never get in the way of your enemy making an error.

-Gene

NovaTodd
01-30-2011, 7:22 AM
Is there anything we can do to prevent this from becoming law?

Call and write your representative, senator, and the governor. Addressing all the assembly and senate will help as well.
Give money to CRPA, CGN, and NRA.

hill billy
02-01-2011, 2:52 PM
The DOJ? Led by Kamala Harris? Discourage them from acting on an anti-gun bill??

Yeah, I have a life sized picture of that...

My exact thought. She spends time dreaming of how to get this passed without due process.

Librarian
02-01-2011, 3:20 PM
When will this bill be introduced to get voted on? Could the DOJ read the bill and laugh out loud and discourage the politicians from acting on it? Please keep us updated.

The main bill page is http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_124&sess=CUR&house=B

The 'Status' link says LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 01/27/2011
LAST HIST. ACTION : From printer. May be acted upon on or after February
26.

It has not yet been assigned to a committee, but likely the first one will be Senate Public Safety. The current members of that committee are listed here: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/committee/STANDING/PUBLICSAFETY/_home1/PROFILE.HTM

There's a Senate Daily File linked from this page: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/schedules/info.htp ; that will tell you what is scheduled on any given day.

Falconis
02-01-2011, 4:01 PM
Just out of curiosity has anyone called their state assemblyperson and senator AND written to them. Has anyone encouraged their friends and family to do the same? Believe me, I can appreciate a good moan and groan session as much as the next person, and I realize that in the end they may not listen at all, but I see it kind of like voting. Till you try something with some effort, all this griping isnt gonna get anywhere.

I know a lot of us need cheap ammunition for lawful purposes such as competition shooting. Handloading everything gets to be a pain. I definately know all the reasons why these types of bills are bad in the end. But as dumb as it sounds, a lot of these politcos on the edge may not. If you live in a district where the politico is on edge, the letters and phone calls from you and all your friends may help.

Next step may be organizng a protest in front of DeLeon's Office with a bunch of visible signs the media can't blur out easily.

Next part, which isn't as easy is trying to track down there donors and writing to them en masse. Once money starts dissappearing or has the threat of dissappearing, it may make them pause for a sec.

Sorry if this was all covered before under another thread.

Librarian
02-01-2011, 5:04 PM
Sadly, in California very few of our politicians are at all "on edge".

It's perfectly appropriate to write to the legislators elected from the district in which one lives. (Note that I very carefully avoided saying 'legislators who represent you'.) I believe it is important that the legislators receive communications from their constituents.

Unfortunately, neither pleas based on emotion nor arguments based on facts appear to sway those elected folks. And it further appears there are not enough of "us" to affect re-election funding, the only factor that seems to get the attention of the elected.

Falconis
02-01-2011, 9:58 PM
I wrote both my state senator and assembly person. I'll post whatever they write back.

Jack L
02-02-2011, 6:31 AM
The DOJ? Led by Kamala Harris? Discourage them from acting on an anti-gun bill??

Yeah, I have a life sized picture of that...


She's not the only person up there. It's a waste of resources and the public can point that out. A poorly written bill that is allowed to move forward. That is was what was in my mind. Jerry keeps saying he wants to cut waste. No time like now to do it.

And those in LE that support this bill instead of getting mentally ill into the system and issues like that are just farting at the moon.

ZombieTactics
02-02-2011, 7:37 AM
Someone needs to start a database or list of how much money the State(s) and Federal government are wasting in the process of enacting and defending unconstitutional laws ... only to lose in court.

As far as I am concerned, every time a 2A issue is concerned, it's a matter of "human rights" or "civil rights".

The eventual result could be the ability to form succinct messages conveying the central point of the issue: "DeLeon wasted X million dollars of taxpayer money trying to take away your civil rights".

jdberger
02-02-2011, 9:20 AM
Sadly, in California very few of our politicians are at all "on edge".

It's perfectly appropriate to write to the legislators elected from the district in which one lives. (Note that I very carefully avoided saying 'legislators who represent you'.) I believe it is important that the legislators receive communications from their constituents.

Unfortunately, neither pleas based on emotion nor arguments based on facts appear to sway those elected folks. And it further appears there are not enough of "us" to affect re-election funding, the only factor that seems to get the attention of the elected.

I dunno.

CGN has about 50,000 members. 5,000 are "active".

If each of the Active members write one letter explaining:

This bill has been introduced almost every year for the past 10
This bill has constantly been rejected as unworkable and most recently as unconstitutional
It costs the State money to defend bills like this from legal challenges
California is in a fiscal crisis - surely the money could be better spent elsewhere
Failure to understand the above calls into question the Legislator's qualifications
If the Legislator insists on supporting this bill, I will promise to donate at least $100 to his opponent's campaign

I realize that DeLeon's opponent isn't going to win on a Gun Rights platform. He might even be anti-gun, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE is better than DeLeon.

If we can start putting The Fear into them that they might lose their cars and per diems and health insurance and lunches for actively supporting gun control, maybe we can get them to shy away from it...

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?

kcbrown
02-02-2011, 10:33 AM
I realize that DeLeon's opponent isn't going to win on a Gun Rights platform. He might even be anti-gun, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE is better than DeLeon.


Be careful what you wish for.

It is possible to get someone worse than DeLeon: just find someone who is anti-gun and competent (or, at least, more competent).



If we can start putting The Fear into them that they might lose their cars and per diems and health insurance and lunches for actively supporting gun control, maybe we can get them to shy away from it...

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?Yep.

Except that I suspect the numbers aren't on our side. With 5,000 active CGN members, you'd get at most $500K worth of donations to the other side, spread across however many politicians you're talking about. That's assuming every active CGN member puts in money, and that it averages to $100 per member.

The donations from a few wealthy anti-gun types would easily exceed that.


In the face of the incredible disparity of wealth today (and I'm not saying that said wealth should be forcibly redistributed or any nonsense like that. I'm just pointing out that said disparity exists and has real effects), grass roots efforts cannot win if money alone is the measure of or path to success.

Quser.619
02-02-2011, 11:14 AM
I've written & called all of my state reps & none could less about my opinion. In fact I had one tell me that AB962 would actually improve the health-care because it would reduce the number of shooting victims. The conversation was politely discontinued when I asked where she got those figures. They simple do not care about facts, it's their opinions alone that matter

Kyle1886
02-02-2011, 1:32 PM
"...This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
phrase to read "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor."
---

In using the generic term "metal", isn't that just as vague and nondescript as some of the language in AB926? I doubt that there are very few handgun rounds that will not penetrate some gauge of "metal". Isn't there already a law on the books that prohibit "purpose built, armor piercing" ammo use in weapons in CA.? Sorry if I'm being dense, but this bill sounds as if is designed to put all handgun ammo in the armor piercing category. Am I incorrect?

Respectfully
Kyle

keefbeef
02-02-2011, 1:49 PM
IANAL, but that phrasing concerned me as well. What round couldn't penetrate some gauge of "metal?" Are we talking aluminum foil or steel plate? Is rimfire being targeted as well?

At first glance, it looked to me as an attempt to ban all ammunition again by classifying them as AP. But what do I know? IANAL

CalBear
02-02-2011, 1:55 PM
IANAL, but that phrasing concerned me as well. What round couldn't penetrate some gauge of "metal?" Are we talking aluminum foil or steel plate? Is rimfire being targeted as well?

At first glance, it looked to me as an attempt to ban all ammunition again by classifying them as AP. But what do I know? IANAL
It's so vague the CA DOJ under Kamala Harris would just classify "penetrate metal" as penetrate aluminum foil.

Drey
02-02-2011, 2:25 PM
Still vague as to what is Armor Piercing and what is Handgun Ammo.
Lame.

"use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor"

Any ammo will penetrate metal. ANY!
Thats what he is after. MF

stix213
02-02-2011, 4:05 PM
From my reading of this I don't see how it does anything other than criminalize all rifle rounds, since there is a pistol that chambers all rifle rounds and all rifle rounds can penetrate typical police body armor. The definition of "handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" appears to encompass all rifle rounds period. The updated definition is below, bolding is done by me to follow my reasoning for the above statement.

SEC. 4. Section 16660 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16660. As used in this part, "handgun ammunition designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor" means any
ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily
designed for use in a rifle , that is designed
primarily to penetrate capable of penetrating a
body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun ,
and has either of the following characteristics:
(a) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(b) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by
virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as
"KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield
when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.

Pretty much all rifle rounds are capable of penetrating a shield or standard police soft armor when fired from a pistol, and as such are manufactured using a shape or density capable of doing so. I don't see any other way of reading this.

Another point I didn't bold is that ALL steel core rifle ammo will also fall within this definition for certain.

The definition of "body vest' is also pretty open:

(c) As used in this section, "body vest" means any
bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma
protection for the wearer.

This obviously would mean the lowest rating of body armor is the threshold. All 9mm FMJ target rounds for example should also qualify since they can penetrate Type I vests by virtue of the bullet's shape.

Type I protects against up to .380 ACP, so anything more powerful should be illegal under this law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest#Performance_standards

EDIT: Just for clarity I'd like to point out that the "body vest" definition is existing law I believe, not new in this bill. What is new though is that all of the uses of the word "primarily" are being struck (I'm sure due our recent unconstitutional win that used that word). So currently a handgun round needs to be primarily made to penetrate even the weakest armor, when this new version is just really a check on if it can penetrate based on how I am reading it. Pretty big difference.

Jack L
02-02-2011, 4:59 PM
From my reading of this I don't see how it does anything other than criminalize all rifle rounds, since there is a pistol that chambers all rifle rounds and all rifle rounds can penetrate typical police body armor. The definition of "handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" appears to encompass all rifle rounds period. The updated definition is below, bolding is done by me to follow my reasoning for the above statement.



Pretty much all rifle rounds are capable of penetrating a shield or standard police soft armor when fired from a pistol, and as such are manufactured using a shape or density capable of doing so. I don't see any other way of reading this.

Another point I didn't bold is that ALL steel core rifle ammo will also fall within this definition for certain.

The definition of "body vest' is also pretty open:



This obviously would mean the lowest rating of body armor is the threshold. All 9mm FMJ target rounds for example should also qualify since they can penetrate Type I vests by virtue of the bullet's shape.

Type I protects against up to .380 ACP, so anything more powerful should be illegal under this law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest#Performance_standards

So what next? DeLeon would want to ban all handguns that can chamber any round also used by a rifle? This bill does not detail specifics. It's almost like half the bill was not handed in, the half with all the detailed specifics. The SCOTUS would cut SB-124 to ribbons and trash it..

oni.dori
02-08-2011, 1:51 PM
This bill could outlaw hunting rifle ammo. Once you mess with hunters, that's another group that often has many silent players. They too would come out in force to join forces against this nonsense.

See, and all this time, I figured that hunters and their organizations would be involved already too, because they would fall under 2nd Amendment rights as well. Man, just imagine what could happen if we awoke that sleeping giant as well...:D

tabrisnet
02-08-2011, 3:36 PM
I would ask that the members o this board (and those that are not members) refrain from vandalizing any wikipedia articles regarding this or any other legislator or bill.

I've restored about as much of the article as I can about DeLeon's part in the AB962 crapfest, but I also know that I can't keep going back in and fixing it. Further, I'm sure that I did not do the best job on editing it today.

Falconis
02-08-2011, 5:16 PM
Could Deleon be atleast civilly sued for continual assault on our 2A rights. It's obvious it's malicious to me at this point. Not to mention, theft of tax payer dollars for continually wasting his time on crap like this.

SupportGeek
02-08-2011, 9:22 PM
Could Deleon be atleast civilly sued for continual assault on our 2A rights. It's obvious it's malicious to me at this point. Not to mention, theft of tax payer dollars for continually wasting his time on crap like this.

If you have the money and inclination, he can be sued for anything you feel like suing him for.

N6ATF
02-11-2011, 4:11 PM
1) The wolves are guarding the sheep pen. They will never punish one of their own.
2) Any attempt to recall victim disarmers and/or corrupt elected officials for other reasons usually fails because of cronyism of the registrar of voters and secretary of state, disqualifying recalls by claiming that more signatures were invalid than in actuality.

Tarn_Helm
02-13-2011, 7:51 PM
After reading it, seems to me its an attempt to cause as much ammunition as possible to be illegal. "penetrating metal" is vague, all metal? Does tinfoil count then? Even a 22LR FMJ will penetrate clean through a refrigerator with little problem, which is aluminum and/or thin sheet steel.
Cant we introduce an amendment that will force any politician to be ejected from their state seat/position if they attempt to introduce any legislation that is unconstitutional? Make it retroactive too so that we can have him dropped sooner.

Several years ago, some nutball decided to steal a Ruger 10/22 (or some similar type of rifle) and shoot up an area in Orange County called "Black Star Canyon."

After the OC Sheriff Dept. tracked him down with a bunch of SWAT dudes in it, but before they shot the dirty dog down, he shot their helicopter with his 22LRs.

Those 22LR rounds had NO problem penetrating the undercarriage of the helicopter, penetrating the heel of the pilot's combat boot, and lodging in his calf.

Another round penetrated the undercarriage and then penetrated the arm of the pilot.

Never underestimate a 22LR.

"Small caliber" rounds such as 22LR can easily be argued, based on evidence like this, to be "armor piercing" if "armor piercing" receives a felicitous definition in the law.

This kind of bill reads like it could get anything and everything banned.

On the other hand, this bill also seems way too vague to be enforceable.

warbird
02-13-2011, 8:10 PM
This is not the first time this issue has come up if memory serves this old brain correctly. Didn't we have an issue with Black Talon (cop killer) bullets and I don't want to say how many times I have seen those for sale still in this state. Rather than try and enforce a bullet ban cops should buy better equipment or demand the makers upgrade what is being sold. We should not pay the price as law biding shooters because cops want to buy the cheapest garbage on the market and then not wear it anyway. There should be some support from the handguns makers and the ammunition industry since this will seriously hurt their bottom line as well.

puppy8a9
02-13-2011, 11:56 PM
Is it too much to ask to get this guy impeached? Deleon is like a malignant tumor that won't go away.

He was just elected to Senate, it may be worth someone's time to work at getting him on a violation. Otherwise brace yourself for the next 4 years and potentially the next 8 if re-elected.

Arondos
02-14-2011, 6:22 AM
I would hope (probably a waste of time) that LEO leadership facing budget cuts and layoffs would have enough sense to see a law like this is going to make the state waste money it doesn't have in court getting the law tossed. When the money could be better spent keeping LEO's on the job.

Oh wait what I am I thinking? Common sense from politicians...

M. D. Van Norman
02-14-2011, 8:29 AM
The weekend before last, I booed Mr. De León as he drove through a pile of **** left by Sheriff Baca’s boys. Appropriate enough, I thought. :rolleyes:

Decoligny
02-14-2011, 12:18 PM
Note that the bill talks about rounds "designed to" penetrate armor or metal.
But I see no clarification of what, specifically, "designed to" means here.

