PDA

View Full Version : SB249 article in today's Mercury News


glug
08-05-2012, 8:05 AM
From http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21237711/bill-would-close-loophole-states-assault-weapons-law

When it passed the Senate earlier this year, his bill would have banned just the use of one variety of "bullet button," one with an attached magnet that fits over the weapon's magazine release mechanism. The magnet lets an empty magazine be exchanged for a fully loaded magazine within seconds. But Yee's plan for a broader ban on easily detachable magazines ran into opposition. He said he expects support for much greater restrictions after the July 20 shooting in suburban Denver that killed 12 and injured 58.

"It reminded all of us how dangerous the assault weapons are," Yee said. "There's an opportunity now to plug up that hole, and I want to take advantage of that."

taperxz
08-05-2012, 9:02 AM
Yee's proposal would give gun owners until July 2013 to have their weapons altered so the "bullet button" could no longer be used to detach the magazine. His spokesman, Adam Keigwin, said a gunsmith could make the change in a few minutes by welding over the mechanism.


WTF? If you weld over what mechanism? Obviously these people have no understanding of anything. LOL

berg
08-05-2012, 9:09 AM
I think it's because of all the people here and on other forums that blabbed all over about how many holes there were in the original bill, it gave the opposition who read these forums the knowledge on how to modify the wording to more inclusive.

Bangzoom
08-05-2012, 9:11 AM
word for word the same article in the LA Daily News

Farrier-1
08-05-2012, 9:17 AM
I think it's because of all the people here and on other forums that blabbed all over about how many holes there were in the original bill, it gave the opposition who read these forums the knowledge on how to modify the wording to more inclusive.

Yep. A few mentioned early on to lock all SB249 threads. Instead we gave them 50something pages of free ammo for them to use. And to make much much worse, the Colorado massacre happened.

javalos
08-05-2012, 9:35 AM
Yee just did something he always wanted to do, ban the rifles altogether. He really didn't want to ban the magnet or bullet button, he wanted to ban the rifle period and like all unscrupulous opportunists, he used the Colorado shooting by a deranged madman to go after all gun owning law abiding citizens from every walk of life here in this state. Look closely on Yee's recent proposal, without mentioning much on the forum, there are some very serious things that could come back at the state.

USMCM16A2
08-05-2012, 9:39 AM
Ha Ha,


Yet another change to a flawed bill. Weld up the latch..........we are winning, remember "no discussion, no debate". Even Kamallahs help in this is no help, boy this is going to get good. A2

javalos
08-05-2012, 9:44 AM
Ha Ha,


Yet another change to a flawed bill. Weld up the latch..........we are winning, remember "no discussion, no debate". Even Kamallahs help in this is no help, boy this is going to get good. A2

As if every gunsmith is a certified welder and knows how to Tig weld on something as tricky as aluminum, keep in mind that both the lower receiver and the bullet button are made from aluminum for the exception of the magazine latch that came with the LPK. We may see lots of gunsmiths turning people away telling them I can't do this or I won't do this.

cjc16
08-05-2012, 9:47 AM
Yes, the PSYOPs are working. These morons are falling right into our trap.

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 9:48 AM
You "thread lockers" really don't believe the AG gave Yee guidance on the need for a legislative approach to change the detachable definition after the letter written to her? They only needed to use the "memo" as reference. There are still holes though which I will not offer up.

Bhobbs
08-05-2012, 9:53 AM
Yes, the PSYOPs are working. These morons are falling right into our trap.

Our trap? What's that? Take away our guns so we can sue in court and maybe win years later and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars?

javalos
08-05-2012, 9:57 AM
Our trap? What's that? Take away our guns so we can sue in court and maybe win years later and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Because Yee will amend the bill that will give gun owners options, doesn't mean that its over, Yee's proposal as relayed to the news media that the rifles be altered if gun owners want to keep them presents a new set of safety and legal issues that the Appropriations Committee should be made aware off. SB-249 has gotten worse, not only for us, but for them too.

tbhracing
08-05-2012, 10:02 AM
Maybe we should close the loop hole here and somehow make CalGun more exclusive? I would say a proved NRA membership gets you through the doors? But then the opposition could still get through. Is there some way?

jj805
08-05-2012, 10:03 AM
As if every gunsmith is a certified welder and knows how to Tig weld on something as tricky as aluminum, keep in mind that both the lower receiver and the bullet button are made from aluminum for the exception of the magazine latch that came with the LPK. We may see lots of gunsmiths turning people away telling them I can't do this or I won't do this.

