PDA

View Full Version : Stop SB 249: CA gun owners defeat SB 249 v.1-3; bill gutted again, now massive ban!


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 6:42 PM
All,

Thanks to your hard work and support, we've defeated SB 249 twice now. The "conversion kit" ban was such an unpassable mess that Senator Yee has had to gut and amend SB 249 - again - and create an entirely new bill. We look forward to defeating this fourth iteration of SB 249 and hope you'll continue to help us Stop SB 249.

SB 249 Version 4 is a facially unconstitutional change to the Penal Code that bans outright "Bullet Button" firearms and criminalizes the possession of currently-legal firearms without offering any method of compensation or grandfathering of these existing guns. As our Fact Sheet (http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf) explains, this new SB 249 has a number of fatal flaws.

SB 249, if passed as it stands today, would change the Code as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

(d)

(1) For the purposes of this section, “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. “Detachable magazine” includes a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.

(2) The Attorney General shall amend applicable regulations to bring those regulations into conformity with this subdivision.

(3) This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.

SEC. 2. The amendment of Section 30515 of the Penal Code made by Section 1 of this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 3. 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.

Please help us keep the pressure on our Legislature and STOP SB 249.

-Brandon

Stop SB 249 Statement on 8/7 Amends & Gun Ban: http://eepurl.com/oksdT

Stop SB 249 Take Action page: http://stopsb249.org/take-action

SB 249 FACT SHEET: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf

SB 249 HARD COPY PETITION FORMS: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/sb249_petition.pdf

SB 249 ONE-PAGE FLYER PDF: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/249-Flyer.pdf

SB 249 ONE-PAGE FLYER JPG: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/249-Flyer.jpg

SB 249 “Buckslip” 1/3 PAGE FLYER PDF: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_buckslip.pdf

SB 249 FACEBOOK COVER IMAGE: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Stop-Yee_cover_fb.jpg

GET BANNERS AND BUTTONS FOR YOUR WEBSITE OR BLOG HERE: http://stopsb249.org/get-banners-for-your-website

SB 249 Twitter feeds: @StopSB249, @CalgunsFdn, @Cal_FFL

Stop SB 249 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/StopSB249campaign

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 6:45 PM
Also, you can help raise awareness by adding a banner or button to your OWN blog and/or website!

You can find ready-to-use banners with all the HTML needed to paste into your site here: http://stopsb249.org/get-banners-for-your-website/

phdo
08-07-2012, 6:49 PM
Tagged.

AAShooter
08-07-2012, 6:52 PM
Does that apply only to rifles?

Bruceisontarget
08-07-2012, 6:55 PM
Thank you Brandon for the update and the very hard work you're putting in. I truly appreciate what you've accomplished.

unusedusername
08-07-2012, 6:59 PM
AAShooter:

My limited understanding is that this change would redefine magazines as used in rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Keep up the pressure!

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 7:01 PM
Wow! That is just amazing!

Why, exactly, does he think this one would fly? (Rhetorical question.)

BlairB
08-07-2012, 7:01 PM
Tagged. Thanks for everything Brandon! We appreciate all your hard work.

RMP91
08-07-2012, 7:03 PM
So this would apply to ALL firearms currently in California, save for revolvers and tube-fed shotguns/rifles?

This will be DESTROYED in court, with our currently existing "bans" and "restrictions" becoming "collateral damage" :43:

hornswaggled
08-07-2012, 7:04 PM
Thank you Brandon. May I ask your take on Section 3?

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 7:04 PM
The credit for our successes goes to you all and the Stop SB 249 team of volunteers.

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 7:05 PM
Thank you Brandon. May I ask your take on Section 3?

Answered in the fact sheet.

-Brandon

SuperSet
08-07-2012, 7:05 PM
It's time. John has a long mustache.

Slim///
08-07-2012, 7:06 PM
Tagged

monk
08-07-2012, 7:09 PM
Is it possible he thinks he has the votes to get this passed?

Sgt Raven
08-07-2012, 7:10 PM
It's time. John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall.:TFH:

RMP91
08-07-2012, 7:11 PM
Is it possible he thinks he has the votes to get this passed?