If it means "created specifically with the intent to ..." then I'd think this would be trivial to avoid. But if it really means "is capable of" then that would make this into a full-on ban (except for law enforcement, of course) of all ammunition except perhaps certain types of shotshell, since even the lowly .22LR is capable of penetrating metal.

Is "metal" defined anywhere in the law. If not, then taking the "is capable of" scenario one step further, isn't Reynold's Wrap Aluminum Foil 100% metal?

So, could they take this to mean that any ammuntion that "is calable of" penetrating tin foil would be considered "armor piercing"?

Sound silly to rational people, but who said the CA Legislators are rational people.

smtimelevi
02-14-2011, 12:40 PM
How much metal is penetrating metal? Are they talking an Abrams tank or a pepsi can?
Seems silly that an elected official is worrying about this when california released 47000 inmates from prison last year on non revocable parole, fired most of the cops and messed everything else up. Hey, at least I80 from Dixon to Fairfield got paved

Theyre redoing they 101 freeway between cotati and windsor too,lol.
Im so tired of the political elite class wasting our tax $. This DeLeon guy sounds like we should lay him off.

jdberger
02-14-2011, 3:30 PM
Despite my strong feelings on this - I don't think that this should be a public fight. Can we agree to NOT arm our enemies at this time?

Librarian
02-14-2011, 4:02 PM
Well.

That was a very refreshing little hiatus.

Civility is REQUIRED from all sides.

Carry on, politely.

Mike61982
02-14-2011, 7:09 PM
Does anybody know the status of sb124. I've. Looked and can't find anything on it...

Librarian
02-14-2011, 8:19 PM
Does anybody know the status of sb124. I've. Looked and can't find anything on it...

Here's how you find the link:

Read http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873

(There's nothing much to find - it hasn't moved since introduction because the Legislature is officially occupied with the budget and no other activity is 'in order'. On Feb 10 it was assigned to Senate Public Safety, no hearing date set.)

model63
02-17-2011, 10:25 PM
My ramblings...

I didn't know AP usage was rampant against law enforcement given the existing legislation being so full of holes? Do we have stats on 'primarily' designed ammo being used to penetrate Level IIIA armor on LE or is this just a 'principle' thing where the fear of one incident being too many. I'd like him or anyone here to explain exactly how the recent ruling on AB962 opens the door for AP rounds necessitating this update to the current PC already in place? Maybe I am not reading between the lines enough on how someone might want to push the envelope on this stuff, but for the most part the closest SHTF AP stuff I guess I have is that spam can of 7.62 x 54r soft steel stuff for my 91/30(s) :18:

Assuming this bill were to pass, I can see how one can perceive this having the opposite effect...but I wonder about this as really having the intended effect...anyone can 'market' something as AP, even if it does a bad job at doing so...but the opposite may be true as well, and that is what I fear. Could the object of replacing the subjectivity and marketing of 'primarily designed' to the physics and science behind 'design' is really a backdoor attempt to regulate materials, geometry's and powder load combo's that achieve 'x' amount of FPS or lb's of force that may or not be marketed for penetration...therefore be able to ask for fingerprints, limit qty to 50, ask for serial numbers of 'hunting rounds' like .308 or 30-06 or 7.62x39's that qualify for AP properties as well as taking large game...or am I giving him the state senator too much credit for that?....In looking at the 'big boomer' data and approach, it seems feasible that the approach is 'shaming' us for having the equivalence of 350 small blocks that allow a car to go faster than what they think the speed should be because it 'could' outrun the cops?

Lastly, could this not be construed as triangulation in the PR war either way....Our natural reaction is to defend and not give up any ground in these annual skirmishes and it would seem at some level they are depending on opposition to strengthen their legislation passage... I can imagine the headlines now "Gun Lobby against legislation making Cop Killer Armor Piercing illegal in California!"...

Is it fair to say given the strategy employed so far with DeLeon scratching backs with the Sheriff is that he is setting up the 2A, CRPA, NRA...basically us, on this issue as being 'gun nuts' to the general uninterested public and uneducated legislature praying upon simpleton glances at headlines of key words to garner support for technocrat gibberish. This is Wedge Issue 101. Congress does this all of the time by Dems forcing Republicans to take votes on bills with trailers like this so to put them on record as voting to starve little kids or Republican's forcing votes for Dems to cut things like National Defense to perpetuate long standing stereo types of each others policies...Who wants to be in a position of defending something that this bill puts in a bad light.

safewaysecurity
02-17-2011, 11:15 PM
Guys, it says DESIGNED to penetrate metal not if it CAN penetrate. I highly doubt any manufacturer specifically designs ammo to penetrate foil. But then that brings up a bunch of other problems.

paradox
02-18-2011, 6:10 AM
If memory serves, FBI ammo testing requires adequate performance through such intermediate barriers as auto glass and sheet metal. So any modern defensive ammo sold these days would be designed to penetrate metal.

yakmon
02-18-2011, 7:55 AM
if Jerry Brown went on TV and said, "you might as well get a veto override vote on this, cause i'm vetoing this crap when it hits my desk" what would happen?

Wherryj
02-18-2011, 8:05 AM
Keep in mind that gun owners are a minority in California. Restrictions get passed because they're popular, and banners get re-elected for the same reason.

Now go write it 100 times on the chalkboard: "I am in the minority. Most of the state thinks I'm crazy."

I think that you forgot "Democracy doesn't have to mean I am right (or legal, or Constitutional), just that I have more votes."

yakmon
02-18-2011, 12:19 PM
never mind my last post, it would be better for this to get though by the skin of it's teeth and get vetoed, than for JB to give the warning. of course, it would be best if this POS bill never make it to his desk like 1934.

nick
02-18-2011, 12:48 PM
My ramblings...

I didn't know AP usage was rampant against law enforcement given the existing legislation being so full of holes? Do we have stats on 'primarily' designed ammo being used to penetrate Level IIIA armor on LE or is this just a 'principle' thing where the fear of one incident being too many. I'd like him or anyone here to explain exactly how the recent ruling on AB962 opens the door for AP rounds necessitating this update to the current PC already in place? Maybe I am not reading between the lines enough on how someone might want to push the envelope on this stuff, but for the most part the closest SHTF AP stuff I guess I have is that spam can of 7.62 x 54r soft steel stuff for my 91/30(s) :18:

Assuming this bill were to pass, I can see how one can perceive this having the opposite effect...but I wonder about this as really having the intended effect...anyone can 'market' something as AP, even if it does a bad job at doing so...but the opposite may be true as well, and that is what I fear. Could the object of replacing the subjectivity and marketing of 'primarily designed' to the physics and science behind 'design' is really a backdoor attempt to regulate materials, geometry's and powder load combo's that achieve 'x' amount of FPS or lb's of force that may or not be marketed for penetration...therefore be able to ask for fingerprints, limit qty to 50, ask for serial numbers of 'hunting rounds' like .308 or 30-06 or 7.62x39's that qualify for AP properties as well as taking large game...or am I giving him the state senator too much credit for that?....In looking at the 'big boomer' data and approach, it seems feasible that the approach is 'shaming' us for having the equivalence of 350 small blocks that allow a car to go faster than what they think the speed should be because it 'could' outrun the cops?

Lastly, could this not be construed as triangulation in the PR war either way....Our natural reaction is to defend and not give up any ground in these annual skirmishes and it would seem at some level they are depending on opposition to strengthen their legislation passage... I can imagine the headlines now "Gun Lobby against legislation making Cop Killer Armor Piercing illegal in California!"...

Is it fair to say given the strategy employed so far with DeLeon scratching backs with the Sheriff is that he is setting up the 2A, CRPA, NRA...basically us, on this issue as being 'gun nuts' to the general uninterested public and uneducated legislature praying upon simpleton glances at headlines of key words to garner support for technocrat gibberish. This is Wedge Issue 101. Congress does this all of the time by Dems forcing Republicans to take votes on bills with trailers like this so to put them on record as voting to starve little kids or Republican's forcing votes for Dems to cut things like National Defense to perpetuate long standing stereo types of each others policies...Who wants to be in a position of defending something that this bill puts in a bad light.

There's another thread here on Calguns on just that. Apparently, there was 1 (one) such occurrence nationwide since 1980-something (per the FBI UCR), where body armor worn by a LEO was penetrated by a handgun (9mm, of all things) round. The number of cases where body armor was penetrated was pretty small for the same time period (and that was by rifle rounds). In the one case of a handgun round penetrating body armor in question, according to the newspaper article on it (I know, I know, not a good source, but there're no other sources that anyone could find on it), it penetrated the softer armor near the shoulder, I believe. Chances are, it wasn't an armor-piercing round to begin with, since, if I recall correctly, other rounds did not penetrate.

So they're supposedly offering a solution to a problem that hasn't really manifested itself. I said 'supposedly', because I don't believe this is the motivation behind this bill (surprise surprise). I think that the motivation is to ban what they can get away with, under some sort of pretext and drummed up fear. It's a pity we don't have much recourse against the people pushing anti-civil rights legislation, especially when they're protected by their elected positions. You'd think such people (elected and other government officials entrusted with extra powers) should warrant extra scrutiny and higher punishments than the rest of us, but the reality is the polar opposite of that.

N6ATF
02-18-2011, 2:38 PM
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

tabrisnet
02-18-2011, 3:12 PM
I'm not sure I have one quite as pithy, but here's a quote in a similar vein:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

dilligaffrn
02-18-2011, 10:42 PM
Great quote!

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

oni.dori
02-18-2011, 10:55 PM
You know, in all honesty, after reading through a lot of this thread, it really is starting to look like he is just trying to enact a backdoor ban on pistols like the FN Five-Seven, and others of it's nature.

Also, I see a lot of people making comments on these laws he is trying to push through to the effect of, "As if he wasn't sufficiently embarrassed the last time.", or "Apparently he didn't learn his lesson the last time..."; you got to understand that he more than likely had all these laws penned, and has been planning the for years. These, at least in their basic form. I'm quite sure that this was not a knee-jerk reaction to the overturning of AB962, but part of a series of follow up's that were designed to all but cripple the rights of the law-abiding firearms owner in CA, since Heller vs. DC & McDonald vs. Chicago made it impossible for them to flat-out ban firearms. What's the next best thing? Make regulate them to the point that they are essentially useless or impossible to obtain.

N6ATF
02-19-2011, 12:33 AM
Yeah, victim disarmers in CA.gov may be lazy in their editing, but they're not stupid. They know they can get away with infringement after infringement and never suffer capital punishment, have it take at least 2 years to be appealed to SCOTUS (assuming we don't get the state courts ruling on our side really fast), all the while their fellow criminals are safe to kill, rape, maim, and brutalize the law-abiders they hate so much.

mag360
03-18-2011, 9:14 AM
just got off the phone with De Leon's office, they think bullets have numbers on them so by making a handgun ammo registration thumbprint bill as part of the "cop killer" bullets they will be able to track crime.

safewaysecurity
03-18-2011, 9:20 AM
Ammo boxes have numbers only. You should have asked for a written statement.

shy 7th
03-18-2011, 10:06 AM
just got off the phone with De Leon's office, they think bullets have numbers on them so by making a handgun ammo registration thumbprint bill as part of the "cop killer" bullets they will be able to track crime.

Didn't you know?! They microstamp the actual bullets now. You just can't see it because they hide it under the jacket.

When investigators extract a bullet from a body, they simply peel back the jacket and look at the stamp under a microscope and Bam! they have the S/N of that bullet. Then they call the manufacturer, the manufacturer gives them the lot number (on the box) and then they go to gun stores to see who bought the box. The gun store has your fingerprint and the investigators have their man. Of course, because the lab process is so expensive and police lives are more important than the rest of ours, they only do this on "cop killer" bullets when specifically used on a cop, that's why you don't see it coming up in the news that much.

Even though fingerprinting for ammo has been in practice in LA for a while now, they actually haven't cought any gang bangers with this method because, unfortunately, new scientific research has shown that gang members have the natural ability to change their fingerprints. Proving once more that it is the law abiding citizen that is inconvenienced by laws that don't actually work.

HBrebel
03-18-2011, 4:50 PM
Looks like California State Senator Kevin DeLeon was not sufficiently embarrassed when his ammo registration bill, AB 962, was struck down as unconstitutional in federal court. Clearly not having learned his lesson, he is now getting into a pissing match by introducing another ammo bill in SB 124. These anti-gunners in California just don't get it.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_124_bill_20110126_introduced.html

INTRODUCED BY Senator De León

JANUARY 26, 2011

An act to amend Sections 189, 12022.2, 16650, 16660, 30315, 30320,
and 30325 of the Penal Code, relating to ammunition.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 124, as introduced, De León. Ammunition.
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 115, adopted by the voters
at the November 7, 1990, statewide general election provides that
all murder which is perpetrated, among other means, by knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, is murder
in the first degree. Proposition 115 may be amended by a bill passed
by majority vote of the Legislature if that bill becomes operative
upon approval of the voters.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast that
provision to provide that all murder which is perpetuated by knowing
use of ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor is murder in
the first degree. The bill would also provide that this provision is
operative if approval by the voters and directs the Secretary of
State to place this provision on the ballot of the next statewide
election.
Existing law provides that any person who, while armed with a
firearm in the commission or attempted commission of any felony, has
in his or her immediate possession ammunition for the firearm
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, shall upon conviction
of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to
the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony, be
punished by an additional term of 3, 4, or 10 years.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
crime to be based on the immediate possession of ammunition for the
firearm designed to penetrate metal or armor. The bill would further
omit reference to ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle and
instead define "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor" to mean ammunition, except a shotgun shell, capable of
penetrating a body vest or body shield when discharged from a
handgun.
Existing law defines "handgun ammunition" to mean ammunition
principally for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the
ammunition may also be used in some rifles. Other provisions of
existing law regulate the sale, transfer, delivery, and possession of
handgun ammunition, and violations of certain of those provisions
are crimes.
This bill would delete the phrase "principally" from that
definition, and recast the definition of handgun ammunition to mean
ammunition for use in pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person, notwithstanding that the
ammunition may also be used in some rifles.
Existing law provides that "handgun ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor" means any ammunition, except a shotgun
shell or ammunition primarily designed for use in a rifle, that is
designed primarily to penetrate a body vest or body shield, and has
either of 2 characteristics, one of which is that it is primarily
manufactured or designed, by virtue of its shape, cross-sectional
density, or any coating applied thereto, including, but not limited
to, ammunition commonly known as "KTW ammunition," to breach or
penetrate a body vest or body shield when fired from a pistol,
revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
phrase to read "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor."
Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public
offense, with specified penalties.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to be based on knowingly possessing
handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or armor.
Existing law provides that any person, firm, or corporation who,
within this state, manufactures, imports, sells, offers to sell, or
knowingly transports any handgun ammunition designed primarily to
penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a felony and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison, or by a
fine not to exceed $5,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to be based on handgun ammunition
designed to penetrate metal or armor.
Existing law authorizes the possession of handgun ammunition
designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor by a person who found
the ammunition, if that person is not otherwise prohibited from
possessing firearms or ammunition, and the person is transporting the
ammunition to law enforcement for disposition.
This bill would delete the word "primarily" from those provisions
and recast those provisions to read handgun ammunition designed to
penetrate metal or armor.
By expanding the definition of "handgun ammunition" and the
definition of "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor," this bill would expand the scope of certain crimes relating
to the sale, transfer, delivery, and possession of handgun
ammunition, and thereby impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 189 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section 51
of Chapter 178 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:
189. (a) All murder which is perpetrated by
means of a destructive device or explosive, a weapon of mass
destruction, knowing use of ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor, poison, lying in wait,
torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and
premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration of,
or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary,
mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable under
Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.
As
(b) As used in this section,
"destructive device" means any destructive device as defined in
Section 16460, and "explosive" means any explosive as defined in
Section 12000 of the Health and Safety Code.
As
(c) As used in this section,
"weapon of mass destruction" means any item defined in Section 11417.

