PDA

View Full Version : If we defeat SB249


erik_26
07-13-2012, 1:00 PM
I realize we aren't out of the woods yet...

But, if we defeat SB249, what are the chances of us getting rid of the Bullet Button? Can we use the momentum get rid of them and have normal detachable semi-automatic center fire rifles with 'features'?

Can we get one of the Pro 2A senators to introduce a bill that would repeal some of these ridiculous California gun laws? Use the momentum from SB249 to flood the committees with letters of support of repealing gun laws?

NotEnufGarage
07-13-2012, 1:07 PM
It's being worked in the courts. Haynie/Richards, is challenging the AWB as unconstitutionally vague.

The courts are probably a quicker and more certain way of getting rid of bad laws. In the case of SB249, the effort here is to stop a really poorly written law from even getting that far, thereby saving the time and expense of fighting it in circuit court, court of appeals and possible supreme court.

SamsDX
07-13-2012, 1:12 PM
I like to think of myself as a eternal optimist, but who am I kidding? This is California. The chance of any pro-gun legislation being enacted is pretty slim, just based on the demographics of this state. Our hope lies in the judicial system, specifically, the Haynie v. Harris case (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=496479).

njineermike
07-13-2012, 1:13 PM
It's being worked in the courts. Haynie/Richards, is challenging the AWB as unconstitutionally vague.

The courts are probably a quicker and more certain way of getting rid of bad laws. In the case of SB249, the effort here is to stop a really poorly written law from even getting that far, thereby saving the time and expense of fighting it in circuit court, court of appeals and possible supreme court.

Unfortunately, with the mentality we have in sacramento right now, combined with the sheer number of votes we have in opposition to our cause, there would be another one in place in no time.





It's for the children. All die.

NotEnufGarage
07-13-2012, 1:20 PM
Unfortunately, with the mentality we have in sacramento right now, combined with the sheer number of votes we have in opposition to our cause, there would be another one in place in no time.


Even if so, they've have to open up registration and there'd be a time period before it'd take effect. We'd also have some time to have an impact on any new legislation to make it a little less restrictive, perhaps, like allowing PTP transfers of RAW's, remove the disposal/destruction after death bits and toning down the penalties in exchange for a clearer law. Also, after Heller and Macdonald, that new law would be subject to 2A challenges.

njineermike
07-13-2012, 1:22 PM
Even if so, they've have to open up registration and there'd be a time period before it'd take effect. We'd also have some time to have an impact on any new legislation to make it a little less restrictive, perhaps, like allowing PTP transfers of RAW's, remove the disposal/destruction after death bits and toning down the penalties in exchange for a clearer law. Also, after Heller and Macdonald, that new law would be subject to 2A challenges.

Maybe we can wear them down with constant court challenges to the point that they have to keep opening it up and putting hundreds of thousands of legal RAWS in place with hi cap standard magazines and making the laws pretty much useless.

SNCaliber
07-13-2012, 1:23 PM
even if SB249 doesn't pass, the bullet button will remain, it is california after all and then more legislation like SB249 will arise again, its a vicious cycle

OleCuss
07-13-2012, 1:38 PM
Easy to be pessimistic in this state, but it is possible to take it too far.

SB249 can probably be beaten with a continual and concerted effort.

I do not know what the odds are of a win in Haynie/Richards. From a non-lawyer's perspective I think we should win, but that doesn't mean a court will agree.

But let's assume SB249 is defeated and we win in Haynie/Richards.

Remember that we'd be winning Haynie/Richards because it is "vague". If the ruling basically says that the statute is overturned because the relevant law is too complex and obscure to be properly interpreted by the average individual, I think we've got the anti-RKBA types in a bit of a pickle.

The reason why the BSAR statute is so obscure and complex is because it trying to codify a ban on some firearms which are really little different from other firearms which they do not believe are quite so evil. This situation will still exist if (actually when) they try to draft a replacement statute.

So they draft another mind-bendingly complex piece of legislation and it gets through the Assembly and Senate. It gets to JB and he just might say that this legislation is just as horrible as the last one and veto it with an attached message suggesting they clean it up and then send it to him the next year.

In the intervening year you may very well have a huge number of sales of the relevant firearms and it may become too politically touchy and expensive to try to confiscate all those firearms.

It is not a slam dunk that the current idiocy continues or that the same idiocy would replace the current statute.

It is a slam dunk that if SB249 fails and Haynie/Richards win that replacement legislation will be proposed at some level.

nicki
07-13-2012, 2:12 PM
The other side fails to realize that the gun control war now has two fronts, the legislature and the courts.

They are not paying proper attention to the courts because their focus is probably on the 9th circuit.

Heller gives us a baseline, one of the key parts of Heller is common arms and I believe we will be able to get that common features and accessories are constitutionally protected.

IMHO, the following features are common.

1. Pistol grips
2. Detachable magazines.
3. Standard cap magazines.
4. Adjustable/folding stocks

SB249 and other bills like it will give us the tools to help make sure we get rulings that will eliminate this crap as undue burdens on our right of self defense.