He has the votes, he's got the likes of Feinsten, Boxer, Port., Feuer, Harris etc. who are very influential here.

They think California's a "safe district" for them, just wait until Election Day :)

putput
08-07-2012, 7:11 PM
The chair is against the wall!

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 7:11 PM
Is it possible he thinks he has the votes to get this passed?

Please throw me into that briar patch.

-Brandon

tenpercentfirearms
08-07-2012, 7:12 PM
It's time. John has a long mustache.

The chair is against the wall.

http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/1e64910a-cc93-491b-8393-53dac88477c2.jpg

Note that is a featureless build. I get to keep it.

jimezdoesit
08-07-2012, 7:13 PM
Thanks Brandon

WootSauce
08-07-2012, 7:17 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if the main points of this bill; confiscation without compensation/taking, Ex Post Facto Law, etc. is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

2. If it's unconstitutional why are we so worried? I mean yes obviously it's not a good thing if it passes but if it does won't it just be overturned as being unconstitutional?

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 7:19 PM
He may think he can pass this one, but I'm not sure even the California legislature is that dysfunctional.

This one is just plain veto bait. They may pass it as a symbolic gesture, but if we work the political side of this there is a good chance JB will veto (no inside info on this one, it's just that JB is fairly bright and at the very least a decent lawyer).

Wiz-of-Awd
08-07-2012, 7:20 PM
Brandon,

Fact Sheet is excellent.
Is this something we can use to share with others via email, Web/Social networks, etc...?

A.W.D.

Krak
08-07-2012, 7:22 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if one of the main points of this bill, confiscation without compensation/taking, is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

2. If it's unconstitutional why are we so worried? I mean yes obviously it's not a good thing if it passes but if it does won't it just be overturned as being unconstitutional?

Just because it's unconstitutional, doesn't mean it can't be passed. It can be passed, and enforced, even if it's unconstitutional but we have to wait for a court to strike it down. Law-makers these days don't give a rats a** about what's constitutional and what isn't.

Sgt Raven
08-07-2012, 7:25 PM
He has the votes, he's got the likes of Feinsten, Boxer, Port., Feuer, Harris etc. who are very influential here.

They think California's a "safe district" for them, just wait until Election Day :)


They can go for it and cost Obama the Presidency, make losses in the House, and take the Senate away from the Democrats. They can point towards California and say this is what the Democrats want if they stay in or gain power. Yee and the others aren't looking at the big picture and the National election. The Republicans can tar the whole Democratic Party with this brush and the anti gun comments from other areas. :43:

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 7:26 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if one of the main points of this bill, confiscation without compensation/taking, is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

Do remember, this is California. Constitutionality is a trivial concern compared to symbolism.

2. If it's unconstitutional why are we so worried? I mean yes obviously it's not a good thing if it passes but if it does won't it just be overturned as being unconstitutional?

You have to oppose bad legislation. If for no other reason than to inform the anti-freedom legislators that there is an opposition that they cannot ignore. It also gives a sorta decent governor the political support he needs to veto this piece of corruption and still be able to work with an insane legislature.

And if it goes to the courts, it helps in the courts that there is political opposition. It is not supposed to matter to the courts, but it frequently does.

A little anecdote? I've been in a political process (outside of government) and there were resolutions, motions, long-term campaigns and all that.

If you submitted a resolution and when it got to the relevant committee there was no one speaking on its behalf - it died. If there was support with no opposition it would almost automatically survive to be voted upon by the larger body.

If you do not speak to an issue, you generally lose one way or another. You may never understand that you lost because you did not speak, but you lose anyway.

SOCAL-PRINCE
08-07-2012, 7:26 PM
You da man Brandon!! Let's keep fighting the good fight CG!

rromeo
08-07-2012, 7:28 PM
This is gonna be big, boys.

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 7:28 PM
Brandon,

Fact Sheet is excellent.
Is this something we can use to share with others via email, Web/Social networks, etc...?

A.W.D.

Please do! Friends, FFLs, news... everyone.

-Brandon

Dantedamean
08-07-2012, 7:32 PM
Yay new thread lol

njineermike
08-07-2012, 7:32 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if the main points of this bill; confiscation without compensation/taking, Ex Post Facto Law, etc. is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

2. If it's unconstitutional why are we so worried? I mean yes obviously it's not a good thing if it passes but if it does won't it just be overturned as being unconstitutional?