To
(d) To prove the killing was
"deliberate and premeditated," it shall not be necessary to prove the
defendant maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of
his or her act.
SEC. 2. Section 12022.2 of the Penal Code, as amended by Section
14 of Chapter 256 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:
12022.2. (a) Any person who, while armed with a firearm in the
commission or attempted commission of any felony, has in his or her
immediate possession ammunition for the firearm designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor, shall upon
conviction of that felony or attempted felony, in addition and
consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted
felony, be punished by an additional term of three, four, or 10
years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.
(b) Any person who wears a body vest in the commission or
attempted commission of a violent offense, as defined in subdivision
(b) of Section 12021.1, shall, upon conviction of that felony or
attempted felony, in addition and consecutive to the punishment
prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which he or she has
been convicted, be punished by an additional term of one, two, or
five years. The court shall order the middle term unless there are
circumstances in aggravation or mitigation. The court shall state the
reasons for its enhancement choice on the record at the time of the
sentence.
(c) As used in this section, "body vest" means any
bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma
protection for the wearer.
(d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2012.
SEC. 3. Section 16650 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16650. (a) As used in this part, "handgun ammunition" means
ammunition principally for use in pistols,
revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the
person, notwithstanding that the ammunition may also be used in some
rifles.
(b) As used in Section 30312 and in Article 3 (commencing with
Section 30345) of Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4, "handgun
ammunition" does not include either of the following:
(1) Ammunition designed and intended to be used in an antique
firearm.
(2) Blanks.
SEC. 4. Section 16660 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16660. As used in this part, "handgun ammunition designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor" means any
ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily
designed for use in a rifle , that is designed
primarily to penetrate capable of penetrating a
body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun ,
and has either of the following characteristics:
(a) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(b) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by
virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as
"KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield
when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.
SEC. 5. Section 30315 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
30315. Any person, firm, or corporation who, within this state
knowingly possesses any handgun ammunition designed primarily
to penetrate metal or armor is guilty of a public offense
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the
state prison, or in the county jail for a term not to exceed one
year, or by a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or
by both that fine and imprisonment.
(more)
HA HA!!!!

Cali-Shooter
03-18-2011, 4:55 PM
just got off the phone with De Leon's office, they think bullets have numbers on them so by making a handgun ammo registration thumbprint bill as part of the "cop killer" bullets they will be able to track crime.

Wow that makes perfect sense. They sure learn a lot from watching Lethal Weapon 3 and making legislation to govern the state from Hollywood action movies.

mag360
03-19-2011, 8:37 AM
basically if this passes then all .223 and 7.62x39 will be illegal because handguns exist that can use them?

hoffmang
03-19-2011, 10:03 AM
Wow that makes perfect sense. They sure learn a lot from watching Lethal Weapon 3 and making legislation to govern the state from Hollywood action movies.

You think you're joking but there are at least 2 California laws that were direct response to things legislators saw in movies.

-Gene

skylindrftr
03-19-2011, 11:13 AM
You think you're joking but there are at least 2 California laws that were direct response to things legislators saw in movies.

-Gene

And what movies would those be :D

I'm guessing "Heat" is one of them...

Carnivore
03-19-2011, 11:27 AM
And what movies would those be :D

I'm guessing "Heat" is one of them...
Pick anyone of the "Ernest goes XXXX" movies. Considering the Legislators are not any smarter then any of Jim Varney's characters. "You know Vern...we have to stop them cop killin' bullets Vern. You know, I know how to do it. We make the manufacturers put them bullets in back words. That way, when the bad guys go to shoot a cop, they will really just shoot themselves in stead. Know what I mean Vern?"

InGrAM
03-19-2011, 1:17 PM
Pick anyone of the "Ernest goes XXXX" movies. Considering the Legislators are not any smarter then any of Jim Varney's characters. "You know Vern...we have to stop them cop killin' bullets Vern. You know, I know how to do it. We make the manufacturers put them bullets in back words. That way, when the bad guys go to shoot a cop, they will really just shoot themselves in stead. Know what I mean Vern?"

!!! LMAO!!

GOEX FFF
03-19-2011, 3:35 PM
Pick anyone of the "Ernest goes XXXX" movies. Considering the Legislators are not any smarter then any of Jim Varney's characters. "You know Vern...we have to stop them cop killin' bullets Vern. You know, I know how to do it. We make the manufacturers put them bullets in back words. That way, when the bad guys go to shoot a cop, they will really just shoot themselves in stead. Know what I mean Vern?"

LOL! Spot on. I can hear it now.


(RIP Jim Varney :( )

Maestro Pistolero
03-19-2011, 3:36 PM
Any round can penetrate metal, depending on the round and depending on the metal. Yet another expertly crafted document. So it's vague and ambiguous, anybody see a problem with that? Not me!

Cali-Shooter
03-19-2011, 4:02 PM
And what movies would those be :D

I'm guessing "Heat" is one of them...

Actually, I'm more curious about the laws now. Doesn't surprise me at all about the legislators passing laws based off of Hollywood movies.

Librarian
03-19-2011, 4:45 PM
Actually, I'm more curious about the laws now. Doesn't surprise me at all about the legislators passing laws based off of Hollywood movies.

The first obvious one is 12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following
is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year
or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives,
lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable
firearm, Straight out of Die Hard2 and the 'porcelain Glock 7'.
yf8sC_1deyM

G60
03-19-2011, 4:57 PM
I'm guessing .50 BMG ban is another.

Merovign
03-20-2011, 10:31 AM
I think the KTW ban was one of them, in movies (the aforementioned Lethal Weapon), putting teflon on a bullet will cause it to penetrate a bulletproof vest. Or a 55-gallon drum of oil and a bulletproof vest. Or a bulldozer blade and a bulletproof vest.

Whereas in real life, putting teflon on a bullet slightly reduces barrel wear, but doesn't really have any effect on kevlar, 55-gallon drums, or bulldozers.

locosway
03-20-2011, 10:50 AM
I think the KTW ban was one of them, in movies (the aforementioned Lethal Weapon), putting teflon on a bullet will cause it to penetrate a bulletproof vest. Or a 55-gallon drum of oil and a bulletproof vest. Or a bulldozer blade and a bulletproof vest.

Whereas in real life, putting teflon on a bullet slightly reduces barrel wear, but doesn't really have any effect on kevlar, 55-gallon drums, or bulldozers.

The reasoning that I read was the Teflon would help the bullet bite into the windshield of a car and not deflect as much, and it helped reduce barrel wear on the harder rounds.

Wherryj
03-20-2011, 4:05 PM
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -William Pitt

How does one get this posted on DeLeon's Homepage?

Wherryj
03-20-2011, 4:07 PM
The first obvious one is Straight out of Die Hard2 and the 'porcelain Glock 7'.
yf8sC_1deyM

I think that the "undetectable firearm" language stems from the Predator series of movies. Those even had the ever-dangerous barrel shroud (aka the "shoulder thing that goes up" and fires what appears to be balls of plasma?)

goober
03-20-2011, 4:41 PM
I think that the "undetectable firearm" language stems from the Predator series of movies. Those even had the ever-dangerous barrel shroud (aka the "shoulder thing that goes up" and fires what appears to be balls of plasma?)

you lost me. :confused:
i mean i know this is all in fun, but what "undetectable firearm" is there in predator?
:confused:
in that movie the governator & his pals are all packin mil hardware, both real and ridiculous
the predator has his alien scifi stuff, but nothing like the things described in 12020 (a).
maybe you're saying this b/c of the image/meme of the predator associated w/ carolyn mccarthy's ignorant remarks ("the shoulder thing that goes up"), but that happened way after the fact, and the other way around...

tabrisnet
03-20-2011, 4:58 PM
How does one get this posted on DeLeon's Homepage?

One doesn't. Two don't either.

a) he won't agree, and thus won't put it there himself
b) putting it on an encyclopaedia article is injecting commentary into something that is supposed to be factual and neutral.

Smokeybehr
03-20-2011, 6:16 PM
There are .223 pistols. I guess there are 7.62x39 as well. I hope no one has a 308 handgun or I am well and truly screwed.



You need to look through the AR pistol pictures thread (aka gun porn)...

meaty-btz
03-20-2011, 6:28 PM
One doesn't. Two don't either.

a) he won't agree, and thus won't put it there himself
b) putting it on an encyclopaedia article is injecting commentary into something that is supposed to be factual and neutral.

He could always hire Anon to do it. Thats mischeif that is right up their ally I hear.

safewaysecurity
03-20-2011, 6:47 PM
The semi auto shotgun from terminator was banned by name I think because legislators saw it.

Librarian
03-20-2011, 6:54 PM
b) putting it on an encyclopaedia article is injecting commentary into something that is supposed to be factual and neutral.
Wikipedia?

"factual and neutral" are not words that apply to Wikipedia articles that deal with politics or politicians since about 1950.

tabrisnet
03-20-2011, 7:02 PM
It is more a goal than a reality, but it is also a policy. I can't prevent others from doing so, but I can ask people not to. Besides, I'm much more interested in NOT giving the impression that we're all wackos.

HowardW56
03-20-2011, 7:03 PM
Wikipedia?

"factual and neutral" are not words that apply to Wikipedia articles that deal with politics or politicians since about 1950.

1950? :confused:

Librarian
03-20-2011, 7:40 PM
1950? :confused:

Doesn't seem to be a lot of controversy about Dwight Eisenhower; can't say that about Nixon or Reagan or either Bush. Seems to me most of the partisanship applies to accounts of people/events after that time. No doubt there are exceptions, but I don't read Wikipedia for any political stuff on the site, just for possible links to sources.

finfan
03-20-2011, 8:20 PM
This all reminds me of.....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo What is a 'barrel shroud?' lol

doctorjet
03-25-2011, 4:24 PM
Here's who we have proposing this legislation, another "community organizer" (from his website):

"Assemblyman Kevin de León was elected to serve the 45th Assembly District in November of 2006. The district includes East Hollywood, Echo Park, Elysian Valley, Mt. Washington, Lincoln Hieghts and portions of Los Angeles.

Assemblyman de León has spent a lifetime fighting to empower working families and the poor – as a community organizer, English as a Second Language and U.S. Citizenship teacher and an advocate for public schools. During his five years at the California Teachers Association, de León fought for more funding for “high-priority schools” in low-income neighborhoods, more school construction, and health insurance for children.

"As a Senior Associate for the National Education Association in Washington, D.C., de León advocated for more resources for schools in low-income neighborhoods. He also coordinated a team that fought schemes to take funds from public schools in the form of taxpayer-funded vouchers. He thwarted efforts to impose academic censorship on public school teachers.

"Assemblyman de León grew up in the San Diego barrio of Logan Heights. He was the first in his family to graduate from high school. He attended U.C. Santa Barbara and graduated from Pitzer College at the Claremont Colleges with Honors. He has one daughter.

advocatusdiaboli
04-06-2011, 8:26 PM
Yay, somebody else gets it! That said i don't think he needs to reintroduce a 962 clone if this passes:

IMO this bill will ban completely (import, transfer, possession) any high powered ammo that can be used in ANY handgun: 7.62x25, 7.62x39, 5.56x45 and probably many more. Anything usable in any kind of handgun that can penetrate a vest will be completely banned if this bill passes.

Tim

Yep. He's got some brain power on his team this time and he has a strategy.
This is going to be tough.

advocatusdiaboli
04-06-2011, 8:29 PM
1950? :confused:

I believe he meant politicians from history as of that time—not that Wikipedia was in existence then.

Norsemen308
04-06-2011, 8:50 PM
i dont mean to sound like a scalded dog here.. but...


what would we do if this passes??? basically we couldnt do anything? you could shoot anything? i dont know what i would be able to do other then pack my bags and head east! I have made sizable donations this month cause i can see we are gearing up for war.. but honestly after writing your representatives and calling their offices every monday... what do we do!!!

RRangel
04-06-2011, 9:34 PM
i dont mean to sound like a scalded dog here.. but...


what would we do if this passes??? basically we couldnt do anything? you could shoot anything? i dont know what i would be able to do other then pack my bags and head east! I have made sizable donations this month cause i can see we are gearing up for war.. but honestly after writing your representatives and calling their offices every monday... what do we do!!!

There's the possibility that such laws can pass like many illegal laws now on the books, but today we have a Second Amendment in California, because of incorporation. Things have changed. In the end vague legislation that is written and then passed by worthless public officials isn't going to pass muster and they know it.

De Leon is trying to impose his flawed ideology the only way he knows how. By shoving it down the public's throat. What these unscrupulous anti-constitution lawmakers want you to do is give up. Therefore you must not.

Chester
04-06-2011, 10:01 PM
I'm with you on this Norseman. I was born in and have lived in California all my life. Its truly a beautiful state for so many reasons, but every day it seems like our politicians jut keep tightening the screws on us ever more for being Americans and owning guns.

Unless things change for the better, and I mean SOON, I'm going to have to move... Hell, I'm already at the point where I'm worried about committing any number of arbitrary felonies by just walking outside to get the god damn mail.