Another thing you have to realize is that you cannot weld over an anodized finish. You have to weld over bare metal.

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:07 AM
Another thing you have to realize is that you cannot weld over an anodized finish. You have to weld over bare metal.

Good point

ShooterDK
08-05-2012, 10:10 AM
Same AP propaganda piece in the Stockton Record.

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:10 AM
Maybe we should close the loop hole here and somehow make CalGun more exclusive? I would say a proved NRA membership gets you through the doors? But then the opposition could still get through. Is there some way?

The Contributors Lounge is more exclusive option, as someone pointed out to me, not all our enemies normally would pay money to listen in on our discussions.

gant
08-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Giving them more ammo they will think of a device that will lock the magazine catch somehow since your all saying you can't weld it, let's keep feeding them

tackdriver
08-05-2012, 10:24 AM
Article also in todays San Diego Union. No mention of welding the BB though...

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:25 AM
Giving them more ammo they will think of a device that will lock the magazine catch somehow since your all saying you can't weld it, let's keep feeding them

Well, its good that this discussion is on the table before the proposed amendment goes before the Appropriations Committee. I would hate that something like this becomes law and gun owners approach either a gunsmith or welder and they tell you, sorry, I can't do this, then what? Right now we are seeing that Yee's amendment like the rest of his bill is unworkable.

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:28 AM
Before the BB, what was that device that locked the magazine and allowed only top feeding?

taperxz
08-05-2012, 10:30 AM
You can't weld the BB or the magazine. The mag would then not be repairable and the welding of the release or BB would make the rifle unsafe in the event of a mis fire.

ap3572001
08-05-2012, 10:32 AM
DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM KNOW WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IF IT WILL PASS? I mean what it will REALLY DO ? Not about our 2A rights and Constitution , but what it will do to rifles in Ca.

email
08-05-2012, 10:32 AM
I saw it on channel 9 news this morning. The reporter called it a "button bullet".

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:34 AM
You can't weld the BB or the magazine. The mag would then not be repairable and the welding of the release or BB would make the rifle unsafe in the event of a mis fire.

Bingo! My sentiments exactly, think about unsafe=legal liability

javalos
08-05-2012, 10:36 AM
DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM KNOW WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IF IT WILL PASS? I mean what it will REALLY DO ? Not about our rights and Constituion , but what it will do to rifles in Ca.

Without seeing Yee's new proposed amendments, I can assume that you have to move the offending rifle out of state, turn them in to law enforcement, weld whatever they are proposing which isn't very clear at this point, or simply break the rifle down into non-offending pieces.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 10:41 AM
DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM KNOW WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IF IT WILL PASS? I mean what it will REALLY DO ? Not about our 2A rights and Constitution , but what it will do to rifles in Ca.

If passed it wii go to court where the law will be granted a stay. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

jmust1991
08-05-2012, 11:10 AM
Same article was in the Modesto Bee, featureless parts sales should be at record levels...

Quiet
08-05-2012, 11:15 AM
Before the BB, what was that device that locked the magazine and allowed only top feeding?

No device.

10 round magazines were welded/sealed into the magazine well, which allowed "top loading".

Bhobbs
08-05-2012, 11:17 AM
Because Yee will amend the bill that will give gun owners options, doesn't mean that its over, Yee's proposal as relayed to the news media that the rifles be altered if gun owners want to keep them presents a new set of safety and legal issues that the Appropriations Committee should be made aware off. SB-249 has gotten worse, not only for us, but for them too.

What options does it give us? I don't see how this bill could be much worse for us.

ap3572001
08-05-2012, 11:27 AM
Lets say it passes...... Do we know what guns will be effected? How they will be effected? Is it really that unclear?

Kyle1886
08-05-2012, 12:04 PM
Can you safely clear a malfunction, (Jammed double-feed) without removing the magazine? I don't know---that's why I ask.

Respectfully
Kyle

Librarian
08-05-2012, 12:13 PM
DOES ANYONE ON THE FORUM KNOW WHAT THIS BILL WILL DO IF IT WILL PASS? I mean what it will REALLY DO ? Not about our 2A rights and Constitution , but what it will do to rifles in Ca.

No.

We CAN'T know until it gets its last vote in the Senate before it might go to the Governor - it can be amended prior to that, and the Senate can refuse to concur in the amendments made in the Assembly.

artoaster
08-05-2012, 12:27 PM
I'm sure everyone here at Calguns would agree with the fact that locked magazines, top loaders, bullet buttons all make the firearm less safe.

