PDA

View Full Version : Another BB story on KPIX CBS 5 (may contain Yee bill)


lilro
05-22-2012, 5:32 PM
I just saw a commercial for yet another bullet button "loophole" story on CBS. I'm guessing it's gonna be about the new Yee bill. It comes on at 6. (30 minutes from now)

monk
05-22-2012, 5:37 PM
You sure this isn't a dup?

lilro
05-22-2012, 5:42 PM
You sure this isn't a dup?

It could be, but I glanced the first page and didn't see a mention of CBS. A bunch of Yee threads though. It might be buried in one.

EDIT: Or are you asking if they are re-airing the old story? I don't think they are. The brief clip they showed was different than the other one.

MTG Firearms
05-22-2012, 5:50 PM
Any idea on how people in Sacramento with directv can watch this?

lilro
05-22-2012, 5:55 PM
Any idea on how people in Sacramento with directv can watch this?

If they do the same as the last one, it should be available here: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/video/ after it airs.

monk
05-22-2012, 6:04 PM
It could be, but I glanced the first page and didn't see a mention of CBS. A bunch of Yee threads though. It might be buried in one.

EDIT: Or are you asking if they are re-airing the old story? I don't think they are. The brief clip they showed was different than the other one.

There were two stories. The first one was about the bullet button itself, second was about the banning of the bullet button.

4DMASTR
05-22-2012, 6:12 PM
Seemed like a update, Watching and waiting now....

lilro
05-22-2012, 6:13 PM
There were two stories. The first one was about the bullet button itself, second was about the banning of the bullet button.

Well the one they are about to air has statements from Yee in the preview...It should be on within the next few minutes.

lilro
05-22-2012, 6:21 PM
It's on now.

Librarian
05-22-2012, 6:23 PM
Aaaaand, it's mostly a repeat.

4DMASTR
05-22-2012, 6:24 PM
Not too much new info other then he wants to "ban the bullet button"

franklinarmory
05-22-2012, 6:27 PM
Is there a link to the actual text? All I found was a gutted out ag bill from last year.

yakmon
05-22-2012, 6:50 PM
Get the feeling their sweeps week parlor trick is working?

hoffmang
05-22-2012, 6:58 PM
Text is here: http://calffl.org/news/news/96-text-of-sb-249-yee-released.html

-Gene

franklinarmory
05-22-2012, 7:02 PM
Yeah, I got that earlier, but the link is the Cal-FFL press release, not the text of the bill.

mosinnagantm9130
05-22-2012, 7:04 PM
Yeah, I got that earlier, but the link is the Cal-FFL press release, not the text of the bill.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94481488/California-Senate-Bill-SB-249-as-of-5-22-12

franklinarmory
05-22-2012, 7:07 PM
Yeah, that's not text of a bill either. ...thanks for trying though. I appreciate the gesture.

mosinnagantm9130
05-22-2012, 7:09 PM
Yeah, that's not text of a bill either. ...thanks for trying though. I appreciate the gesture.

Did you scroll down? It looks like the text of the bill to me:confused:

707electrician
05-22-2012, 7:14 PM
Did you scroll down? It looks like the text of the bill to me:confused:

Reading fail maybe?

ivanimal
05-22-2012, 7:15 PM
Yeah, that's not text of a bill either. ...thanks for trying though. I appreciate the gesture.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/94481488/California-Senate-Bill-SB-249-as-of-5-22-12

L4D
05-22-2012, 7:15 PM
if your looking on your smart phone. swipe to the next page.

bigdawg86
05-22-2012, 7:16 PM
Scroll Down...The text shall appear. That crap was kinda a headache to read.