I really don't want to move, but out of self preservation, I'm seriously considering abandoning this beautiful, piece of **** state.

puppy8a9
04-06-2011, 10:27 PM
Bill will be heard in committee:

S.B. No. 124 De León. Ammunition.
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

PUBLIC SAFETY
HANCOCK, Chair
9:30 a.m. - Room 3191

This hearing overlaps AB 144 hearing on the same day, different part of the building but I will toggle between hearings as I can

redcoyote
04-07-2011, 5:55 AM
I got my alert from the NRA yesterday about this bill. Guess all my rifle ammunition will be classified as "cop killer ammo" now. It seems that it doesn't matter what these types of bills say. As long as it infringes on your right to bear arms the bill will pass. It's been this way in CA for a long time now. If it happens to fail, as we've already seen they'll just try again. So then the only recourse is to fight it in court. After 962 went down I hoped the budget issues would keep them busy for a while, but no luck. I too will be looking harder at voting with my feet.

goodlookin1
04-07-2011, 7:15 AM
De Leon claims that the 2A only protects firearms, not ammunition.

The Supreme Court will say otherwise, if it came to that. They know and understand that the right to keep and bear arms is pointless if those arms cant be used due to the necessary components being banned.

It's not gonna happen.

If it does pass, it will eventually be struck down. Unfortunately, we may just have to live with it for a while. But more than likely, a judge will put a temporary injunction on it being enforced pending the outcome. Having McDonald and Heller on our side, this probably wouldnt even pass even rational basis review scrutiny, let alone intermediate.

stitchnicklas
04-07-2011, 7:43 AM
is it wrong to pray that a meteor lands on a certain persons head???

wazdat
04-07-2011, 7:47 AM
is it wrong to pray that a meteor lands on a certain persons head???

I was thinking a particular building...

GillaFunk
04-07-2011, 8:15 AM
I know..its not perfect. But, its a letter of opposition....

Honorable Senator Loni Hancock
Chair, California Senate Committee on Public Safety
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: SB 124 (De Leon) – Oppose

I am writing you to address my opposition to Senate Bill 124; the Armor Piercing Ammunition Bill proposed by Senator Kevin De Leon.

Armor Piercing ammunition is defined in sections of the penal code that were unaffected by the Superior court ruling in Parker v. California. Armor piercing handgun ammunition is banned under federal law making this bill obsolete. The redefining of ammunition as this bill attempts is vague and has the potential of banning all ammunition. This bill would not withstand the legal challenged due to the same issues identified under the court ruling against AB 962 (DeLeon/ Ammunition).

This bill includes armor and metal piercing bullets, yet metal is not well defined which could be steel or aluminum. By example, it would make the small .22 caliber bullet illegal as this round can just as easily puncture a hole in an aluminum soda can, much like a B.B or air-powered pellet gun. If the bill were interpreted this way, it could be unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as it would make practically all rifle rounds illegal. This is not about “murder”, as the bill states, but about reclassification of ammunition so further restrictions on gun owners can be imposed.

• This bill has been introduced almost every year for the past 10 years.
• This bill has constantly been rejected as unworkable and most recently unconstitutional (AB 962
overturned 1/18/2011)
• Its costs the state money to defend bills like this from legal challenges.
• California is in a fiscal crisis – surely money could be better spend elsewhere

I urge you to discontinue supporting such legislation that impacts only the good apples, and does nothing to punish the bad apples of society. If you want to make guns safer, raise the bar on punishment levels on those who use guns in illegal ways, not on those who follow the existing laws.

SB 124 is simply another waste of your time and our tax dollars while under the guise of trying to make the public safer from criminals. Don’t punish those who follow the laws, punish those who break the laws.

I would appreciate a reply containing your position on this issue.

Respectfully,


GillaFunk

CC:
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
Senator Ron Calderon
Senator Tom Harman
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Curren Price
Senator Darrell Steinberg
Senator Kevin DeLeon

crackerman
04-07-2011, 8:23 AM
Good letter but in the 3rd paragraph first line switch "witch" to "which"

Little typo but I envision some holier than thou aide going "if they can't even spell right, they must be wrong"

GillaFunk
04-07-2011, 8:39 AM
:oops:

Fixed

goober
04-07-2011, 8:52 AM
Good letter but in the 3rd paragraph first line switch "witch" to "which"

Little typo but I envision some holier than thou aide going "if they can't even spell right, they must be wrong"

:oops:

Fixed

I know..its not perfect. But, its a letter of opposition....

Honorable Senator Loni Hancock
Chair, California Senate Committee on Public Safety
1515 Clay Street
Suite 2202
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: SB 124 (De Leon) – Oppose

I am writing you to address my opposition to Senate Bill 124; the Armor Piercing Ammunition Bill proposed by Senator Kevin De Leon.

Armor Piercing ammunition is defined in sections of the penile code that were unaffected by the Superior court ruling in Parker v. California. Armor piercing handgun ammunition is banned under federal law making this bill obsolete. The redefining of ammunition as this bill attempts is vague and has the potential of banning all ammunition. This bill would not withstand the legal challenged due to the same issues identified under the court ruling against AB 962 (DeLeon/ Ammunition).
<snip>




LMAO even gnarlier than "witch", you need to change "penile code" to "penal code"! :eek:

but good on ya for doing this. everyone here should do likewise.

Cnynrat
04-07-2011, 8:54 AM
:oops:

Fixed

You may also wish to change "penile" to "penal".

GillaFunk
04-07-2011, 9:46 AM
LMFAO. Jesus....I feel like a real arse now. I hate proofreading anyways.

Funny chit though. I have a joke for this..but....

Super Spy
04-07-2011, 9:58 AM
A Daisy Red Ryder will penetrate a beer can....Are those going to be a felony too?

CMonfort
04-07-2011, 9:59 AM
Our office will release some talking points on this that can be used for opposition letters, etc. after the committee hearing Tuesday. Lots to this bill, and lots of confusion over what it does and doesn't do. Lots of work being done behind the scenes for now.

hatidua
04-07-2011, 10:07 AM
Aren't all the popular rounds, if not ammunitions in general, designed to penetrate armor and/or metal? If you designed a round to just penetrate paper, why is it necessary to send bullets out the barrel over 900FPS in handguns? What do they consider "armor" and "metal"? Is a sheet of 22 gauge steel plate considered metal? Is heavy clothing considered armor?

I suspect that will be the next bill to attempt after they ban everything else. They'd ban all guns outright if they could, a few politicians have been on the record saying just that. It's incremental: ban this, ban that, and before you know it, there's not much left to ban. Criminals will still get anything they want but law abiding citizens won't be able to buy/own anything gun related.

For those who have been around a while, think back to the things we could get 20-40 years ago that we can't get now. Anyone remember those ads for guns in the back of magazines...that would be delivered to your door? Herters catalog (yellow cover if I recall) would ship you just about anything!

When I was a kid growing up in Riverside, I remember we'd head out to my grandparents place near Temecula on the weekends and we'd buy our ammo at a liquor store at the Van Buren exit on the 91. Any liquor stores sell ammo now?

As has already been mentioned in this thread, gun owners do not make up the vast majority of the people that these politicians are pandering to.

Many newly minted citizens that are originally from countries that do not allow civilian ownership of guns aren't going to put any energy in fighting for something they've never had in the first place and the politicians know that quite well.

Banning ammo by classification? -pretty ingenious if you ask me. Next will be banning firearms by intended usage: y'all goose hunt much?!

I sometimes wonder if inviting a new immigrant to the range would do more long-term 2A good than writing politicians whose minds are made up...

Wherryj
04-07-2011, 10:10 AM
LMAO even gnarlier than "witch", you need to change "penile code" to "penal code"! :eek:

but good on ya for doing this. everyone here should do likewise.

Actually, given the context, I'd say that "penile code" seems appropriate.

goober
04-07-2011, 10:12 AM
Our office will release some talking points on this that can be used for opposition letters, etc. after the committee hearing Tuesday. Lots to this bill, and lots of confusion over what it does and doesn't do. Lots of work being done behind the scenes for now.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTa3Fgzknvux5zNmga4TKjMQ3NsBuLLe uzCjKpGL_Dg3aac4TKX

twoyellowlabs
04-07-2011, 2:31 PM
Here is my letter to the.....oh well, I won't go there.

Dear Senator De Leon.
What exactly are cop killer armor piercing bullets? I strongly oppose SB 124. As a legal gun owner and shooting sports activist, I have to wonder why all the rush to take away my second amendment rights. I hunt in the state (pay license fees) shoot sporting clays, 3 gun, IDPA and IPSC, All of the ammunition, firearms and accessories are all generate much needed tax revenue for the state. The laws you are submitting and quite frankly wasting the tax payers money. Not only are they unconstitutional, they serve no other purpose but to further a political agenda. Please note that California already has the most and prohibitive gun laws on the books and have not decreased violence, but sometimes turn law abiding citizens into criminals. Your proposed unconstitutional legislation will obviously be challenged and overturned in the courts. All of this will require additional tax payers resources to litigate. Not to mention that the crime rate is always higher in states with the most restrictive gun laws. Is there a coincidence? More futile laws to further an agenda is not the answer to cover up the fact that the legislators in this state have exceeded their spending limits only to benefit large campaign donors. Why no balanced budget legislation? Do you have nothing else to do but to sit around and think of other ways to strip away the rights of the people you supposedly serve? Please do the right thing and give us a break. We enjoy this great state with all the outdoor activities it has to offer. The restrictions you are trying to impose are only adding to the thoughts of moving my company and the tax dollars it contributes to a state that actually respects the citizens and their rights.

Chester
04-07-2011, 2:55 PM
...
I sometimes wonder if inviting a new immigrant to the range would do more long-term 2A good than writing politicians whose minds are made up...

My girlfriend is applying for her citizenship this summer and when we first met, she was a self proclaimed Socialist.

Now, she yells at the TV more than I do whenever anyone mentions increased spending or taxes and has a habit of asking me "Is that legal? Can they do that?" whenever a show or news story is on where someone is being arrested/detained/searched. If the show COPS is ever on, she yells at the idiots being arrested to STFU and exercise their 5th Amendment rights too!

Guess where she stands on gun control now?

I'm proud of her. She's going to make a damn fine American!

FrankDux
04-07-2011, 4:35 PM
You may also wish to change "penile" to "penal".

Hahahahahahahha!!! I actually laughed out loud on that one!

Cylarz
04-07-2011, 7:28 PM
Dear Senator DeLeon,

The People of California: "Our state is broke. There are no jobs to be had. Businesses are fleeing the state in droves. We're being overrun by illegal immigrants. Police, teachers, and firefighters are being laid-off in droves. Local governments are no longer prosecuting certain crimes for lack of funds. What are you going to do to help our situation, Senator?"

You: "I think I'll write a bill that cracks down on armor piercing handgun ammunition."

Seriously, dude?

GOEX FFF
04-07-2011, 7:50 PM
Sending letters to De Leon, would have been like sending letters to Pol Pot telling him he's a jerk and to stop his genocide on millions of people.
It will do no good.

Calls and letters are best suited for the ones who vote to pass these bills...Not the bill's creator.

CAL.BAR
04-07-2011, 8:15 PM
Keep in mind that gun owners are a minority in California. Restrictions get passed because they're popular, and banners get re-elected for the same reason.

Now go write it 100 times on the chalkboard: "I am in the minority. Most of the state thinks I'm crazy."

+1 here. We HAVE to use what little resources we have very wisely. We are not just a minority, we are a fractional minority. Stop with the non-starters like "shall issue" and CCW type stuff. There is no constitutional or court backing for this and what's more, it scares the HELL out of everybody else.

Librarian
04-07-2011, 8:24 PM
Sending letters to De Leon, would have been like sending letters to Pol Pot telling him he's a jerk and to stop his genocide on millions of people.
It will do no good.

Calls and letters are best suited for the ones who vote to pass these bills...Not the bill's creator.

Does do one little thing - when the legislators claim they have heard no opposition to their nefarious proposals, at least we know for certain they are lying.

N6ATF
04-07-2011, 8:39 PM
As long as their lips and/or fingers are moving, they're lying.

Eagle Eyes
04-07-2011, 8:48 PM
If this has been brought up please excuse my post....

Is not one of the designed features of most modern high performance HP ammo to penatrate things like Auto Glass, Car doors ( made of metal ) and other barriers and still expand into the BG behind the barrier (FBI Test)??? In fact FMJ is used by Militaries around the world and one of it's designed features is to penatrate barriers.

This looks like a back door ammo ban to me if he is taking out the word "primarily".

In fact the only ammo we could use would be frangible ammo like Glaser Safety Slugs since its the only ammo specifically designed not to penatrate metal.

Cylarz
04-07-2011, 10:25 PM
I'll track the bill's progress, and I'll call the committee members at each stage and voice my opposition, as I did with AB962 and as I'll do with the other two anti-gun bills under consideration this week down at the State Capitol.

But I'll also tell myself that as with AB962, the real fight will come in the court system. It's just sad that the bill's author and it supporters don't care that it's going to cost the State a lot of money to defend the stupid thing if it passes.

And pardon my naive thinking, but couldn't someone just as easily argue that "designed to be armor piercing" is just that - high powered ammunition that's specifically designed, manufactured, and marketed to be capable of passing through a flak vest or other body armor? Not just any old FMJ?

FMJ mil-surp ammunition was (and is, I assume) commonly used in military weapons not so much for its armor-piercing capability, but because it was (according to my understanding) required by the Geneva Conventions regarding the laws and conduct of nations at war. This in turn, I think, had to do with ease of treating a bullet wound...nothing at all to do with armor.

I presume the Warsaw Pact countries were (like NATO) signatories to the Conventions, therefore the Eastern Bloc surplus stuff wouldn't qualify as "armor piercing." Remember that there is also surplus "handgun" ammo available as well, such as 7.62 x 25 Tok.

I also fail to see how the hollow-point or soft-point ammunition used in hunting rifles would be affected by the bill's language. Those types are specifically designed to "mushroom" on impact and take down the game animal quickly. They're designed to NOT penetrate.

Also, I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone is going to classify ammunition like 8mm Mauser or 7.62 x 54R as "handgun ammunition." (For that matter, I've never heard of a handgun that shoots 7.62 x 39 or .223, but I'll defer to the experts here.)

I see several likely outcomes here:

A) bill passes but is heavily modified on its way through Legislature
B) bill passes through Legislature relatively unmolested but not signed by governor
C) A or B, but then overturned in court as was its predecessor AB962.
D) A or B, plus C, plus DeLeon tries to put yet another one over on us next year.

Clarification please. Like many of you, I'm on the subscription list for these NRA-ILA alerts, and I follow their links to the bills' text, and it seems like the language there is rarely quite as far-reaching as the NRA seems to think it is...unless someone is reading it with a non-common-sense approach. (I know, I know....)

vintagearms
04-07-2011, 10:34 PM
Our office will release some talking points on this that can be used for opposition letters, etc. after the committee hearing Tuesday. Lots to this bill, and lots of confusion over what it does and doesn't do. Lots of work being done behind the scenes for now.