Anything that would prevent an easy and quick way to make a loaded, chambered weapon into an unloaded and un-chambered firearm creates a problem where unnecessary manipulation could cause either negligent discharge or unsafe muzzle direction and other issues. Also any slam firing or other problems become more dangerous when disengagement of feeding device is hindered.

WHY IS THIS NOT BEING MADE THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN OUR FAVOR!!!

radioman
08-05-2012, 12:44 PM
Can you safely clear a malfunction, (Jammed double-feed) without removing the magazine? I don't know---that's why I ask.

Respectfully
Kyle

I would think one could check the contents of a gas tank with a match, but would want to, same thing!

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 12:59 PM
Before the BB, what was that device that locked the magazine and allowed only top feeding?

The device you're talking about was the Prince50 mag lock. Not sure if it would maintain compliance under SB249.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:04 PM
Before the BB, what was that device that locked the magazine and allowed only top feeding?

The device you're talking about was the Prince50 mag lock. Not sure if it would maintain compliance under SB249.

It was called a rivet. There was no device.

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 1:12 PM
It was called a rivet. There was no device.

You mean this non-existent device?

http://www.riflegear.com/images/product/medium/57.jpg

This was meant for top load only. You could not legally back out the set screw once installed in the assembled rifle.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:19 PM
You mean this non-existent device?

http://www.riflegear.com/images/product/medium/57.jpg

This was meant for top load only. You could not legally back out the set screw once installed in the assembled rifle.

You are obviously new to all this. He said top loading!

The mag was riveted in permanent. You then pulled the pin on the rifle to open it and load from the top. See California legal AR configuration from 2005

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 1:22 PM
You are obviously new to all this. He said top loading!

The mag was riveted in permanent. You then pulled the pin on the rifle to open it and load from the top. See California legal AR configuration from 2005

Are you being intentionally dense or ignorant? You were required to top load with that lock to comply with the law.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:25 PM
Are you being intentionally dense or ignorant? You were required to top load with that lock to comply with the law.

Prior to the prince 50 the magazine was locked in place permanently. The only way you could load it was by taking the rifle apart. I had one.

ap3572001
08-05-2012, 1:25 PM
I'm sure everyone here at Calguns would agree with the fact that locked magazines, top loaders, bullet buttons all make the firearm less safe.

Anything that would prevent an easy and quick way to make a loaded, chambered weapon into an unloaded and un-chambered firearm creates a problem where unnecessary manipulation could cause either negligent discharge or unsafe muzzle direction and other issues. Also any slam firing or other problems become more dangerous when disengagement of feeding device is hindered.

WHY IS THIS NOT BEING MADE THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN OUR FAVOR!!!

You are right . Its not about safety.

The same with a roster.
They want a magazine disconnect. Which means if You lose a magazine You cant use it as a single shot in an emergency.

I was a witness to an accident when a S&W that the owner thought had that feature FIRED with magazine removed. Glad it was pointed down range.

They want loaded chamber indicator.

At work we are trained NOT TO EVER assume is the pistol is loaded or not by checking indicators. We are trained to chamber check if loaded and remove the magazine and lock the slide back to be REALLY sure it is not loaded.

BOTH features are UNSAFE.

Weird AR's that are top loaded are UNSAFE, or at least much less safe than normal AR-15 with normal magazine release.

Am I wrong?

Crowesnest
08-05-2012, 1:25 PM
Yes, the PSYOPs are working. These morons are falling right into our trap.

How can you glean anything positive from this article?

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 1:30 PM
Prior to the prince 50 the magazine was locked in place permanently. The only way you could load it was by taking the rifle apart. I had one.

You are confusing the Prince50 mag lock and the Prince50 bullet button. Two different devices and two different approaches to compliance. Permanence with a rivet was never part of the regs. That is how we evolved to the bullet button.

Surf Hunter
08-05-2012, 1:31 PM
Weld in the mag or over the bb eh? Only if Yee and his lil crony pay for it. I was 100 percent legal in my rifle purchase. If they want it back or mods done for their unconstitutional law idea, they are paying every single penny.

Crowesnest
08-05-2012, 1:32 PM
No.

We CAN'T know until it gets its last vote in the Senate before it might go to the Governor - it can be amended prior to that, and the Senate can refuse to concur in the amendments made in the Assembly.