Clownpuncher
05-22-2012, 7:16 PM
Has anyone thought of pressuring the "unbiased" KPIX or CBS corporate over the fact that they appear to be in the pocket of Senator Yee? With all the coincidences regarding their stories, Yee's "reaction" and subsequent legislation I would think it could signifcantly call into question CBS' news practices.
With shows/franchises such as NCIS, CSI, and other "violent" tv shows I find it odd that a corporate owned (vice affiliate) TV station would be so biased, especially on a constitutional issue, that could risk nationwide action.

bigdawg86
05-22-2012, 7:21 PM
I'm no genius, but it keeps talking about converting our guns into "assault weapons" via conversion kits... but by definition our guns are not "assault weapons"to begin with due to the fixed magazine and ten round capacity. I am confused :helpsmilie:
http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq173/CunniJA/kim-jong-il-in-team-america.jpg

pacifico23
05-22-2012, 7:26 PM
Edit.

Fot
05-22-2012, 7:31 PM
Wow.. what a horridly written bill.

Tacit Blue
05-22-2012, 7:38 PM
This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a conversion kit a public nuisance, would authorize a civil action to enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would authorize imposition of a civil fine,and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require disposition of the conversion kit. Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to relinquish an assault weapon to a police or
sheriff’s department.

Wow..

Will our current rifles be grandfather'd in? Or will possessing them as in the current state still apply?

franklinarmory
05-22-2012, 7:43 PM
okay, I confess. I didn't see that that was below it. :stuart:

edward
05-22-2012, 7:44 PM
Initial reading of the bill I can find nothing that changes the definition of a fixed magazine. Nothing that changes the definition of a "readily detachable magazine". Nothing that changes the definition of a "tool". Nothing that infringes on the areas of the law that the bullet button fits into.

The bill, as written and posted, appears to make "AW conversion kits" illegal, in that it spells out that if you have a weapon (whether it be rife, pistol or shotgun) that does not fit the established CA criteria of an AW, but you DO have a part that could, when attached, make it an AW, then that part is the conversion piece and thus illegal.

But, legally speaking, the BB does not do that.

The Mag Magnet does...

559luke
05-22-2012, 7:46 PM
Can anyone hazard a guess as to how many BB equipped OLL's exist in CA?

pacifico23
05-22-2012, 7:48 PM
I think the bill refers to the mag magnet. Am I wrong?

707electrician
05-22-2012, 7:48 PM
Initial reading of the bill I can find nothing that changes the definition of a fixed magazine. Nothing that changes the definition of a "readily detachable magazine". Nothing that changes the definition of a "tool". Nothing that infringes on the areas of the law that the bullet button fits into.

The bill, as written and posted, appears to make "AW conversion kits" illegal, in that it spells out that if you have a weapon (whether it be rife, pistol or shotgun) that does not fit the established CA criteria of an AW, but you DO have a part that could, when attached, make it an AW, then that part is the conversion piece and thus illegal.

But, legally speaking, the BB does not do that.

The Mag Magnet does...

This. I don't see anything that would make the bullet button illegal

stitchnicklas
05-22-2012, 7:48 PM
:90::90::90::90:


the bill is so badly written that passing it would be illegal and a direct violation of the 2A
it gives the 600,000+ ar owners in California no option except confiscation of legally acquired and owned firearms. (arrest or turn the gun in).



the fail is big that there is no pictogram to describe it

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 7:49 PM
Initial reading of the bill I can find nothing that changes the definition of a fixed magazine. Nothing that changes the definition of a "readily detachable magazine". Nothing that changes the definition of a "tool". Nothing that infringes on the areas of the law that the bullet button fits into.

The bill, as written and posted, appears to make "AW conversion kits" illegal, in that it spells out that if you have a weapon (whether it be rife, pistol or shotgun) that does not fit the established CA criteria of an AW, but you DO have a part that could, when attached, make it an AW, then that part is the conversion piece and thus illegal.

But, legally speaking, the BB does not do that.

The Mag Magnet does...

I realize discussion is entertaining and may even be therapeutic, but continuing to talk about what this bill possibly can or cannot due may help the opposition who may or may not be lurking on these boards. The other thread was closed and deleted because of this.

stitchnicklas
05-22-2012, 7:50 PM
text copy

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.