Thank you...

mag360
04-07-2011, 10:45 PM
I've heard de Leon my not even get re-elected since the redistricting will affect him greatly.

hornswaggled
04-07-2011, 11:19 PM
Our office will release some talking points on this that can be used for opposition letters, etc. after the committee hearing Tuesday. Lots to this bill, and lots of confusion over what it does and doesn't do. Lots of work being done behind the scenes for now.

Looking forward to it. I will write every representative I can.

BOFH
04-07-2011, 11:24 PM
Bill will be heard in committee:

S.B. No. 124 De León. Ammunition.
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

PUBLIC SAFETY
HANCOCK, Chair
9:30 a.m. - Room 3191

This hearing overlaps AB 144 hearing on the same day, different part of the building but I will toggle between hearings as I can

Anyone know if this will be streamed live somewhere?

N6ATF
04-07-2011, 11:24 PM
I've heard de Leon my not even get re-elected since the redistricting will affect him greatly.

That's what election tampering is for. :mad:

The Shadow
04-07-2011, 11:40 PM
Okay, I'm going to say it. I have a need to vent an DeLeon is my target.

HEY DE LEON,

YOU WORTHLESS BAG OF S:censored:T. IF YOU COULD FORM TWO RATIONAL F:censored:G SENTENCES, YOU'RE INTELLIGENCE MIGHT BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH MY PET ROCK.

GET A CLUE YOU DOUCHE BAG, GUN LAWS ONLY DISARM THOSE WHO ARE NEITHER INTENT OR INCLINED TO COMMIT CRIMES.

SON OF A B:censored:H, I HATE STUPID PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW THEIR A:censored:S FROM THEIR ELBOW.

Thank you.

tvfreakarms
04-08-2011, 12:02 AM
well i sent out emails to my gov, senator and state rep. Not sure what else to do here.

Cylarz
04-08-2011, 9:29 AM
well i sent out emails to my gov, senator and state rep. Not sure what else to do here.

Sign up for legislative alerts from NRA if you aren't already receiving them: https://secure.nraila.org/EmailSignup.aspx

You can also click "California" to see what's going on at the state level. It's quieter on the federal level, but you need to be paying attention there, too.

The NRA is currently tracking all of the anti-gun bills currently working their way through the California state government. At each turn, it's our responsibility to contact all of the Senators (or Assembly members as the case may be) who sit on these various panels and consider bills.

First off, forget email. Those are too easy to ignore or get lost in cyberspace. CALL THE OFFICE. Make sure you do it during business hours so you get a live person on the phone instead of an answering machine.

Call all of the names on the lists sent to you by NRA-ILA, and ask them to vote NO on the bills, especially this one. It doesn't matter if they're your particular Rep or Senator or not.

NRA will also often provide some talking points to use. Be brief, courteous, and polite. Don't sound angry or upset on the phone. Be careful what you say to the staffer. Remember, we're trying to show everyone that we are reasonable, rational, intelligent people. The majority of the state, as someone else said, already thinks we're nuts. We've got to counter that impression.

Remind the staffer answering the phone that if the bill passes over your opposition, the state is going to get sued by gun-rights groups and the bill will be subsequently overturned in court, just as AB962 was earlier this year, so the entire exercise is expensive and pointless.

If a staffer for one of these people asks for your ZIP code, then complains that you're not a constituent (and therefore implies that your view does not count), remind them of three things:

1) The bill, if passed, will affect all of California. You're a California resident, so that includes you.

They don't get to dismiss your opinion just because you live in Bakersfield or Redding, instead of San Diego where the politician is from, for example. It doesn't matter what part of the state is which. It's all California.

2) Your tax dollars pay the staffer's salary as well as that of his/her boss. These people work for you, not the other way around, and the district you happen to live in doesn't change that.

3) You're legally capable of donating money to the Assembly member's or Senator's opponent at the next election, if you're not pleased with how the politician votes on the bill.

Even if you're a nobody and not some high-powered special interest, I doubt these politicians appreciate individual gun-rights advocates throwing $20 or whatever to the candidate trying to unseat them. It adds up to real money quickly. But that's what will happen if they keep trying to take away our rights.

If/when the bill (and the others) get to the Senate or Assembly for a "floor vote" (the full legislative body voting), THAT is when you contact your particular Rep or Senator. In the meantime, those committee members need to hear from you at each stage of the bill's consideration.

This bill is going to get a hearing on Tuesday, along with two others (banning open carry and establishing a long-gun registry). We've got a lot of work to do this week and next, my friends.

Forget all this stuff that some are saying about how the politicians' minds are already made-up. We don't get to shirk our responsibility as voters and active citizens regardless of who is in office. They need to hear from us. Besides, the politician you call might actually be on the fence. You never know. Call politicians of both parties. Don't assume all Republicans support gun rights, or that all Democrats oppose them.

Even if they don't listen, they at least need to be reminded there is opposition to this stuff.

WReyth
04-08-2011, 10:16 AM
Thanks for the pointers, Cylarz

goober
04-08-2011, 10:46 AM
Anyone know if this will be streamed live somewhere?

they are usually streamed on http://www.calchannel.com/

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 11:25 AM
Bill will be heard in committee:

S.B. No. 124 De León. Ammunition.
TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2011

PUBLIC SAFETY
HANCOCK, Chair
9:30 a.m. - Room 3191

This hearing overlaps AB 144 hearing on the same day, different part of the building but I will toggle between hearings as I can

Anyone know how we can watch/listen on local cable. I need to spend more time watching sausages being made as gory as it is.

EIDT: OOPS, didn't see the post above was two page back when I posted. Sorry for the post.

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 11:28 AM
Forget all this stuff that some are saying about how the politicians' minds are already made-up. We don't get to shirk our responsibility as voters and active citizens regardless of who is in office. They need to hear from us. Besides, the politician you call might actually be on the fence. You never know. Call politicians of both parties. Don't assume all Republicans support gun rights, or that all Democrats oppose them.

Even if they don't listen, they at least need to be reminded there is opposition to this stuff.

Thanks. Good reminder for me when I feel we've lost and there is no point to dissent. McDonald reminds us there is hope.

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 11:45 AM
LMAO even gnarlier than "witch", you need to change "penile code" to "penal code"! :eek:

That just had to be on purpose. That or the irony is so great the Freud is laughing in his grave.

winxp_man
04-08-2011, 12:43 PM
Cant believe that this issue has come up again after that Epic Fail in court to support the last AB. CA government has bigger fish to fry and they are worrying about AMMO?!?!?! AGAIN !!!!!!!!!! un-freaking-believable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7x57
04-08-2011, 1:01 PM
Cant believe that this issue has come up again after that Epic Fail in court to support the last AB. CA government has bigger fish to fry and they are worrying about AMMO?!?!?! AGAIN !!!!!!!!!! un-freaking-believable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not only believable, but perhaps to be expected. The "bigger fish to fry" are basically huge, complex, intractable problems. The CA budget, for example. Attempts to deal with them are likely to fail, and then what kind of record do you have to run on? It's in a politician's interests to make small symbolic gestures that do no actual good rather than do real work on problems that are larger than he is.

The more intractable CA's political problems are, the more the smart politicians are going to try to evade them with symbolic gestures. Such as "dealing with the gun problem." The fact that such gestures are also doomed to failure is irrelevant so long as enough voters think the gesture must help somehow--the lack of scepticism is precisely why gestures are safer than addressing reality. The day voters don't buy it is the last day for gun control.

7x57

Midian
04-08-2011, 1:04 PM
[QUOTE=7x57;6164328

The more intractable CA's political problems are, the more the smart politicians are going to try to evade them with symbolic gestures. Such as "dealing with the gun problem." The fact that such gestures are also doomed to failure is irrelevant so long as enough voters think the gesture must help somehow--the lack of scepticism is precisely why gestures are safer than addressing reality. The day voters don't buy it is the last day for gun control.

7x57[/QUOTE]

TESTIFY

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 1:39 PM
Not only believable, but perhaps to be expected. The "bigger fish to fry" are basically huge, complex, intractable problems. The CA budget, for example. Attempts to deal with them are likely to fail, and then what kind of record do you have to run on? It's in a politician's interests to make small symbolic gestures that do no actual good rather than do real work on problems that are larger than he is.

The more intractable CA's political problems are, the more the smart politicians are going to try to evade them with symbolic gestures. Such as "dealing with the gun problem." The fact that such gestures are also doomed to failure is irrelevant so long as enough voters think the gesture must help somehow--the lack of scepticism is precisely why gestures are safer than addressing reality. The day voters don't buy it is the last day for gun control.
7x57

The word that comes to mind is pandering and most politicians are well-versed in it's use and value—especially now that politics is so polarized and dialogue and compromise are lost arts. Fear is nearly a constant with enough of the population that capitalizing on it is reaching for low hanging fruit for ambitious panderers.

pan·der [pan-der] –noun Also, pan·der·er.
a person who caters to or profits from the weaknesses or vices of others.

Mr.Glock45
04-08-2011, 2:32 PM
Enough with Communist bs this state puts us through, we are gun owners in a society where visor-wearing, sandal walking socialist gun-hating communist get to decide whether WE can defend ourselves against threats to our lives, and welfare. Not their lives, no no no no, OUR lives. Enough is enough, just next door somebody REALLY got it right, Arizona baby. It may be a desert but boy do they know how to make good laws.

BOFH
04-08-2011, 2:39 PM
I need to spend more time watching sausages being made as gory as it is.


Watching can be tough. Few things anger me as much as watching our elected representatives at work. Its horrifying. Watching how AB962 played out almost disgusted me to the point of not even bothering to fight anymore. Almost.

tabrisnet
04-08-2011, 2:41 PM
Enough with Communist bs this state puts us through, we are gun owners in a society where visor-wearing, sandal walking socialist gun-hating communist get to decide whether WE can defend ourselves against threats to our lives, and welfare. Not their lives, no no no no, OUR lives. Enough is enough, just next door somebody REALLY got it right, Arizona baby. It may be a desert but boy do they know how to make good laws.

You probably think they have allgood prisons and all good sheriffs too... (Sheriff Arpaio anyone?)

HBrebel
04-08-2011, 2:41 PM
Gentlemen, time to get off the forum for a few and write a letter to your local senate rep and assemblymember. If you voted for them let em know it. demand that they represent you as a member of their district and that they swore an oath to honor and uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you are an NRA member, you have access to your local reps contact info thru NRA website. We can't just sit on here and ***** about it, we gotta at least try to get some leverage. I wish somebody could reach out and touch DeLeon.......whoops was that the beer talking?

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 5:08 PM
I sent this to my two state reps. I hope the rest of you are contacting yours.

xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
Tracy, CA

April 8, 2011
The Honorable Tom Berryhill
California Senate
State Capitol, Room 3076
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 124: 2011 DeLeon Ammunition Bill

Senator Berryhill:

i am writing you as a resident of your district to urge your opposition to SB124.

I realize our large metro areas have firearms concerns, but such sweeping legislation affects the entire state, not just problematic large cities.

I urge your opposition for two reasons:

1. SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. This will dramatically affect hunters throughout the state for a dubious goal of controlling armor piercing ammunition that is already illegal. This would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them.

2. SB 124 doesn't stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as "armor piercing". The effect on shooting sports and hunting will be a disaster.

While this is one small step, I believe the ultimate goal here is to eliminate all ammunition as a way of rendering firearms useless since banning firearms has been unsuccessful. The resulting legal battle will consume a tremendous amount of resources and time—time and money this state needs elsewhere.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxx

NovaTodd
04-08-2011, 5:11 PM
My letter went out this morning.

donw
04-08-2011, 5:45 PM
I've written & called all of my state reps & none could less about my opinion. In fact I had one tell me that AB962 would actually improve the health-care because it would reduce the number of shooting victims. The conversation was politely discontinued when I asked where she got those figures. They simple do not care about facts, it's their opinions alone that matter

I've written to them and had the email returned saying: "deleted without being opened"...de Leon among them.

the single biggest problem we in the firearms community have is apathy from the community as a whole about firearms related issues...as an example, my neighbors: "Don't care if "cop killer" bullets are outlawed...i don't own no gun nohow..."

it's not a matter of "IF", it's a matter of "WHEN" a full out attack on the 2A and firearms occurs...it's in the beginning stages now...

de Leon is a moron at best, but he is smart enough to figure out that a flanking maneuver of going after ammo will be easier than the firearms themselves.

the best thing we could do is attack de Leon and his base of support. his ignorance of firearms would be a beginning place.

i say attack because being static in this war will result in out an out defeat.

one example would be to demand he publicly show the statistics/proof of LE slain with "cop killer bullets"...bullets SPECIFICALLY designed and manufactured with that sole purpose in mind...to penetrate LE armor...

a really good start would be to have de Leon removed from office as being incompetent...he seems to be proving it daily.

BTW, I've FAXED my opposition to the moron/de Leon bill to our "representatives"...emails are too easily ignored or "lost"

advocatusdiaboli
04-08-2011, 6:14 PM
There are no easy answers. We are a minority in a very troubled state with two very large metro areas largely populated by people whose only exposure to firearms is violent television and the fear pandering news. They see them as destructive only—they don't hunt, shoot clays, target shoot, or believe they can defend themselves. Unfortunately, they make up a huge voting block in the state. It seems dark but...

But, we have a few powerful friends. McDonald and SCOTUS for one. I believe an ammo ban which renders firearms pointless runs counter to 2A and SCOTUS will kill it dead. But I also believe we are in a protracted fight and we must no waiver or give an inch if we can avoid it.

I have no idea whether we'll win in California but I do know I'll regret it if I don't try my best whatever the outcome. I hope many of you feel the same.

otteray
04-08-2011, 6:26 PM
Thanks for the well written template, advocatusdiaboli. I'll use it on my rep, Bill Monning.

I sent this to my two state reps. I hope the rest of you are contacting yours.

xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
Tracy, CA

April 8, 2011
The Honorable Tom Berryhill
California Senate
State Capitol, Room 3076
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: SB 124: 2011 DeLeon Ammunition Bill

Senator Berryhill:

i am writing you as a resident of your district to urge your opposition to SB124.

I realize our large metro areas have firearms concerns, but such sweeping legislation affects the entire state, not just problematic large cities.

I urge your opposition for two reasons:

1. SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. This will dramatically affect hunters throughout the state for a dubious goal of controlling armor piercing ammunition that is already illegal. This would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them.

2. SB 124 doesn't stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as "armor piercing". The effect on shooting sports and hunting will be a disaster.

While this is one small step, I believe the ultimate goal here is to eliminate all ammunition as a way of rendering firearms useless since banning firearms has been unsuccessful. The resulting legal battle will consume a tremendous amount of resources and time—time and money this state needs elsewhere.

Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxxxx

Cylarz
04-08-2011, 6:57 PM
I'm going to be phoning-in my opposition to all the members of the Senate Public Safety committee on Monday morning. I'll be sure to mention to the staffer answering the phone that their boss will be attending a hearing on this bill the following day. I plan on reminding them that if this bill passes, the state government is going to get sued and that it is going to lose.