Let's just hope Brown has the wherewithal to veto the bill.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:33 PM
You are confusing the Prince50 mag lock and the Prince50 bullet button. Two different devices and two different approaches to compliance. Permanence with a rivet was never part of the regs. That is how we evolved to the bullet button.

Again, the ARs prior to any "prince " product, had a rivet that attached the magazine PERMANETLY to the rifle. In order to release the mag the rivet needed to be cut or drilled. I HAD ONE.

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 1:38 PM
Again, the ARs prior to any "prince " product, had a rivet that attached the magazine PERMANETLY to the rifle. In order to release the mag the rivet needed to be cut or drilled. I HAD ONE.

Javalos didn't ask about prior to prince he asked about prior to bb and the set screw lock preceded the bb.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:44 PM
Before the BB, what was that device that locked the magazine and allowed only top feeding?


Javalos didn't ask about prior to prince he asked about prior to bb and the set screw lock preceded the bb.

This is what he asked

I gave him the very FIRST device (the original) of what locked a magazine into an AR mag well that required top loading. I'm sorry YOU were unaware of the ORIGINAL configuration. I see no mention of the word PRINCE anywhere in his question. You can now delete YOUR ignorant personal attacks : D IPSICK

cjc16
08-05-2012, 1:46 PM
How can you glean anything positive from this article?

read post #27

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 1:52 PM
This is what he asked

I gave him the very FIRST device (the original) of what locked a magazine into an AR mag well that required top loading. I'm sorry YOU were unaware of the ORIGINAL configuration. I see no mention of the word PRINCE anywhere in his question. You can now delete YOUR ignorant personal attacks D IPSICK

Your own ignorance came to being when you accuse me of being new. Javalos asked for a device and a rivet is anything but.

Besides you are the one who is generalizing to any prince. Javalos asked for a preceding device and I discussed one. You act as if the rivet was some historical revelation that I was unaware of. However, I am aware of what had to be done to receivers prior to the devices that were made later. I'm sorry for you that you wasted your money on those earlier and primitive versions of compliant rifles.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 1:59 PM
Your own ignorance came to being when you accuse me of being new. Javalos asked for a device and a rivet is anything but.

Besides you are the one who is generalizing to any prince. Javalos asked for a preceding device and I discussed one. You act as if the rivet was some historical revelation that I was unaware of. However, I am aware of what had to be done to receivers prior to the devices that were made later. I'm sorry for you that you wasted your money on those earlier and primitive versions of compliant rifles.

Arguing to prove your mis statement is right again? :rolleyes:

Are you also saying an older AR couldn't also be fitted with a BB.:rolleyes:

I paid no more than any other on the market today. Stop with your rhetoric and just admit when you made a mistake. You did! Be done with it and your personal attacks.

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 2:01 PM
You want me to apologize for your reading and comprehension errors?

taperxz
08-05-2012, 2:03 PM
You want me to apologize for your reading and comprehension errors?

Yes because I made no such errors. I simply stated that, the rivet was the original configuration.

taperxz
08-05-2012, 2:05 PM
Ehh welcome to my ignore list. You now join Moleculo on posts not worth reading. I general dismiss your rhetoric anyway. No big deal.

IPSICK
08-05-2012, 2:08 PM
Ehh welcome to my ignore list. You now join Moleculo on posts not worth reading. I general dismiss your rhetoric anyway. No big deal.

Now we can equally dismiss each others' pointless rhetoric. Cool.

creampuff
08-05-2012, 2:19 PM
If passed it wii go to court where the law will be granted a stay. It may then go all the way to SCOTUS where "guns in common use" will be defined and then Yee will be solely responsible for putting AWs in the hands of every man, woman and child in America. That's what this bill will do if passed.

Yep.. Yee and his office will get greedy. Realizing later about featureless, will attempt to make anything with a detachable magazine illegal. Problem is, they will so overreach, in their attempt to cover every possible exception - they will flagrantly violate "common use" - not realizing outside of California, Hawaii and New York, their version of "common use" is no where close to what the average American considers "common use".

Kyle1886
08-05-2012, 2:23 PM
Okay, on the "old" method of top loading, how were jammed double feeds or other malfunctions handled with the riveted magazine? Drill out the rivet, drop mag, break the rifle down, remove blockage--re-weld mag? Faulty Mag?

I can't believe "they" prefer racking the bolt to unload versus droping a mag.

(Yes, I'm new to AR's sorry--my issue rifle was an M1).

Respectfully
Kyle

Librarian
08-05-2012, 2:26 PM
thread drift and general grumpiness.