SB 249 as amended May 22, 2012
May 22, 2012Page 22370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332 Madera, CA 93637(888) 541-3040 voice

(888) 541-9011 faxwww.calffl.org
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 22, 2012AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 14, 2011AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

2011

2012 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL

No. 249

Introduced by Senator Yee(Principal Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Ma)
February 10, 2011An act toadd Section 4132 to the Food and Agricultural
amend Section 31100 of, to amend, repeal, and add Section 30800 of, and to add Sections 30527 and 30618 to, the Penal
Code, relating todistrictagricultural associations
firearms
.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 249, as amended, Yee.District agricultural associations: 1-A District Agricultural Association:facilities.
Firearms: assault weapon conversion kits.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, prohibits the possession of an assault weapon, as defined, and makes violations subject to criminal penalties.This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, and with certain exceptions, prohibit any person fromimporting, making, selling, loaning, transferring, or possessing any conversion kit, as defined, designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine into firearms with the capacity to accept a detachablemagazine and other features making the firearm an assault weapon and would make violations subject tocriminal penalties. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes possession of an assault weapon a public nuisance, authorizes the Attorney General,district attorney, or city attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin possession of the weapon, authorizesimposition of a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions, requires disposition of the weapon by sale at public auction or by destruction.This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a conversion kit a public nuisance, would authorize a civil action to enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would authorize imposition of a civil fine,and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require disposition of the conversion kit. Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to relinquish an assault weapon to a police or
sheriff’s department.


California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.

SB 249 as amended May 22, 2012
May 22, 2012Page 32370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332 Madera, CA 93637(888) 541-3040 voice

(888) 541-9011 faxwww.calffl.org
This bill would authorize a person to arrange in advance to relinquish a conversion kit to a police or
sheriff’s department.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certaincosts 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.
Existing law divides the state into district agricultural associations for the purposes of, among otherthings, holding fairs and expositions exhibiting all of the industries and industrial enterprises, resources,and products of every kind or nature of the state with a view toward improving, exploiting, encouraging,and stimulating those industries. Existing law provides that the 1-A District Agricultural Associationgoverns the agricultural district that encompasses the County of San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco.This bill would require the 1-A District Agricultural Association, 30 days before final approval of the useof a facility that is owned or leased by the association by any exhibitor that is not a public entity, tosubmit to the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Daly City, and the San Mateo CountyManager a complete and detailed written description of the proposed event, including a specified risk assessment. The bill would require the association to include in the contract with the exhibitor, or as anaddendum to a contract, a provision requiring the exhibitor to assume all financial liability for the event.The bill would also require that the exhibitor reimburse the jurisdictions surrounding the facility for theactual costs of emergency services incurred as a result of or caused by the event held at the facility. Thebill would also require the association to enforce this bill by requiring a sufficient security bond or otherguarantees from the exhibitor that are acceptable to the jurisdictions surrounding the facility and the boardof the association.
Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program:no
yes
Urgency:no TaxLevy: no
Bill TextTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:SECTION 1.

Section 30527 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

30527.
(a) As
used in this chapter a “conversion kit” means either of the following:
(1) Any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed andintended to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following:(A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(C) Paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(2) Any part that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, is designed solely and exclusively to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following:(A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515

707electrician
05-22-2012, 7:50 PM
Assuming that conversion kit = Bullet Button then possession of a BB is a crime. Take away the BB and you're left with an AW or converting to featureless. I don't see any provision for registration or even reimbursement (not that getting cash from our bankrupt state would make this BS bill OK). It's pure confiscation and pure BS. Can anyone hazard a guess as to how many BB equipped OLL's exist in CA?

A bullet button cannot be considered a 'conversion kit' under this bill because it does not create an assault weapon under current law

stitchnicklas
05-22-2012, 7:50 PM
text copy

.