I'll also be calling the members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. The same day that SB124 is getting a hearing on the Senate side, the Assembly's counterpart will be taking a vote on AB 144 and AB 809. These bills ban open-carry of handguns and create a long-gun registry, respectively. Both are also bad bills which need to be stopped.

Here's a link to the all the activity going on that day at the State Capitol which concerns the bad bills we want to stop...along with all the names and phone numbers you need to know:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6555

Finally, there are three additional bills coming through which are actually worth supporting - urge your California state Reps and Senators to vote YES on these:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6582

Keep up the good fight. Don't let up. Don't give up. Don't let yourselves become discouraged.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

kcbrown
04-08-2011, 8:54 PM
I'm going to be phoning-in my opposition to all the members of the Senate Public Safety committee on Monday morning. I'll be sure to mention to the staffer answering the phone that their boss will be attending a hearing on this bill the following day. I plan on reminding them that if this bill passes, the state government is going to get sued and that it is going to lose.


Why should they care?

They're personally immune.

Worse, nobody gets voted out in California just because their legislation cost the state more money than it could afford, and I mean nobody. If you believe they do, then name one, just one that has in the last 20, no make that 30, years. Even Gray Davis doesn't count here: he lost because of the electricity crisis.

Worse, the amount of money the state will lose as a result of fighting on behalf of bad legislation in court is miniscule. There's no way in hell even the likes of Alan Gura could ever touch the amounts necessary to put an even noticeable dent in the state's budget. For that to happen, Gura would have to win a judgement in the billions.


No, arguing on the basis of the cost of lawsuits doesn't even work in cities here in California. Did anyone in San Francisco get booted from office as a result of them losing the gun ban lawsuit? Did anyone on the Oakland city council lose their position as a result of passing their anti-gun ammunition ordinances? No, I didn't think so.


If you argue on the basis of the cost of losing lawsuits, you will just be wasting your breath.

Cylarz
04-09-2011, 12:58 AM
Yeah, let's pack it in, then. We can't bankrupt the state through our lawsuits, we can't toss Democrats out of office over gun-rights issues, we can't scare them in any way, because the guys who write this are untouchable. We're boned. Might as well go home. (/sarcasm off)

Is that the message you have for us? Because I'm not prepared to give up or flee the state. California has no right to do this to us. We've done nothing but exercise the rights granted to us by the Constitution. I'm not going to sit here and do nothing while a bunch of ignorant gun-grabbers try to make felons out of us.

I want to do whatever works, say whatever it is that might get through to them. If you think it's preferable simply to remind our elected leaders that what they're doing is a violation of the 2A, ineffective in its purported goals, an unnecessary burden on the law-abiding, a distraction when California has far bigger fish to fry, then by all means, concentrate on that angle.

I simply thought it might help to point out to these people that the entire exercise of passing this bill they are engaged in, is an exercise in futility. Even if none of the legislators who write and pass this crap are held politically accountable or financially responsible, it's still worth pointing out to them that court action is going to make sure they don't get the gun-free utopia they're dreaming of. We've got two recent Supreme Court decisions on our side, plus the recent overturn of AB962.

Whatever the message consists of, it needs to persuade them that they don't have the luxury of ignoring us, or telling themselves that we're so badly outnumbered that our opinion doesn't count. The court system may be our only remedy, and they need to know that California's gun-rights community is prepared to wield that tool.

Seriously, if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree here, enlighten me. Because I'm trying to motivate people toward action here. Gun owners sitting on their hands is precisely how we got to where we are now. Letting our politicians think nobody is going to stand up and say NO to this stuff, is how we got here.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 3:19 AM
Yeah, let's pack it in, then. We can't bankrupt the state through our lawsuits, we can't toss Democrats out of office over gun-rights issues, we can't scare them in any way, because the guys who write this are untouchable. We're boned. Might as well go home. (/sarcasm off)

Is that the message you have for us? Because I'm not prepared to give up or flee the state. California has no right to do this to us. We've done nothing but exercise the rights granted to us by the Constitution. I'm not going to sit here and do nothing while a bunch of ignorant gun-grabbers try to make felons out of us.


Nope, that's not my message (though I can certainly see why you'd come away with it). And I agree with you: we stay and fight. That's what I'm doing, certainly.

We fight first in the courts. It's currently the only statewide venue where there's a reasonable chance of winning.

Then we go after the hearts and minds of the people, by showing them that even in California, having real gun rights won't cause blood to run in the streets. That'll take time and experience.

And then we go after the politicians, once we've got the backing of sufficient people. It'll take a lot of them, too, because politicians are used to getting away with ignoring the people (the bank bailouts were indisputable proof of that).


Have you noticed that there's only been one public event that CGF organized so far (that I know of -- the one in L.A. recently)? There's good reason for that -- it's because the time for public outreach isn't yet here in California. There will be a time for it, but not yet. I expect we need a few more fundamental wins in the Supreme Court first.



I want to do whatever works, say whatever it is that might get through to them. If you think it's preferable simply to remind our elected leaders that what they're doing is a violation of the 2A, ineffective in its purported goals, an unnecessary burden on the law-abiding, a distraction when California has far bigger fish to fry, then by all means, concentrate on that angle.

I simply thought it might help to point out to these people that the entire exercise of passing this bill they are engaged in, is an exercise in futility. Even if none of the legislators who write and pass this crap are held politically accountable or financially responsible, it's still worth pointing out to them that court action is going to make sure they don't get the gun-free utopia they're dreaming of. We've got two recent Supreme Court decisions on our side, plus the recent overturn of AB962.

Whatever the message consists of, it needs to persuade them that they don't have the luxury of ignoring us, or telling themselves that we're so badly outnumbered that our opinion doesn't count. The court system may be our only remedy, and they need to know that California's gun-rights community is prepared to wield that tool.

Seriously, if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree here, enlighten me. Because I'm trying to motivate people toward action here. Gun owners sitting on their hands is precisely how we got to where we are now. Letting our politicians think nobody is going to stand up and say NO to this stuff, is how we got here.To be honest, if you want to spend your energy putting forth all those arguments to your legislators, you absolutely should do so. If you have a legislator that even might be persuaded then those arguments are worth making. If you've got the manpower and time to spare, then it won't hurt to make those arguments.

Just as long as you're cognizant of the fact that succeeding in that is like winning the lottery, in that the odds are about the same.


And no, I'm by no means suggesting that we not fight. Fighting when there's a low chance of winning is better than not fighting at all. At least with the former, there's a chance of winning.

And there are many different ways of fighting, too.


Believe me, I don't want to discourage you from the fight. We need people like you with us -- people with spirit and drive. I just don't want people like you to be discouraged if the end result of all your effort is essentially nothing. If you know going into it that you won't be discouraged by the feeling that your pushing against a brick wall then go get 'em! I just want to make sure you go into it with your eyes wide open.

advocatusdiaboli
04-09-2011, 6:17 AM
Why should they care?

They're personally immune.

Worse, nobody gets voted out in California just because their legislation cost the state more money than it could afford, and I mean nobody. If you believe they do, then name one, just one that has in the last 20, no make that 30, years. Even Gray Davis doesn't count here: he lost because of the electricity crisis.

Worse, the amount of money the state will lose as a result of fighting on behalf of bad legislation in court is miniscule. There's no way in hell even the likes of Alan Gura could ever touch the amounts necessary to put an even noticeable dent in the state's budget. For that to happen, Gura would have to win a judgement in the billions.


No, arguing on the basis of the cost of lawsuits doesn't even work in cities here in California. Did anyone in San Francisco get booted from office as a result of them losing the gun ban lawsuit? Did anyone on the Oakland city council lose their position as a result of passing their anti-gun ammunition ordinances? No, I didn't think so.


If you argue on the basis of the cost of losing lawsuits, you will just be wasting your breath.

There is wisdom in your posts, but I disagree somewhat on you view of lawsuits The times they are a changin' my friend. Right now Brown is going after one of the biggest local and state government slush funds costing taxpayers billions and dismantling it: redevelopment (which basically funds developer millionaires with taxpayer dollars). San Jose is laying off the entire staff.

This is just the beginning. He's also good at reading the zeitgeist and smaller government and less spending is it for this decade. So lawsuit costs (lawyers are expensive) can matter—especially if we make them matter. And not because they are big but because they are easy to label as needless and pointless waste. The public in general dislikes the lawyers which adds to it. The defense of poor laws through lawsuits can be a poster child for government waste. We need to make that happen, with the people, and the politicians will toe the line. I realize it won't be easy, but it's one more arrow in our quiver.

kcbrown
04-09-2011, 2:29 PM
This is just the beginning. He's also good at reading the zeitgeist and smaller government and less spending is it for this decade. So lawsuit costs (lawyers are expensive) can matter—especially if we make them matter. And not because they are big but because they are easy to label as needless and pointless waste. The public in general dislikes the lawyers which adds to it. The defense of poor laws through lawsuits can be a poster child for government waste. We need to make that happen, with the people, and the politicians will toe the line. I realize it won't be easy, but it's one more arrow in our quiver.

That's true: if we can steer the public's perception of the defense of bad law in the courts then we can greatly amplify the political effects of the lawsuits we bring.

But that is very, very treacherous ground. For it can very easily morph into a political unwillingness to defend against any lawsuit, regardless of the merits, simply because the perception will be that lawsuits are expensive.


As for needless and pointless waste, lawsuits have so much competition in that arena that I think it will be difficult indeed to make lawsuits stand out as somehow being special in that regard, especially because they are such small potatoes.


Finally, you repeat here the mantra that lawsuits are expensive. And indeed they are -- to us. To a state government that has an income stream in the tens of billions, lawsuits are nothing but a minor annoyance, a mere fly buzzing around their head. Until you can transform that fly into a wasp with a very painful sting, they will continue to regard lawsuits that way.


Let me put it in terms we as individuals can understand. If the absolute most you would ever have to pay as an individual to defend a lawsuit (and pay the resulting judgment) was $100, knowing that you'd have to do so perhaps a couple of times a year at most, would you even think twice about it, given that your alternative would be to cave? Think about it: just $200 (perhaps $300) a year at most to defend every bad law you make in the courts, all the way to the top. Yeah, if you wanted to keep those laws, you'd happily pay that. Wouldn't even think twice about it.

That $100 corresponds to $100 million when applied to a lawsuit against the state. Gura is asking for $3.5 million for the entirety of the Heller litigation, from start to finish (reference: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9693), spanning a period of more than 6 years. If he won a suit against California and asked for that amount, that would be like him asking the court to force us as individuals to pay $3.50. A pittance. Amortized over the time in question, that's 60 cents a year.


This is why, when you really think about it, lawsuits against the state are incredibly cheap from the point of view of the state, even if they lose "big". Even $100 million judgments are nothing, the equivalent of being forced to eat at home two or three times out of the entire year.

HondaMasterTech
04-09-2011, 2:43 PM
Does anyone remember when AB962 was waiting for a signature or veto from Arnold? Remember calling thousands of times to input your desire for a veto? Well, it wasn't a recording. Someone was actually on the other end of the line farting into the reciever as you entered your choice.

The legislative system is backed up with corrupt toilet-paper-wrapped-turd-balls. Californias problems aren't going away willingly through legislation. They are going away with hostile resistance through the court system.

2ndAmendment lawyers are Californias plungers.

tvfreakarms
04-10-2011, 7:41 PM
Thanks for the heads up. I will try to give me them a call. I think we all should try cause this will really suck if it passes.

tvfreakarms
04-10-2011, 7:48 PM
Thats why we need to call them during business hrs and to a live person. That's what someone said on the last page. It makes sense when emailing them they can just delete it. At least by calling them we can talk to a live person.

I've written to them and had the email returned saying: "deleted without being opened"...de Leon among them.

the single biggest problem we in the firearms community have is apathy from the community as a whole about firearms related issues...as an example, my neighbors: "Don't care if "cop killer" bullets are outlawed...i don't own no gun nohow..."

it's not a matter of "IF", it's a matter of "WHEN" a full out attack on the 2A and firearms occurs...it's in the beginning stages now...

de Leon is a moron at best, but he is smart enough to figure out that a flanking maneuver of going after ammo will be easier than the firearms themselves.

the best thing we could do is attack de Leon and his base of support. his ignorance of firearms would be a beginning place.

i say attack because being static in this war will result in out an out defeat.

one example would be to demand he publicly show the statistics/proof of LE slain with "cop killer bullets"...bullets SPECIFICALLY designed and manufactured with that sole purpose in mind...to penetrate LE armor...

a really good start would be to have de Leon removed from office as being incompetent...he seems to be proving it daily.

BTW, I've FAXED my opposition to the moron/de Leon bill to our "representatives"...emails are too easily ignored or "lost"

Cylarz
04-10-2011, 9:34 PM
That $100 corresponds to $100 million when applied to a lawsuit against the state. Gura is asking for $3.5 million for the entirety of the Heller litigation, from start to finish (reference: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9693), spanning a period of more than 6 years. If he won a suit against California and asked for that amount, that would be like him asking the court to force us as individuals to pay $3.50. A pittance. Amortized over the time in question, that's 60 cents a year.


I'm just curious, kcbrown...what are you personally planning on doing, in order to help stop this bill?

AXI
04-10-2011, 10:48 PM
I dunno.

CGN has about 50,000 members. 5,000 are "active".

If each of the Active members write one letter explaining:

This bill has been introduced almost every year for the past 10
This bill has constantly been rejected as unworkable and most recently as unconstitutional
It costs the State money to defend bills like this from legal challenges
California is in a fiscal crisis - surely the money could be better spent elsewhere
Failure to understand the above calls into question the Legislator's qualifications
If the Legislator insists on supporting this bill, I will promise to donate at least $100 to his opponent's campaign

I realize that DeLeon's opponent isn't going to win on a Gun Rights platform. He might even be anti-gun, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE is better than DeLeon.

If we can start putting The Fear into them that they might lose their cars and per diems and health insurance and lunches for actively supporting gun control, maybe we can get them to shy away from it...

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?

Or you can vote for me in eight years.

kcbrown
04-10-2011, 11:01 PM
That $100 corresponds to $100 million when applied to a lawsuit against the state. Gura is asking for $3.5 million for the entirety of the Heller litigation, from start to finish (reference: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9693), spanning a period of more than 6 years. If he won a suit against California and asked for that amount, that would be like him asking the court to force us as individuals to pay $3.50. A pittance. Amortized over the time in question, that's 60 cents a year.


I'm just curious, kcbrown...what are you personally planning on doing, in order to help stop this bill?

Donate lots of money to CGF, SAF, etc. :43:

And continue to volunteer to assist CGF in whatever capacity I can (I've already done this, and I encourage everyone here to do the same).