4 years after Heller, there is still almost no ability to legally own a handgun in DC. The SCOTUS decisions are being ignored, so why would we expect it to be any different if THIS goes there? The court rules, the law is modified in wording only to fit the letter of the law while still being a defacto ban. Why would it be different here?

WootSauce
08-07-2012, 7:33 PM
Do remember, this is California. Constitutionality is a trivial concern compared to symbolism.



You have to oppose bad legislation. If for no other reason than to inform the anti-freedom legislators that there is an opposition that they cannot ignore. It also gives a sorta decent governor the political support he needs to veto this piece of corruption and still be able to work with an insane legislature.

And if it goes to the courts, it helps in the courts that there is political opposition. It is not supposed to matter to the courts, but it frequently does.

A little anecdote? I've been in a political process (outside of government) and there were resolutions, motions, long-term campaigns and all that.

If you submitted a resolution and when it got to the relevant committee there was no one speaking on its behalf - it died. If there was support with no opposition it would almost automatically survive to be voted upon by the larger body.

If you do not speak to an issue, you generally lose one way or another. You may never understand that you lost because you did not speak, but you lose anyway.

Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't fight it, I'm just asking why everyone is so worried if it's so unconstitutional. It's obviously a very bad bill and I oppose it just like everyone else here. I'm just wondering why everyone is planning "fishing/boating trips" already

RMP91
08-07-2012, 7:33 PM
This is gonna be big, boys.

Like I said in the old thread, this will be the beginning of the end of Gun Control in California.

CALIFORNIA WILL BECOME A FREE STATE THANKS TO THIS BILL.

This bill is not only unconstitutional, but there is absolutely NO Grandfather Clause or a Grace Period of reasonable length (11 months is not that long, especially if you're a very busy person, as I imagine most of y'all are). If this becomes law, we'll all become Felons in July of 2013 and some of us will not even know it (This reeks of Entrapment!)

The rest of the country will learn what has happened and will provide legal and political aid to us. Not only will this law fall, the currently existing ones will not survive in the US Supreme Court when (not if) they get there!

We should be THANKING Mr. Yee, Mrs. Feinstein/Boxer and co. for (unintentionally :43: ) freeing us from the shackles we call "California Law" :cool:

HowardW56
08-07-2012, 7:34 PM
All,

Thanks to your hard work and support, we've defeated SB 249 twice now. The "conversion kit" ban was such an unpassable mess that Senator Yee has had to gut and amend SB 249 - again - and create an entirely new bill. We look forward to defeating this fourth iteration of SB 249 and hope you'll continue to help us Stop SB 249.

SB 249 Version 4 is a facially unconstitutional change to the Penal Code that bans outright "Bullet Button" firearms and criminalizes the possession of currently-legal firearms without offering any method of compensation or grandfathering of these existing guns. As our Fact Sheet (http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf) explains, this new SB 249 has a number of fatal flaws.

SB 249, if passed as it stands today, would change the Code as follows:



Please help us keep the pressure on our Legislature and STOP SB 249.

-Brandon

Stop SB 249 Take Action page: http://stopsb249.org/take-action

SB 249 Fact Sheet: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf

SB 249 Twitter feeds: @StopSB249, @CalgunsFdn, @Cal_FFL

Stop SB 249 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/StopSB249campaign

We MUST show Senator Yee what real Grassroots opposition is all about...

We keen to keep the Senate phone lines, fax lines, e-mail, and mail room busy with our opposition!

WootSauce
08-07-2012, 7:36 PM
4 years after Heller, there is still almost no ability to legally own a handgun in DC. The SCOTUS decisions are being ignored, so why would we expect it to be any different if THIS goes there? The court rules, the law is modified in wording only to fit the letter of the law while still being a defacto ban. Why would it be different here?

This is what I was looking for. I see your point.

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 7:37 PM
Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't fight it, I'm just asking why everyone is so worried if it's so unconstitutional. It's obviously a very bad bill and I oppose it just like everyone else here. I'm just wondering why everyone is planning "fishing/boating trips" already

Understood, and your point is well-taken.