SB 249 as amended May 22, 2012
May 22, 2012Page 22370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332 Madera, CA 93637(888) 541-3040 voice

(888) 541-9011 faxwww.calffl.org
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 22, 2012AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 14, 2011AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

2011

2012 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL

No. 249

Introduced by Senator Yee(Principal Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Ma)
February 10, 2011An act toadd Section 4132 to the Food and Agricultural
amend Section 31100 of, to amend, repeal, and add Section 30800 of, and to add Sections 30527 and 30618 to, the Penal
Code, relating todistrictagricultural associations
firearms
.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 249, as amended, Yee.District agricultural associations: 1-A District Agricultural Association:facilities.
Firearms: assault weapon conversion kits.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, prohibits the possession of an assault weapon, as defined, and makes violations subject to criminal penalties.This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, and with certain exceptions, prohibit any person fromimporting, making, selling, loaning, transferring, or possessing any conversion kit, as defined, designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine into firearms with the capacity to accept a detachablemagazine and other features making the firearm an assault weapon and would make violations subject tocriminal penalties. By creating new crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law makes possession of an assault weapon a public nuisance, authorizes the Attorney General,district attorney, or city attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin possession of the weapon, authorizesimposition of a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions, requires disposition of the weapon by sale at public auction or by destruction.This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a conversion kit a public nuisance, would authorize a civil action to enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would authorize imposition of a civil fine,and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require disposition of the conversion kit. Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to relinquish an assault weapon to a police or sheriff’s department.


SB 249 as amended May 22, 2012
May 22, 2012Page 32370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332 Madera, CA 93637(888) 541-3040 voice

(888) 541-9011 faxwww.calffl.org
This bill would authorize a person to arrange in advance to relinquish a conversion kit to a police or
sheriff’s department.
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.
Existing law divides the state into district agricultural associations for the purposes of, among other things, holding fairs and expositions exhibiting all of the industries and industrial enterprises, resources,and products of every kind or nature of the state with a view toward improving, exploiting, encouraging,and stimulating those industries. Existing law provides that the 1-A District Agricultural Association governs the agricultural district that encompasses the County of San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco.This bill would require the 1-A District Agricultural Association, 30 days before final approval of the use of a facility that is owned or leased by the association by any exhibitor that is not a public entity, to submit to the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Daly City, and the San Mateo County Manager a complete and detailed written description of the proposed event, including a specified risk assessment. The bill would require the association to include in the contract with the exhibitor, or as anaddendum to a contract, a provision requiring the exhibitor to assume all financial liability for the event.The bill would also require that the exhibitor reimburse the jurisdictions surrounding the facility for theactual costs of emergency services incurred as a result of or caused by the event held at the facility. Thebill would also require the association to enforce this bill by requiring a sufficient security bond or otherguarantees from the exhibitor that are acceptable to the jurisdictions surrounding the facility and the boardof the association.
Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program:no
yes
Urgency:no TaxLevy: no
Bill TextTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:SECTION 1.

Section 30527 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

30527.
(a) As
used in this chapter a “conversion kit” means either of the following:
(1) Any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed andintended to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following:(A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(C) Paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(2) Any part that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, is designed solely and exclusively to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following:(A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.(B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515

g00bs762
05-22-2012, 7:55 PM
So does that mean a pistol grip, flash hider or telescoping stock on a fixed magazine gun constitutes a "conversion kit?"

bigdawg86
05-22-2012, 7:55 PM
In hindsite agree about closing the speculation threads... instead everyone should add the amazon CalGun links to your sig, even blast it out to your friends on facebook to try and show support. Don't worry my CGF donation is in the works lol

Librarian
05-22-2012, 7:57 PM
Assuming that conversion kit = Bullet Button then possession of a BB is a crime. Take away the BB and you're left with an AW or converting to featureless. I don't see any provision for registration or even reimbursement (not that getting cash from our bankrupt state would make this BS bill OK). It's pure confiscation and pure BS. Can anyone hazard a guess as to how many BB equipped OLL's exist in CA?

Hundreds of thousands, at least.

Now hush! Don't help the opposition! Loose keyboards sink OLLs, or something like that.

cranemech
05-22-2012, 7:58 PM
I realize discussion is entertaining and may even be therapeutic, but continuing to talk about what this bill possibly can or cannot due may help the opposition who may or may not be lurking on these boards. The other thread was closed and deleted because of this.