I'd rather have my effort multiplied by thousands of times by using it to back the big guys than to spend it chasing the lottery.

But that's just my take on it. If the big guys in the room think that writing letters and such is a worthwhile task, I will do that, even if I think it's tilting at windmills. They know the political landscape much better than I do.

mag360
04-10-2011, 11:06 PM
better call tomorrow again. I called several offices including DeLeons a couple weeks ago about this. Actually spoke to some pee brained nitwit who tried to tell me shells have serial numbers.

I think I'll use the line of giving money to their opponent tomorrow when I make my calls again. We need to start doing letters to the editor of all CA newspapers too.

johnny_22
04-11-2011, 8:38 AM
Used this page to access the emails:

http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senemail.htp

and this list for who is in the committee:

http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/COMMITTEE/STANDING/PUBLICSAFETY/_home1/profile.htm

Sadly, Senator.Calderon@senate.ca.gov bounced! If anyone has a working email for him, please let us know.

WReyth
04-11-2011, 10:07 AM
I dunno.

CGN has about 50,000 members. 5,000 are "active".

If each of the Active members write one letter explaining:

This bill has been introduced almost every year for the past 10
This bill has constantly been rejected as unworkable and most recently as unconstitutional
It costs the State money to defend bills like this from legal challenges
California is in a fiscal crisis - surely the money could be better spent elsewhere
Failure to understand the above calls into question the Legislator's qualifications
If the Legislator insists on supporting this bill, I will promise to donate at least $100 to his opponent's campaign

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?

I have a question about when I'm writing/calling, would it be wise/unwise to mention CalGuns by name?

For example:

"I am a [member/associate] of the CalGuns Newtwork, which has 50,000 members. We are following this legislation closely and will bear it in mind when elections arrive. Furthermore, each of us is legally capable of contributing money to an Assembly member's opponent, even if we are not one of their constituents."

Cylarz
04-11-2011, 10:29 AM
The vote will be held tomorrow, so we need to make those calls TODAY. Remember to call your Senators' offices to urge them to oppose SB124, as well as call the committee on the Assembly side to stop *them* from banning open-carry and starting a long-gun registry.

Full contact information here:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6555

If you don't see the phone number on the front page of a Senator's website, it's often listed under "contact information." Call the Capitol office, as the Senator will ostensibly be at the State Capitol tomorrow to cast a vote in committee.

I just got off the phone with the Senate staffers. I reminded each one that if this bill passes into law, it is likely to be overturned in court just as its predecessor AB962 was earlier this year.

I also called all the Assembly offices listed under that link and asked them to oppose AB 144 and AB 809, which are being considered the same day on the Assembly side. (They ban open-carry and establish a long-gun registry, respectively.) At least two staffers told me they've been getting a LOT of calls about these.

Finally, I asked all those same Assembly members to *support* AB 1402 and AB 613:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6582

They're also being considered on the Assembly side the same day as SB124. These last two are actually good and deserving of our support.

Let's keep those Senate and Assembly staffers busy answering the phones, people. This is too important to sit on your hands.

Kcbrown here also has the right idea about donating heavily to organizations that help fight for gun rights in California. I think we need to do it all.

N6ATF
04-11-2011, 12:42 PM
I have a question about when I'm writing/calling, would it be wise/unwise to mention CalGuns by name?

The only name drop they will vote in accordance with is the International Criminals Union.

SupportGeek
04-12-2011, 11:37 AM
This was scheduled to be heard this morning at 9:30am, any news on the vote?

Im guessing it passed, but I remain hopeful.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
04-12-2011, 12:46 PM
Yes, it passed.

Uxi
04-12-2011, 12:53 PM
Course it did. Not enough Republicans to block it in the full Senate or Assembly, so it's almost assuredly going to JB's desk...

goober
04-12-2011, 2:01 PM
So now it's on to the Senate Appropriations Committee:


SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:
(916)651-4101
Room 2206

State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39), Chair
(916) 651-4039
Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mimi Walters (R-33), Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4033
Senator.Walters@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Elaine Alquist (D-13)
(916) 651-4013
Senator.Alquist@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Bill Emmerson (R-37)
(916) 651-4037
Senator.Emerson@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-28)
(916) 651-4028
Senator.Lieu@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Fran Pavley (D-23)
(916) 651-4023
Senator.Pavley@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Curren Price (D-26)
(916) 651-4026
Senator.Price@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Sharon Runner (R-17)
(916) 651-4017
Senator.Runner@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV

ubet
04-12-2011, 2:31 PM
will jb sign this?

Librarian
04-12-2011, 4:12 PM
will jb sign this?

The significant question.

Until it gets to the Assembly floor, hard to tell. He's unlikely to say much about it sooner.

But I'd like it if he'd tell the legislature "Look, we've got lots of laws and California won't collapse if your pet project does not get passed this session.

But we don't have a budget. It's absolutely irresponsible and counter to your oaths of office to be piddling around with other matters.

Without a budget, California might collapse."

mow
04-12-2011, 7:43 PM
Setting aside the ambiguity of using the term "metal" without a clear definition of the type of "metal" that this bill refers to (.5" steel & .005" aluminum foil are both metals) I think there are other issues that DeLeon will need to address if he is to adequately clarify his language.

How does one prove whether or not a particular projectile from an ammunition cartridge was designed to penetrate metal or armor?

The fact that projectiles fired from certain cartridges can penetrate metal and/or armor is one thing.

Would it be reasonable to expect that proof of intent be required for the design of the ammunition to be capable of penetrating metal or armor?

puppy8a9
04-12-2011, 10:16 PM
The dems played a bit dirty holding up all the gun lobbyists and lawyers at the assembly side today. They took items out of order so we could not be at two places at once. 809 and 144 were heard at the assembly. 124 did not have the correct opposition since we were on the 1st floor. DeLeon was leaving when we got up there. It was also moved rooms last minute to the 3rd floor.

What a frustrating day but expected

jpigeon
04-13-2011, 6:47 PM
:eek:Is it just me or does this new ammo ban go waaaaay too far, even for CA dems/commies.:mad:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6618

SB 124 passed in the Senate Public Safety Committee by a 5 to 2 vote (roll call vote). Introduced by anti-gun extremist state Senator Kevin De León (D-22), SB 124 would create a broadly expanded and technically flawed definition of handgun ammunition which would encompass virtually all rifle cartridges. It would also ban the possession of many types of rifle cartridges and make it a felony to possess them. SB 124 doesn’t stop there, it could also ban virtually all non-lead ammunition used in California by reclassifying them as “armor piercing.” If passed, this bill could result in a complete ban on hunting in the California condor zone in which the use of lead ammunition is prohibited for hunting. This bill has enormous ramifications for California gun owners and sportsmen.



If this bill did not already make owning a firearm difficult, an amendment was added by the bill sponsor to further add more problems for gun owners. SB 124 would also now require the registration of ammunition and the banning of mail-order ammunition.:confused:

Rob454
04-13-2011, 6:50 PM
it really is too sad that a beautiful state like California is run by a bunch of flippin morons. And we truly have a beautiful state. I recently drove to Monterey and loved every minute of the scenery. People that keep saying how bad this state is need to rephrase that into how badly RUN this state is.

jpigeon
04-13-2011, 6:51 PM
it really is too sad that a beautiful state like California is run by a bunch of flippin morons. And we truly have a beautiful state. I recently drove to Monterey and loved every minute of the scenery.

+1. The voters have fallen asleep at the wheel in some districts.

Connor P Price
04-13-2011, 7:25 PM
I'm going to have to give that bill another read.

Dutch3
04-13-2011, 7:44 PM
Unlikely that Moonbeam will sign it.

It might be prudent to stock up anyway.

wazdat
04-13-2011, 8:22 PM
+1. The voters have fallen asleep at the wheel in some districts.

No, not asleep. Liberal zombies...

BruceR
04-13-2011, 9:44 PM
"Moonbeam"
While I'm no big fan of Gov. Brown, he actually got one thing right back in the 70s -- state-wide, high-speed digital communications, the aim of his proposed satellite link. Today, we're using similar technology to participate here on our beloved CalGuns.

Maybe we can come up with a Medfly-related nickname . . .

Cylarz
04-13-2011, 10:32 PM
I'm going to play devil's advocate here JUST for a second:

From page G of http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_124_cfa_20110411_152928_sen_comm.html

This bill would amend the definition of armor-piercing
ammunition to read: "'handgun ammunition designed to penetrate
metal or armor' means any ammunition, except a shotgun shell,
that is capable of penetrating a body vest or body shield when
discharged from a handgun, and has either of the following
characteristics:

(a) has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one
or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass,
beryllium copper, or depleted uranium, or any equivalent
material of similar density or hardness.
(b) is primarily manufactured or designed, by virtue of its
shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly
known as "KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest
or body shield when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other
firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

This bill would conform several statutes that refer to "handgun
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" by
deleting the word "primarily" from each of these statutes.


Having said this, at the bottom of the page we find an "argument in opposition" from the California Association of Firearms Retailers (this is an excerpt):

The bill would expand the definition of armor piercing
handgun ammunition to mean any ammunition that can be
fired in a handgun that is "capable" of penetrating a
body vest or shield and which possesses any specified design characteristics, including listed
metallurgy, cross-sectional density and shape of
coating that could facilitate the penetration of such
vest or shield. It would specifically eliminate the
existing statutory exemption for rifle ammunition.



Okay, someone enlighten me here. Exactly what does this bill do? Unless I miss my guess, all it does is attempt to expand the definition of the term "handgun ammunition" and then not by much.

It says that "current law" already "generally" provides that armor piercing ammunition is illegal. Furthermore, the first quote above tells me exactly what "armor piercing ammunition" is, whether for handguns or rifles.

Now, I'm not a lawyer or a judge, just an ordinary schmo with (I think) a good dose of common sense in his head. I'm just not seeing where the bill says a damn thing about ordinary, common centerfire cartridges that aren't specifically designed as armor-piercing, i.e. don't meet any of the specified characteristics. It seems to me that the key word is designed, not capable as the argument-opposed seems to suggest. The word capable does appear, yes, but it seems to say "designed AND capable," not "designed OR capable." There's a difference.

As far as the ban on mail-order ammo goes, can anyone provide a link to this amendment that was referenced earlier? It doesn't seem to be anywhere on the Senate's website. I wanted to read the exact wording.

I'm sure this bill is very, very bad...don't get me wrong, and I'm also prepared to assume the very worst about DeLeon's intent. I'm quite sure he really doesn't give a rip about police officers (which is a shame, because we seem to have every local police dept in the state on-board with this), his intent is to provide an incremental and eventual ban on all ammunition. But will the bill really do what he thinks it will do?

Shame California doesn't realize this is going to get smacked-down in court if it does pass, especially if it gets by Moonbeam w/o the other house of the Legislature making some serious changes to the wording.

Assuming I'm dead-wrong and that the bill really would be read and enforced according to everyone's worst fears...

...has anyone in the state government stopped to realize just how many "felons" are going to be created out there - and how our jails and prisons would literally be bursting at the seams from overcrowding - if possessing ordinary hunting and target-shooting ammunition is now going to be such a serious crime? There would never be enough jail space to hold them all - we are talking about MILLIONS of California gun owners, every last one of which has at least a 20-round box of soft-point .308 cartridges or something in his gun cabinet next to the rifle. Have all these police departments who are on-board with this stopped to realize the amount of police and other local-government resources it would require to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate this many individuals? Remember, we're talking about criminalizing mere possession of prohibited ordnance.

It is impossible for me to believe that this many cops really think that disarming the public to this extent would be a swell idea. They probably heard "Ban cop killer bullets that can kill my guys right-through a flak vest? Hell yeah! Where do I sign-on to this?" I doubt even the chiefs of police have read the stupid thing like we have.

Not to mention the utter havoc it would wreak on every gun store in the state. Not being able to sell any centerfire ammo AT ALL would eliminate a major portion of their business, thereby pushing even MORE people out of work.

The utter ridiculousness of it all is enough to get it overturned as currently constituted, to say nothing of the complete and total violation of precedent of prior court rulings from the SCOTUS.

johndoe2150
04-13-2011, 11:41 PM
I would think it would ban some of the shotgun rounds through the taurus judge that can shoot .410...This is a waste of money for the state and lets hope the Governor dosn't allow this to pass.

Could this be an infringement on interstate commerce?

zvardan
04-14-2011, 12:13 AM
Signed or not, the bill is still as vague as its predicated companion, 962. there is no effective way to ban bullets without using caliber or core composition. The descriptor where you see "primarily to" or "primarily used for" is the key to winning. Those terms are not explicit and are relative to the purposes of legal interpretation in a future court case.

mag360
04-14-2011, 6:11 AM
well for one, it would ban certain types of 5.56, .308, and 7.62 as there are "handguns" that can shoot these rounds.

mag360
04-14-2011, 6:17 AM
I'm holding out with DeLeon's track record, he's a liberal gun grabbing nut from a gang ridden area of Los Angeles so by doing absurd bills like this he can tell his constituents he's tough on crime.

we have a crime problem, steeped mainly in lack of education and opportunity in these areas...not a bullet/gun/(insert here) problem.

ubet
04-14-2011, 6:37 AM
I'm holding out with DeLeon's track record, he's a liberal gun grabbing nut from a gang ridden area of Los Angeles so by doing absurd bills like this he can tell his constituents he's tough on crime.

we have a crime problem, steeped mainly in lack of education and opportunity in these areas...not a bullet/gun/(insert here) problem.

You are right, we DO have a crime problem. And that problem is deleon shredding the constitution, thats the crime I SEE!

AyatollahGondola
04-14-2011, 6:44 AM
Signed or not, the bill is still as vague as its predicated companion, 962. there is no effective way to ban bullets without using caliber or core composition. The descriptor where you see "primarily to" or "primarily used for" is the key to winning. Those terms are not explicit and are relative to the purposes of legal interpretation in a future court case.

They seem to like vague, ambiguously written bills these days. I've sat through some committee hearings, and even pointed out the ambiguities during testimony or comment periods. They don't care. That it might be weakened or even neutered by the courts is not enough to prevent them from realizing the benefits from those who don't challenge it or are unable to

Cylarz
04-14-2011, 9:37 AM
They seem to like vague, ambiguously written bills these days. I've sat through some committee hearings, and even pointed out the ambiguities during testimony or comment periods. They don't care. That it might be weakened or even neutered by the courts is not enough to prevent them from realizing the benefits from those who don't challenge it or are unable to

I have two theories on that:

1) Someone else stated earlier that some of the language in this bill may simply be a "placeholder" - DeLeon knows that bills are often modified as they pass through the Legislature. (I certainly never heard of amendments being added in-committee, however. Still would like to read the one that someone said was added yesterday.)