I honestly think there is little to actually fear in some sense. If it passes it will likely be vetoed. If it is not vetoed, then it will be stopped in the court.

But it is a pain to deal with it in the courts. And it will cause more FUD, and the NRA will raise a bunch of money with frightening automated phone calls.

To a certain degree I actually hope this version passes for reasons I won't go into on a public forum.

Dantedamean
08-07-2012, 7:37 PM
Like I said in the old thread, this will be the beginning of the end of Gun Control in California.

CALIFORNIA WILL BECOME A FREE STATE THANKS TO THIS BILL.

This bill is not only unconstitutional, but there is absolutely NO Grandfather Clause or a Grace Period of reasonable length (11 months is not that long, especially if you're a very busy person, as I imagine most of y'all are). If this becomes law, we'll all become Felons in July of 2013 and some of us will not even know it (This reeks of Entrapment!)

The rest of the country will learn what has happened and will provide legal and political aid to us. Not only will this law fall, the currently existing ones will not survive in the US Supreme Court when (not if) they get there!

We should be THANKING Mr. Yee, Mrs. Feinstein/Boxer and co. for (unintentionally :43: ) freeing us from the shackles we call "California Law" :cool:

Ya, I really really really hope this will take down the assault weapon ban with it. This really could be a blessing in disguise.

RRangel
08-07-2012, 7:38 PM
Does that apply only to rifles?

Well, it does read firearm.

RMP91
08-07-2012, 7:46 PM
I wonder when this bill will finally hit the floor for a vote. Looking forward to all the Democrats running for office across the country having to explain their stance on gun control making this a national issue.

I read that the vote could be held as early as tomorrow!

RRangel
08-07-2012, 7:47 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if the main points of this bill; confiscation without compensation/taking, Ex Post Facto Law, etc. is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

2. If it's unconstitutional why are we so worried? I mean yes obviously it's not a good thing if it passes but if it does won't it just be overturned as being unconstitutional?

Why are you even asking? Really. Yee's video game ban was illegal too, but the extremists in the legislature passed it, didn't they? The courts had to smack it down.

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 7:51 PM
Why are you even asking? Really. Yee's video game ban was illegal too, but the extremists in the legislature passed it, didn't they? The courts had to smack it down.

I wish there was a law about creating bills that were against the constitution.. Make the legislator personally liable for damages caused by illegal/unconstitutional bills.

WootSauce
08-07-2012, 7:51 PM
Why are you even asking? Really. Yee's video game ban was illegal too, but the extremists in the legislature passed it, didn't they? The courts had to smack it down.

But the courts did smack it down. That's my point. And as to why I'm asking, I'm just trying to have a discussion :) EDIT: and trying to learn what I can. I'm relatively new to paying attention to the legislative process. Only in my young 20's

AAShooter
08-07-2012, 7:53 PM
Anyway to litigate against Lee personally over all this?

navyinrwanda
08-07-2012, 7:53 PM
So how will the revised version of SB 249 simultaneously “[f]orce a government-mandated confiscation & seizure of hundreds of thousands of legally possessed Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms without compensation for gun owners” and “require that California gun owners use ‘featureless’ detachable magazine firearms?”

Or did Bullet Buttons suddenly become permanently affixed? Like collapsible stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc., etc.?

Equally ridiculous is trumpeting “Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court stating that Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms are legal.” Of course they're legal — that's why no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for possessing a Bullet Button-equipped rifle in California.

As Judge Illston (not Kamala Harris) said, Bullet Button-equipped rifles are “out[side] of the statutory definition of an assault weapon.” Which means that the Legislature can change the definition of an assault weapon by simply changing the statutes — which is precisely what they're doing with SB 249.

And frankly no one in the gun community has “defeated SB 249 twice now.” Sen. Yee publicly admitted that he initially lacked the political support necessary to close the Bullet Button loophole. That's the only reason why earlier versions of SB 249 focused exclusively on Mag Magnets — the “ignorance of our opponents” had nothing to do with it. And when Yee said “political support,” he meant the support of Brady and LCAV and DOJ — not gun owners or CGF or the insignificant number of elected officials remaining in California who might be inclined to oppose new gun controls.