In case people didn't bother to read this the first time. :mad:

AlexDD
05-22-2012, 7:58 PM
Posted then withdrew. Better to not give hints to the other side.

edward
05-22-2012, 8:05 PM
I realize discussion is entertaining and may even be therapeutic, but continuing to talk about what this bill possibly can or cannot due may help the opposition who may or may not be lurking on these boards. The other thread was closed and deleted because of this.

Ohh come now. Even the most brain-dead half-witted slack-jawed Gobemouche of a legislative aide would have already realized exactly what I said. The proposed bill is actually simple.

In the first (small) section, it says conversion kits are illegal, and redirects you to existing law to spell out exactly what a conversion kit is. Namely, it is something that gives you a CA defined AW (ACCORDING TO EXISTING LAW).

The rest of those few pages deal with amending the enforcement and exemptions sections of the law that are effected by this new class of illegal items.

And the CGF twitter already blasted out that this bill (as it stands) deals only with Mag Magnets.
http://twitter.com/#!/CalgunsFdn/statuses/205059093638037506

There have been technical discussions on this forum that are orders of magnitude more informative and multi-faceted than this. We might as well go and delete them all if we are clamming up about something this simple and straightforward. There is no nuance to this at all.

bigdawg86
05-22-2012, 8:08 PM
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l88/Matt19871/Brick.jpg

franklinarmory
05-22-2012, 8:09 PM
Firearm Salesman of the year!
http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08.senate.ca.gov/files/images/01senator-leland-yee.thumbnail.jpg
...and first two quarters of next year! ;)

SanPedroShooter
05-22-2012, 8:10 PM
I knew it. I agree with idea of not speculating too freely, but the mag magnet business was a giveaway. Bullet buttons do not 'convert' anything, unless you count making an illegal item legal... Sort of like a hands free set for your cell phone in the car...

Personmans
05-22-2012, 8:12 PM
Firearm Salesman of the year!
http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08.senate.ca.gov/files/images/01senator-leland-yee.thumbnail.jpg
...and first two quarters of next year! ;)


Seriously. I considered buying a few more.

PS Hotlinking images from his website will bring them to calguns.net ;)

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 8:18 PM
Ohh come now. Even the most brain-dead half-witted slack-jawed Gobemouche of a legislative aide would have already realized exactly what I said. The proposed bill is actually simple.

In the first (small) section, it says conversion kits are illegal, and redirects you to existing law to spell out exactly what a conversion kit is. Namely, it is something that gives you a CA defined AW (ACCORDING TO EXISTING LAW).

The rest of those few pages deal with amending the enforcement and exemptions sections of the law that are effected by this new class of illegal items.

And the CGF twitter already blasted out that this bill (as it stands) deals only with Mag Magnets.
http://twitter.com/#!/CalgunsFdn/statuses/205059093638037506

There have been technical discussions on this forum that are orders of magnitude more informative and multi-faceted than this. We might as well go and delete them all if we are clamming up about something this simple and straightforward. There is no nuance to this at all.

Well as long as you want to help them and go against the advice of those who are actually working for us on this. I guess you're absolutely right.

edward
05-22-2012, 8:28 PM
Well as long as you want to help them and go against the advice of those who are actually working for us on this. I guess you're absolutely right.

But they already posted on Twitter what I just posted here...

Whatever. :sleeping:

NSR500
05-22-2012, 8:37 PM
:popcorn:

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 8:40 PM
But they already posted on Twitter what I just posted here...

Whatever. :sleeping:

link?

vincewarde
05-22-2012, 8:43 PM
So does that mean a pistol grip, flash hider or telescoping stock on a fixed magazine gun constitutes a "conversion kit?"

Another question is: If you have a featureless build and have a flash hider or pistol grip that is not installed on a firearm, is that now a "conversion kit" - does the bill effectively create "constructive possession"?

edward
05-22-2012, 8:51 PM
link?

The link I posted in the post you quoted...

Here it is again.
http://twitter.com/#!/CalgunsFdn/statuses/205059093638037506


CGF Twitter:

SB 249 - Yee. Current proposed text only outlaws possession, import, sale of the Mag Magnet. Text coming.

And then of course Cal-FFL posted the full text.