2) The author certainly would also know that bills are often "interpreted" by the court system after they're passed in to law. This in turn will set a pattern for how it's enforced.

I did have to chuckle at DeLeon whining about how the NRA went "judge shopping" in order to get his horrid AB962 bill struck down earlier this year. Funny, that. When the gun-grabbers win in court, it's justice. When gun-rights advocates win, it's because they went "judge shopping."

EBR Works
04-14-2011, 6:16 PM
Help me understand please. If this thing passes as written, would this make solid brass projectiles in all calibers illegal in California?

shocknm
04-14-2011, 6:33 PM
YDAPtQpUMXQ

jwkincal
04-14-2011, 6:35 PM
Are the various Thompson Center bolt handguns considered handguns based on the relevant language (I believe they are)? If that is true, then basically the letter of this bill would effectively ban almost all centerfire rifle ammunition (as it is all capable of penetrating standard body armor, when fired from a T/C; said arms having been chambered in nearly all conventional rifle cartridges).

In that respect, I imagine this instrument as law to be demonstrably unconstitutional because it will render an entire class of firearms unusable and that's pretty much a direct contravening of Heller...

Cylarz
04-14-2011, 6:50 PM
In that respect, I imagine this instrument as law to be demonstrably unconstitutional because it will render an entire class of firearms unusable and that's pretty much a direct contravening of Heller...

Possible, even probable.

It is also possible that a judge would look at the language I quoted above and say, "Armor piercing handgun ammo is already illegal. Ordinary hollow, softpoint, and FMJ ammo is nothing of the sort.

Bill is nonetheless in violation of (insert prior ruling here) as it poses an undue burden on the populace. Judgment for the plaintiff. Case dismissed."

RRangel
04-14-2011, 11:14 PM
Don't forget to make sure the appropriate reps hear from you. The anti-constitution radicals like Deleon also need to know they're opposed by citizens who are actually concerned about rights. Today we have incorporation. Thankfully those who actually push for this terrible legislation will not have the last word.

Grayling14
04-26-2011, 2:39 AM
[QUOTE=RRangel;6206333]Don't forget to make sure the appropriate reps hear from you.

Absolutely! Our elected representatives need to hear as many of our dissenting voices, (against anti-gun/ammunition legislation), as we can muster. Although, do not try to e-mail them if you live outside of their district(s), because the correspondance will likely be denied delivery. I tried to e-mail Senator Loni Hancock, (Chair, Committee on Public Safety), RE: SB 427, and received an automated response telling me to contact 'my' representative since I live outside of her district. Therefore, a conventional letter and phone call seem to be the only options.

I understand that the elected officials want to hear from the constituency that can vote for, or against them, but since they decide legislation that effects ALL Californians I find it frustrating that they ignore the majority of us.

HondaMasterTech
04-26-2011, 4:03 AM
The elected officials who support your beliefs are the only ones listening to you.

Librarian
04-26-2011, 10:02 AM
The elected officials who support your beliefs are the only ones listening to you.

As much as I'm sure that's accurate, speaking up is very important, even if many are not listening.

I've said before, if we KNOW we've communicated opposition, when they claim they haven't seen it we can give them the lie.

Sometimes, politicians are embarrassed to be called liars.

HondaMasterTech
04-26-2011, 10:11 AM
As much as I'm sure that's accurate, speaking up is very important, even if many are not listening.

I've said before, if we KNOW we've communicated opposition, when they claim they haven't seen it we can give them the lie.

Sometimes, politicians are embarrassed to be called liars.

I agree completely. It's our duty as Americans to pay attention and speak up.

kcbrown
04-26-2011, 2:34 PM
Sometimes, politicians are embarrassed to be called liars.


Uh huh.


:rofl2:

advocatusdiaboli
04-26-2011, 5:51 PM
Uh huh.


:rofl2:

I understand the cynicism—until McDonald gave us some hope, we've been battered in California quite hard. And even now that we have McDonald, it's sufficiently general and vague that we'll be fighting for years.

Maybe one day the battle will be lost—maybe not—but that is the future.

I simply know this—the cause is not lost yet and we have won some fights of late. But the day we stop trying it will be truly lost.

How much is your Second Amendment right worth to you? To me, it is valuable enough that I'll continue to put up resistance every way I can. With McDonald we went from guerilla warfare to the mainstream—I call that progress.

TKM
04-26-2011, 5:59 PM
I would think it would ban some of the shotgun rounds through the taurus judge that can shoot .410...This is a waste of money for the state and lets hope the Governor dosn't allow this to pass.

Could this be an infringement on interstate commerce?

Please tell us more about your Taurus Judge. Where'd you get it? Things like that.

I'd hate to think you just saw a shiny four color picture and assumed you could get one in California.



So he wants to reduce the number of through and through gsws? You know, the ones that don't really do a great deal of damage. I guess we will be required to carry Glaser rounds from here on out.

Can we get a state subsidy for expanding ammo?

Dreaded Claymore
04-26-2011, 5:59 PM
Don't forget to make sure the appropriate reps hear from you. The anti-constitution radicals like Deleon also need to know they're opposed by citizens who are actually concerned about rights. Today we have incorporation. Thankfully those who actually push for this terrible legislation will not have the last word.

I just got back from the Capitol. I spoke to the staff of my Assemblywoman and Senator, Joan Buchanan and Loni Hancock respectively, and told them about why SB144 was bad and that they should vote against it.

BOFH
04-26-2011, 6:04 PM
I just got back from the Capitol. I spoke to the staff of my Assemblywoman and Senator, Joan Buchanan and Loni Hancock respectively, and told them about why SB144 was bad and that they should vote against it.

Thank you.

kcbrown
04-27-2011, 1:03 AM
I understand the cynicism—until McDonald gave us some hope, we've been battered in California quite hard. And even now that we have McDonald, it's sufficiently general and vague that we'll be fighting for years.

Maybe one day the battle will be lost—maybe not—but that is the future.

I simply know this—the cause is not lost yet and we have won some fights of late. But the day we stop trying it will be truly lost.

How much is your Second Amendment right worth to you? To me, it is valuable enough that I'll continue to put up resistance every way I can. With McDonald we went from guerilla warfare to the mainstream—I call that progress.

Oh, I'm in full agreement with you here.

But let's not make faulty claims about why we're doing what we're doing.

It was only that particular effect that I was calling BS on, not the entire idea of speaking out!


Now, in a couple of decades, maybe we'll have a few politicians who will actually be embarrassed to be called out as liars. But not today. Today, the reason for speaking out is in part to take full advantage of whatever slim chance there might be that the arguments will somehow influence the politician in question, but most importantly, it's to sway those who may have influence over the politician(s) in question -- whether they be voters, aides, or whatever.

advocatusdiaboli
04-27-2011, 5:06 AM
Now, in a couple of decades, maybe we'll have a few politicians who will actually be embarrassed to be called out as liars. But not today. Today, the reason for speaking out is in part to take full advantage of whatever slim chance there might be that the arguments will somehow influence the politician in question, but most importantly, it's to sway those who may have influence over the politician(s) in question -- whether they be voters, aides, or whatever.

I understand and I agree with your point—I just wanted to change the direction of the thread.

Spin dominates truth in modern media-obsessed America. so politicians never really get called out for being liars—they slander the people calling them out with more lies and the media focus on the controversy (because it brings in share which is how they earn ad fees) and rather than trying to present facts, they just present opposing views as opinions—never mind that on most issues one side has significantly more supporting facts than the other.

It's a tough call: private media only care about profits while government media only care about government stability and control. Neither cares about informing the people which is the cornerstone of any democracy—having an informed and educated electorate. And because we don't have an informed electorate any more, our political state has descended into this morass of self-interest and corruption.

Librarian
04-27-2011, 8:28 AM
It was only that particular effect that I was calling BS on, not the entire idea of speaking out!


Now, in a couple of decades, maybe we'll have a few politicians who will actually be embarrassed to be called out as liars. But not today.

Well, I did say sometimes. Just not often enough (like, every time they're caught they should be embarrassed/feel embarrassment, and punished politically).

notme92069
04-28-2011, 7:40 AM
While reading the forum regarding this proposed bill, I became concerned about being able to purchase ammo for my AR (chambered in 7.62 x 39) The discussions here highlighted the possibility that 7.62 x 39 (and .223/5.56) could be used in handguns. After checking the PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) roster of safe handguns, I couldn't help but notice that you can't purchase a handgun here chambered in those rounds.

Could this be another glaring hole in this poorly written law?

I'm willing to bet you will tell me your thoughts on this!

advocatusdiaboli
04-28-2011, 7:56 AM
While reading the forum regarding this proposed bill, I became concerned about being able to purchase ammo for my AR (chambered in 7.62 x 39) The discussions here highlighted the possibility that 7.62 x 39 (and .223/5.56) could be used in handguns. After checking the PRK (Peoples Republik of Kalifornia) roster of safe handguns, I couldn't help but notice that you can't purchase a handgun here chambered in those rounds.

Could this be another glaring hole in this poorly written law?

I'm willing to bet you will tell me your thoughts on this!

Shhhh. Don't tell them until it's passed by the weenies in the House. Then a court can easily strike it down or at least provide injunctive relief ;-) They read this forum to learn, not what you and I say, but what Gene and others might reveal about tactics and strategies. Seriously.

komifornian
05-01-2011, 7:35 AM
What a f-ing joke! The way this bill reads virtually all ammunition will be deemed handgun ammo.... and subject to the conditions of ab962

Whiterabbit
05-01-2011, 8:07 AM
will brass be deemed ammunition? :)

Maestro Pistolero
05-01-2011, 8:35 AM
"We hereby declare that apples are illegal. And, by the way all oranges are apples."

goober
05-01-2011, 8:55 AM
Bump for this.
It's scheduled to be heard tomorrow Monday May 2nd in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Tell 'em what you think if you're so inclined.


SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE:
(916)651-4101
Room 2206

State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39), Chair
(916) 651-4039
Senator.Kehoe@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Mimi Walters (R-33), Vice-Chair
(916) 651-4033
Senator.Walters@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Elaine Alquist (D-13)
(916) 651-4013
Senator.Alquist@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Bill Emmerson (R-37)
(916) 651-4037
Senator.Emerson@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Ted W. Lieu (D-28)
(916) 651-4028
Senator.Lieu@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Fran Pavley (D-23)
(916) 651-4023
Senator.Pavley@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Curren Price (D-26)
(916) 651-4026
Senator.Price@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Sharon Runner (R-17)
(916) 651-4017
Senator.Runner@SENATE.CA.GOV

State Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-6)
(916) 651-4006
Senator.Steinberg@SENATE.CA.GOV

komifornian
05-01-2011, 9:15 AM
Hopefully a court will find like ab962 this is also uniforceable and giant waste time

diginit
05-01-2011, 11:40 AM
The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to hear SB 124 this Monday, May 2 at 11:00 A.M. in Room 4203.


The Assembly Appropriations Committee is expected to hear AB 144 and AB 809 this Wednesday, May 4.

AB809...Longgun registration...
They're at it again! :(

goober
05-02-2011, 1:31 PM
Anybody hear yet what happened on SB124 today? Was it heard?

advocatusdiaboli
05-02-2011, 1:48 PM
Eugene Volokh is in denial:
"it goes on to note that the challengers didn’t say the law made it “materially more difficult to obtain firearms.” Had a law made guns materially harder — including materially more expensive — to get, then this would have been a different case."

Does anyone think that if Walmart closed a store in Alameda their goods and services would not be harder to access at least for some? And those are goods and services—not rights. If common sense tells us that market closings restrict access to goods, increasing their scarcity and making them more expensive, why then does that not apply to rights?

darkwater
05-02-2011, 2:44 PM
Anybody hear yet what happened on SB124 today? Was it heard?

Yes, it was, but I missed the vote, if any, as it was noon and I had to leave the office for a lunch.

puppy8a9
05-02-2011, 3:14 PM
I was not presented and was put into the suspense file with a high likelyhood that it will not make it out.

This means SB 661 and 124 are both suspense now. 661 will not return this year.

sb427 and 809 will likely also be suspense which means our main concerns left unless I am forgetting one or two are AB 144 and the bb gun one SB 798

We are getting closer

Rock6.3
05-02-2011, 3:29 PM
AB 144 and AB 809 are still up for this Wednesday I think.

advocatusdiaboli
05-02-2011, 4:21 PM
Here's a good place to go for CA firearm legislative information:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/Specific.aspx?st=CA

goober
05-02-2011, 5:53 PM
Here's a good place to go for CA firearm legislative information:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/Specific.aspx?st=CA

yes, in general. lags considerably at times, but sometimes more current than our ca.gov resources.

Mr.Glock45
05-02-2011, 10:24 PM
I was not presented and was put into the suspense file with a high likelyhood that it will not make it out.

This means SB 661 and 124 are both suspense now. 661 will not return this year.

sb427 and 809 will likely also be suspense which means our main concerns left unless I am forgetting one or two are AB 144 and the bb gun one SB 798

We are getting closer
Any chance sb 124 comes back into play?

Cylarz
05-02-2011, 10:39 PM
I was not presented and was put into the suspense file with a high likelyhood that it will not make it out.

This means SB 661 and 124 are both suspense now. 661 will not return this year.

sb427 and 809 will likely also be suspense which means our main concerns left unless I am forgetting one or two are AB 144 and the bb gun one SB 798

We are getting closer

Does this mean all four are effectively dead? What does "suspense file" even mean?

I remember last year or year before - whenever it was - the infamous AB962 was in the "suspense file" at one point or another. It was eventually revived, sent on through the process, and became law after Ah-nold signed it over our objections.

Of course it was later overturned in court; I'm just saying that "suspense file" evidently isn't the same as "dead."

dantodd
05-02-2011, 11:44 PM
Eugene Volokh is in denial:


Does anyone think that if Walmart closed a store in Alameda their goods and services would not be harder to access at least for some? And those are goods and services&mdash;not rights. If common sense tells us that market closings restrict access to goods, increasing their scarcity and making them more expensive, why then does that not apply to rights?

This might be true were it not for the ten day wait which still requires a trip to the ffl.

30rdMag
05-03-2011, 12:05 AM
So with all the cuts to much needed services and schools in this state. Why someone has not put a dollar amount that it takes to put forth these stupid laws that later get "shot" down. Just take that and show the public that john-law-maker is wasting tax dollars trying to make a law that will never make it into the books.

Point out the Cost vs. the over all good of the law, in economic times of today.
From the cost to draw the law up from a clueless brain storm to johny-law-maker defending his law in court.
Thats got to be millions of dollars being wasted, That could be better spent on education or repairing all the roads in California.

winxp_man
05-03-2011, 12:31 AM
They gotta try the SH!!!!!T anyways to look good in the face of idiots ! Thats all. They know there wasting money and dont give a SH!!!TTT about it cause if they did they would stop.