But, hey — keep up the good work. Because we're “winning...”

hornswaggled
08-07-2012, 7:55 PM
Anyway to litigate against Lee personally over all this?

With no facts at my side, I'm going to say there's probably some sort of qualified immunity outside of him doing something criminal.

XD40SUBBIE
08-07-2012, 7:57 PM
Who are the people we get to thank for this infringement without cause? Yee, Harris, Steinberg and ???

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 7:59 PM
Irwin, is that you? :rolleyes:

-Brandon

So how will the revised version of SB 249 simultaneously “[f]orce a government-mandated confiscation & seizure of hundreds of thousands of legally possessed Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms without compensation for gun owners” and “require that California gun owners use ‘featureless’ detachable magazine firearms?”

Or did Bullet Buttons suddenly become permanently affixed? Like collapsible stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc., etc.?

Equally ridiculous is trumpeting “Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court stating that Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms are legal.” Of course they're legal — that's why no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for possessing a Bullet Button-equipped rifle in California.

As Judge Illston (not Kamala Harris) said, Bullet Button-equipped rifles are “out[side] of the statutory definition of an assault weapon.” Which means that the Legislature can change the definition of an assault weapon by simply changing the statutes — which is precisely what they're doing with SB 249.

And frankly no one in the gun community has “defeated SB 249 twice now.” Sen. Yee publicly admitted that he initially lacked the political support necessary to close the Bullet Button loophole. That's the only reason why earlier versions of SB 249 focused exclusively on Mag Magnets — the “ignorance of our opponents” had nothing to do with it. And when Yee said “political support,” he meant the support of Brady and LCAV and DOJ — not gun owners or CGF or the insignificant number of elected officials remaining in California who might be inclined to oppose new gun controls.

But, hey — keep up the good work. Because we're “winning...”

mrdd
08-07-2012, 8:03 PM
Ok, I have a question. I just read through the FAQ and it says unconstitutional many many times. My question is if the main points of this bill; confiscation without compensation/taking, Ex Post Facto Law, etc. is so unconstitutional then:

1. Why isn't this bill dead before it starts just based on that.

Because that is not how the government works.

The legislature can pass anything it wants. The only thing restricting it is the will of the electors (voters).

No one can tell the legislature what to do, not even the courts. When a law is invalidated by a court, it is a directive to the executive branch to not enforce the law. This is why laws which are overturned remain on the books.

dantodd
08-07-2012, 8:05 PM
Equally ridiculous is trumpeting “Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court stating that Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms are legal.” Of course they're legal


Reading the bill and flier can cure your ignorance. The rest I'm afraid is a lost cause.

IEShooter
08-07-2012, 8:10 PM
What was it I was saying just a few hours ago in the other thread???

Something along the lines of how the good Senator opened a can of worms, and now that he has become somewhat educated on the issue and attendant risks, probably wishes he never headed down this path.

Nevertheless, his ego, personality and need to "save face" is such that he must push this to the hilt.

Combine this with the limited intellect of both him and his emotionally driven staff and you wind up with a complete mess of a bill that is worse than the first version.

So much so in fact, that it will be easily stayed and overturned if he is so unlucky as to be able to usher this through the legislature and governors mansion.

The ex post facto, AR and AK convertibility issues aside, thousands and thousands of currently legal BB firearms would be affected by this and unlike AR's and AK's, they absolutely cannot be converted to a featureless configuration.

With no provision for grandfathering or compensation, this is a non-starter from the get go.

Result? He either pulls back and drops this until the next legislative session and tries again, or push on and play into our hands. Next year there will be tens of thousands more "evil" rifes in the state. Tick, tock......

Hey Senator, when Gene Hoffman and Brandon kept goading you to throw them in to that Briar Patch, did you think they were posturing?

About a year from now, I'll mail you a few dozen bullet buttons that I will no longer need. Thank you in advance. :)

Johnnyfres
08-07-2012, 8:12 PM
Guys we need more signatures on the stopsb249.org page. WE should have in the 10,000's. Everyone on this site should sign if they want to help in the fight to keep their arms.

Please sign and please spread the word. Call and write everyone.

kf6tac
08-07-2012, 8:12 PM
Equally ridiculous is trumpeting “Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court stating that Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms are legal.” Of course they're legal — that's why no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for possessing a Bullet Button-equipped rifle in California.