GOEX FFF
05-22-2012, 9:01 PM
So, since Yee knows (as we all did) that the use of the Mag magnet creates an "AW", is he gonna care that CBS committed a felony on TV during their
first report? Notice that they didn't show it on this latest one. Nah, I'll bet he'll just turn his head and give them a free ride.

Lone_Gunman
05-22-2012, 9:28 PM
This bill reads like it was written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are trying to legislate. I won't elaborate, but wow, horribly written.

hoffmang
05-22-2012, 9:33 PM
edwardm is being appropriately careful. There are some scope issues with the bill as proposed, but it really is only attempting to make more illegal a future event which is already illegal if done in California.

-Gene

lear60man
05-22-2012, 9:43 PM
edwardm is being appropriately careful. There are some scope issues with the bill as proposed, but it really is only attempting to make more illegal a future event which is already illegal if done in California.

-Gene


If that was his intent, then it sure got muddied in a bunch of legaleze. I didnt know what the hell he was talking about.

On another note, If we keep on pointing out the bills fallacies, we are their greatest resource. They just rewrite the bill to include BB's or introduce new verbage to outlaw other features or worst yet, AR/AK 'type' weapons.

edward
05-22-2012, 10:04 PM
If that was his intent, then it sure got muddied in a bunch of legaleze. Thank you! I've been working on my Master's in B***S*** I didnt know what the hell he was talking about.

On another note, If we keep on pointing out the bills fallacies Maybe they aren't fallacies?, we are their greatest resource No argument. They just rewrite the bill to include BB's Difficulty Mode: Hard or introduce new verbage to outlaw other features or worst yet, AR/AK 'type' weapons Difficulty Mode: Insanity.

I don't think making a careful straightforward assessment of a bill that is now in the public domain does anything. There is a clear difference between saying; "Yee posted this bill and after reading it, here is what it evidently does and doesn't do", versus saying; "Yee posted this bill and thank Carl Sagan he didn't do X, Y, and Z, using this specific language cause that would have really f***** us hardcore!".

The people who wrote the bill for him (cause of course he couldn't have done it himself) have to know what their bill would effect and doesn't yet effect. They are stupid, but not Stupid (if that makes sense).

Now that it's out there; best that it be analyzed and gun owners know the analysis rather than be kept in the dark about what it could entail. Again, there is a difference between doing that and then proactively expounding on it with ideas about "what the bill could have been", which is self-evidently bad.

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 10:16 PM
Initial reading of the bill I can find nothing that changes the definition of a fixed magazine. Nothing that changes the definition of a "readily detachable magazine". Nothing that changes the definition of a "tool". Nothing that infringes on the areas of the law that the bullet button fits into.

The bill, as written and posted, appears to make "AW conversion kits" illegal, in that it spells out that if you have a weapon (whether it be rife, pistol or shotgun) that does not fit the established CA criteria of an AW, but you DO have a part that could, when attached, make it an AW, then that part is the conversion piece and thus illegal.

But, legally speaking, the BB does not do that.

The Mag Magnet does...

The mag magnet is CGF's interpretation of what they say the bill is specifying, but the text of the bill remains vague enough for me to be skeptical. Conversion kits as described could be almost anything, though not the bullet button which is legal.

I won't get into more detail, but I have a guess as to what CGF is partly positioning us into. I have trust that the outcome will be favorable, but there are hazards involved if mistakes are made.

Swiss
05-22-2012, 10:19 PM
What are the chances that they'll swap out the language at the last second and try for a ban on the BB?

edwardm is being appropriately careful. There are some scope issues with the bill as proposed, but it really is only attempting to make more illegal a future event which is already illegal if done in California.

-Gene

edward
05-22-2012, 10:20 PM
The mag magnet is CGF's interpretation of what they say the bill is specifying, but the text of the bill remains vague enough for me to be skeptical. Conversion kits as described could be almost anything, though not the bullet button which is legal.

I won't get into more detail, but I have a guess as to what CGF is partly positioning us into. I have trust that the outcome will be favorable, but there are hazards involved if mistakes are made.