Heller/MacDonald have IMHO only dealt with only half of the second amendment, our duties as citizens to maintain arms suitable for militia service hasn't been addressed yet, we have along way to go yet in bringing the second amendment back to what it was really meant to be.

This so called AW bans are banning IMHO the very arms that are well suited for militia purposes.

Nicki

Maestro Pistolero
07-13-2012, 3:02 PM
The other side fails to realize that the gun control war now has two fronts, the legislature and the courts.

They are not paying proper attention to the courts because their focus is probably on the 9th circuit.

Heller gives us a baseline, one of the key parts of Heller is common arms and I believe we will be able to get that common features and accessories are constitutionally protected.

IMHO, the following features are common.

1. Pistol grips
2. Detachable magazines.
3. Standard cap magazines.
4. Adjustable/folding stocks

SB249 and other bills like it will give us the tools to help make sure we get rulings that will eliminate this crap as undue burdens on our right of self defense.

Heller/MacDonald have IMHO only dealt with only half of the second amendment, our duties as citizens to maintain arms suitable for militia service hasn't been addressed yet, we have along way to go yet in bringing the second amendment back to what it was really meant to be.

This so called AW bans are banning IMHO the very arms that are well suited for militia purposes.

Nicki
This ∆ . We have to hit the issue dead-on:

Are they in common use for lawful purposes?
YES.

Are they dangerous AND unusual?
NO.

Are they a type of weapon the people would use to support a state-sanctioned militia, should a state elect to raise one?
Resoundingly, YES.

Do they constitute an entire class of firearms that are in common use at the time?
YES.

Do they constitute bearable arms under the historical definition, and as reiterated in Heller and McDonald?
YES.

Is there a long-standing tradition of citizens owning military-style small arms in this country?
YES.

Are they suitable weapons for the purposes of suppressing a future tyrannical government?
YES.

Etc. Etc.

Stonewalker
07-13-2012, 3:07 PM
This ∆ . We have to hit the issue dead-on:

Are they in common use for lawful purposes?
YES.

Are they dangerous AND unusual?
NO.

Are they a type of weapon the people would use to support a state-sanctioned militia, should a state elect to raise one?
Resoundingly, YES.

Do they constitute an entire class of firearms that are in common use at the time?
YES.

Do they constitute bearable arms under the historical definition, and as reiterated in Heller and McDonald?
YES.

Is there a long-standing tradition of citizens owning military-style small arms in this country?
YES.

Are they suitable weapons for the purposes of suppressing a future tyrannical government?
YES.

Etc. Etc.

But Chris... you don't want to wake up one day and children die, women men die, everybody die... do you?

:rolleyes:

This is why i think we have to count on wins in the courts in CA and just keep on trying as hard as we can in the legislature, but not be surprised with "brute force" losses by idiot senators.

SanPedroShooter
07-13-2012, 3:13 PM
SB 249 seems like such a slapped together half assed piece of trash, I personally expect it to go down in flames this year, but come back again in one form or another until it passes or the AW issue is resolved in our favor.

The issue is on table now, and cant be withdrawn. I assume much to the chagrin of people like the AG who have better grasp on this issue and would rather avoid it. This whole issue always struck me as 'sleeping dogs' compromise between gun owners and the people that actually have to enforce the law, the DOJ, local police etc..

Obviously these morons in Sac figured they took care of this issue in 1989 and again in the early 2000's and have moved on. Typical politicians.

Or maybe this is such a disaster, after this attempt the issue will just go away. AB962 died in court and despite calls for and claims of appeal and etc... we havent heard to much from KDL lately. If Yee would have done five minutes research, he would have left well enough alone, but thats not the kind of people he is. I think democrats in Sac are so arrogant, and so used to getting their own twisted agenda passed no matter ridiculous, that they just go for it, 'for the children' or whatever....

Capybara
07-13-2012, 3:42 PM
Not "IF" we defeat SB249, "WHEN" we defeat SB249.

advocatusdiaboli
07-13-2012, 4:58 PM
SB 249 seems like such a slapped together half assed piece of trash, I personally expect it to go down in flames this year, but come back again in one form or another until it passes or the AW issue is resolved in our favor.

The former is inevitable and the latter extremely unlikely with current SCOTUS. WE'll just have to soldier on for several more years.


Not "IF" we defeat SB249, "WHEN" we defeat SB249.

IT has a chance to pass but likely will get struck down by the court just like the Ammo Restrictions were. But they'll be back.

gunsmith
07-13-2012, 5:02 PM
One of the best things we have on our side is that these vague useless laws are written by people who are clueless about firearms and the 2A. They are also afraid of people owning firearms, and afraid of firearms themselves.
They are clueless due to this irrational fear of firearms, they've never wanted to know the difference ( say ) between semi auto and single action.
This causes them to make huge mistakes in crafting these laws, they always assume they are smarter then we are. Their arrogance is their undoing.