As Judge Illston (not Kamala Harris) said, Bullet Button-equipped rifles are “out[side] of the statutory definition of an assault weapon.” Which means that the Legislature can change the definition of an assault weapon by simply changing the statutes — which is precisely what they're doing with SB 249.

The court document cited in the info sheets is not an order by the judge; it's a brief filed by the defendants in Haynie (including Kamala Harris) in support of their motion to dismiss, and thus it was the defendants (including Kamala Harris) making the assertion to the Court that maglocked firearms are not within the current statutory definition.

The legislature can certainly change the definition, but that's not what SB249 purports to do - it claims that it's just clarifying a definition that has supposedly existed since SB23 was originally passed, and thus contradicts the Haynie defendants' representations in their brief. By putting her support behind SB249, Kamala Harris is further contradicting the statement made in her own brief.

To be fair, I don't believe that briefs are sworn statements, so they wouldn't be made under penalty of perjury. Harris and her attorneys would, however, be subject to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for any false representations made in their brief.

model63
08-07-2012, 8:13 PM
Like I said in the old thread, this will be the beginning of the end of Gun Control in California.

CALIFORNIA WILL BECOME A FREE STATE THANKS TO THIS BILL.



If the language is accurate....I kind of get the feeling the enemy of my enemy is my friend and maybe I should support this legislation to hasten the day. In a bizarre way, given our 'first in the nation' rep, that we'd one day do a circle of life thing and end all AWB threats for all time or even bring about Constitutional Carry because the legislature here took it too far and got CGF/SAF slapped....As an devout Agnostic, I pray for this day...:D

SamsDX
08-07-2012, 8:13 PM
So how will the revised version of SB 249 simultaneously “[f]orce a government-mandated confiscation & seizure of hundreds of thousands of legally possessed Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms without compensation for gun owners” and “require that California gun owners use ‘featureless’ detachable magazine firearms?”

Simple - under the new proposed definition, existing AR/AK, and other pistols that have a magazine attachment point outside of the pistol grip, as well as magazine-fed semiautomatic shotguns would be flat-out illegal without mangling the firearm to such an extent that it would constitute a de facto seizure. Rifles can certainly be converted to featureless, but what to do about the 14" barrels with permanently affixed flash hiders that were made that way to comply with the NFA?

StopSB249's (Wildhawker's) claims are correct and accurate in this regard.

USMCM16A2
08-07-2012, 8:14 PM
Navyinrwanda,



The judge did say "statutorily outside the law" BUT this does not mean you can RETROACTIVELY make something illegal that was configured legally. Yes we did/have done/will continue to bring about change to this abortion of a bill. Furthermore, the turning in of property without due process, OR compensation is more than enough to shoot this POS down. So Navy, go have tea and crackers with Adam, and see if you can come up with a better bill, A2

senorpeligro
08-07-2012, 8:17 PM
SB 249 Fact Sheet: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf


:thumbsup:

RRangel
08-07-2012, 8:18 PM
But the courts did smack it down. That's my point. And as to why I'm asking, I'm just trying to have a discussion :) EDIT: and trying to learn what I can. I'm relatively new to paying attention to the legislative process. Only in my young 20's

Litigation doesn't happen overnight and it costs money.

wilit
08-07-2012, 8:20 PM
Awesome! Thanks for everyone's hard work. Let's keep the pressure up!

hornswaggled
08-07-2012, 8:21 PM
Writing to all news and media outlets I can think of. It's not worth winning, if you can't win BIG.

SilverTauron
08-07-2012, 8:24 PM
The Disarmament Lobby "took off the white gloves" .

Personally , here's my take on why Yee did this:he knows he has the ability to enact any anti-gun law in an environment like California with no personal consequences to his career. By the time the lawsuits are filed and processed through the judiciary, he'll be Chair of some Democrat Party satellite nonprofit.

More worrisome,there is strategic importance for the anti-gun side in wording this bill like that. The Brady's are literally playing chicken with the established rulings of Mcdonald /Heller. For them, the long term payoff in enacting this bill is to see how much teeth the Federal Government is going to put on the 2nd Amendment.