Right. Occam's Razor though. :cool: ;)

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 10:21 PM
edwardm is being appropriately careful. There are some scope issues with the bill as proposed, but it really is only attempting to make more illegal a future event which is already illegal if done in California.

-Gene

Your achievements and experience have earned my trust but I hope you understand my skepticism and overcautiousness. Sorry to say, but some LEO aren't the brightest of the bunch and this bill is dangerous if it is easily misinterpreted by them.

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 10:24 PM
What are the chances that they'll swap out the language at the last second and try for a ban on the BB?

Kind of hard to ban the locking mechanism that makes the rifle legal. So I think the chances remain low.

Santa Cruz Armory
05-22-2012, 10:30 PM
I just love poorly written bills..... sick 'em CGF! :43:

Ubermcoupe
05-22-2012, 10:59 PM
... but it really is only attempting to make more illegal a future event which is already illegal if done in California.

-Gene

So what I am hearing is that this politician (call me a cynic) is doing what all other politicians do; proposing useless law that essentially makes the illegal more illegal? And at the end of the day said politician can turn to their constituency and say “look, I am being tough on guns” and use it as fodder when reelection comes around?

:facepalm::willy_nilly::turned::stuart::90:

gunsandrockets
05-22-2012, 11:06 PM
Holy crap! That bill is really really bad.

In the interest of operational security, I will not spell out specifically what is wrong with the bill.

Suffice to say, the writer of the bill is a fool.

m03
05-22-2012, 11:12 PM
1) Would this bill criminalize the possession of standard magazine release parts in combination with a magazine-lock-equipped non-assault-weapon? That would be a huge pain for people who travel to out-of-state events and swap their magazine locks out for a standard magazine release.

2) Could a magazine lock like the AR Raddlock (where a component can be unscrewed to turn it into a standard magazine release) be considered a conversion kit?

IPSICK
05-22-2012, 11:20 PM
Right. Occam's Razor though. :cool: ;)

Now that statement reflects appropriate care. Appropo reference while giving would be interlopers nothing.

However, speculative statements above me may serve the interlopers.

stitchnicklas
05-22-2012, 11:30 PM
Kind of hard to ban the locking mechanism that makes the rifle legal. So I think the chances remain low.

that and the doj has signed off on oll and the bullet button by stating they are illegal.

worthless bill with no teeth that will sit in committee until it dies next year

thatsteveguy
05-23-2012, 1:25 AM
The majority of the CA legislature is blinded by progressive ideology or party loyalty and has created the environment where increasing numbers of citizens not sucking on the government teat want to leave CA. To bad too; because CA used to be a hell of a great state to live in! :mad:

GOEX FFF
05-23-2012, 1:51 AM
that and the doj has signed off on oll and the bullet button by stating they are illegal. legal.

worthless bill with no teeth that will sit in committee until it dies next year

Fixed!

yakmon
05-23-2012, 3:03 AM
I think I see the great falicy in the law but I don't want to spell it out here. pm, anyone?

Grayling14
05-23-2012, 5:17 AM
Here is what is obviously wrong with Senator Yee's bill:

The Socialist's utopian society cannot be legislated into existance.

Gun control laws only affect those who already control themselves, therefore restricting lawful firearms ownership only makes a society less safe. Yet our Progressive legislators deny what history has repeated proven to be true!

Never let it be said that Liberals let facts get in the way of their beliefs :mad:

Jason_2111
05-23-2012, 6:06 AM
1) Would this bill criminalize the possession of standard magazine release parts in combination with a magazine-lock-equipped non-assault-weapon? That would be a huge pain for people who travel to out-of-state events and swap their magazine locks out for a standard magazine release.

2) Could a magazine lock like the AR Raddlock (where a component can be unscrewed to turn it into a standard magazine release) be considered a conversion kit?

:lurk5:

stitchnicklas
05-23-2012, 7:45 AM
not even in a appropriate committee yet and going down hill past to the trash bin

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/22/2012
LAST HIST. ACTION : From committee with author's amendments. Read second
time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on AGRI.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM AGRICULTURE