Its high time we made this condescending nonsense hurt, it's time we made them pay for the arrogance they display every time they face a Judge.

onewheelwes
07-13-2012, 8:02 PM
A possible positive from the publicity this has caused is all the people who thought CA was safe from scary AW might learn that AW is a made up political term. Keep writing emails, send a few bucks extra to NRA ILA, and invite more non-gun people with you to the range. Even anti-gunners know that our laws are not understandable to anyone. Change has been positive in most other states, it is time CA had a turnaround as well.

WatchMan
07-13-2012, 8:25 PM
A possible positive from the publicity this has caused is all the people who thought CA was safe from scary AW might learn that AW is a made up political term. Keep writing emails, send a few bucks extra to NRA ILA, and invite more non-gun people with you to the range. Even anti-gunners know that our laws are not understandable to anyone. Change has been positive in most other states, it is time CA had a turnaround as well.

Welcome to the forum! ;)

onewheelwes
07-13-2012, 8:47 PM
Thanks.

kcbrown
07-13-2012, 10:02 PM
The reason why the BSAR statute is so obscure and complex is because it trying to codify a ban on some firearms which are really little different from other firearms which they do not believe are quite so evil. This situation will still exist if (actually when) they try to draft a replacement statute.


Not necessarily.

The next law that gets passed is almost certainly going to be a lot more strict than the current one. Remember, SB 1221 has passed everything it's been through thus far, and proves that the legislature is now willing to piss off the hunter contingency. That means they will consider it possible to ban a lot of rifles that are not currently banned, which makes it possible to craft a much simpler law.

But there ain't no way I'm going to say what such a law would look like on an open channel...

Kappy
07-13-2012, 10:22 PM
Momentum? There is no momentum. We may scrape through without it passing.

If we dump the AWB, it won't be because the legislature suddenly grows a conscience; it'll be because the courts find it unconstitutional... which it obviously is.

Unfortunately, this idea that the people must be protected from their rights is pretty ingrained now. It lets these knuckleheads make end runs around the Constitution.

IrishPirate
07-13-2012, 10:45 PM
i think the more interesting question is what will happen if SB249 passes?...after the AWB, the roster, banning UOC, CCW restrictions, trying to restrict ammo purchases, and now this?...S might actually HTF!!!

if even half of the internet revolutionary tough guys actually did something to act out, there would be some significant damage...

erik_26
07-14-2012, 9:44 AM
Momentum? There is no momentum. We may scrape through without it passing.

If we dump the AWB, it won't be because the legislature suddenly grows a conscience; it'll be because the courts find it unconstitutional... which it obviously is.

Unfortunately, this idea that the people must be protected from their rights is pretty ingrained now. It lets these knuckleheads make end runs around the Constitution.

I get a sense of momentum. There are lots of people that I have encountered that are aware of SB249. The people that are not, when I talk to them about it, they want to help. I am constantly promoting Calguns and the stopsb249 website. I am asking them to tell their friends and for their friends to tell their friends and so on.

It seems to be working.

Now there are billboards and much more public awareness. In general it seems like more members of the public are starting to wake up.

Maybe I am overly optimistic with the progress, but I think we are moving forward.

The biggest pit fall is peoples attention span. I don't think people will stay this interested for years while the courts clog everything up.

i think the more interesting question is what will happen if SB249 passes?...after the AWB, the roster, banning UOC, CCW restrictions, trying to restrict ammo purchases, and now this?...S might actually HTF!!!

if even half of the internet revolutionary tough guys actually did something to act out, there would be some significant damage...

I want people to wake up and take a stand. I want everyone to take the government back. Every time something new passes I think, will this be the straw that breaks the camels back? Turns out the camel can bare a lot of weight.

I am thinking Rosa Parks style defiance. Non-violent but in large masses (10's of thousands). People open carrying marching in the state capitol. No wild west shoot out. Just a peaceful demonstration of people excising their constitutional rights. Absolutely no engaging.

But that would require the internet tough guys willing to leave their comfort zone and risk a major life style change (jail).

kjq
08-16-2012, 8:44 AM
Not much mention has been made about television media coverage. They are the enemy too. KPIX, Channel 5 in SF started this fire storm and it's affiliate CBS station KOVR Channel 13 in Sacramento has sensationalized the story even further. The media is on Yee's side. Understand, television stations are the most vulnerable. Ratings and advertising is their total income. If 2A supporters flooded TV news desks, much of Yee's support would die. In addition to jamming politician's phone lines and email addresses, do the same for KPIX, KOVR and KXTV. There's nothing to lose.

njineermike
08-16-2012, 8:47 AM
Not much mention has been made about television media coverage. They are the enemy too. KPIX, Channel 5 in SF started this fire storm and it's affiliate CBS station KOVR Channel 13 in Sacramento has sensationalized the story even further. The media is on Yee's side. Understand, television stations are the most vulnerable. Ratings and advertising is their total income. If 2A supporters flooded TV news desks, much of Yee's support would die. In addition to jamming politician's phone lines and email addresses, do the same for KPIX, KOVR and KXTV. There's nothing to lose.

That is an excellent point. Business drives money. Money keeps the doors open. Threaten that and we have taken away one of the enemies weapons.