When they pass this in CA-no offense to you guys', but that's the demographic reality in California-its going to set things up for a judicial confrontation of lasting import. What they're hoping for is that the Judiciary will establish new precedent after Heller/McDonald legalizing "reasonable restrictions" on the individual exercise of the 2nd Amendment. If that happens, the RKBA in anti gun states becomes another toothless law on top of the FOPA and other ignored statues, since CA's definition of reasonable means "no guns for anyone but cops and military".

Should our side win the judicial fight , well , the anti's tried their best. Worst case for them, they lose, SB249 gets struck down alongside every AWB law in the nation, and the CA politicians get a few free years in screwing the law abiding gun owner with legal impunity.

senorpeligro
08-07-2012, 8:27 PM
When they pass this in CA-no offense to you guys', but that's the demographic reality in California-its going to set things up for a judicial confrontation of lasting import. What they're hoping for is that the Judiciary will establish new precedent after Heller/McDonald legalizing "reasonable restrictions" on the individual exercise of the 2nd Amendment. If that happens, the RKBA in anti gun states becomes another toothless law on top of the FOPA and other ignored statues, since CA's definition of reasonable means "no guns for anyone but cops and military".

I agree, I get the impression we are being used as the test case here. What's at stake is what types of firearms are protected by the 2A as applied to the states.

67Roadster
08-07-2012, 8:30 PM
If you know the movie you'll get it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/datsun2/john.jpg

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-07-2012, 8:37 PM
"Penalty of perjury." Lol.

SilverTauron
08-07-2012, 8:37 PM
According to the Huffington Posts' news entry as of 5 hours ago :

The bill was approved last month by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and will be considered by the Assembly Appropriations Committee next week.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/sb-249-ca-sen-leland-yee-gun-control-bill_n_1752190.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular


CAUTION: If you are on blood pressure meds , best not click the link. Consider yourself warned.

jimezdoesit
08-07-2012, 8:39 PM
If you know the movie you'll get it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0903/datsun2/john.jpg

Never saw the movie. Need help getting this? Thx

DrDavid
08-07-2012, 8:40 PM
Oh God.. Why does every anti call magazines, "Clips"? It's a f***ing MAGAZINE.. Not a clip. Seriously, how hard is that?

jonzer77
08-07-2012, 8:41 PM
So how will the revised version of SB 249 simultaneously “[f]orce a government-mandated confiscation & seizure of hundreds of thousands of legally possessed Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms without compensation for gun owners” and “require that California gun owners use ‘featureless’ detachable magazine firearms?”

Or did Bullet Buttons suddenly become permanently affixed? Like collapsible stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc., etc.?

Equally ridiculous is trumpeting “Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court stating that Bullet Button (maglocked) firearms are legal.” Of course they're legal — that's why no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted for possessing a Bullet Button-equipped rifle in California.

As Judge Illston (not Kamala Harris) said, Bullet Button-equipped rifles are “out[side] of the statutory definition of an assault weapon.” Which means that the Legislature can change the definition of an assault weapon by simply changing the statutes — which is precisely what they're doing with SB 249.

And frankly no one in the gun community has “defeated SB 249 twice now.” Sen. Yee publicly admitted that he initially lacked the political support necessary to close the Bullet Button loophole. That's the only reason why earlier versions of SB 249 focused exclusively on Mag Magnets — the “ignorance of our opponents” had nothing to do with it. And when Yee said “political support,” he meant the support of Brady and LCAV and DOJ — not gun owners or CGF or the insignificant number of elected officials remaining in California who might be inclined to oppose new gun controls.

But, hey — keep up the good work. Because we're “winning...”

Explain what you can do with a Saiga 12?

Don't worry, I will wait for your response......I have plenty of time.

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 8:41 PM
"Penalty of perjury." Lol.

Most people reading a fact sheet don't follow Fed.R.Civ.P.

-Brandon

mud99
08-07-2012, 8:42 PM
When Yee gutted his agricultural bill, it had to go back to committee. How does this significant change not trigger that? It seems like it should get kicked back to the safety committee.

chris
08-07-2012, 8:43 PM
All,

Thanks to your hard work and support, we've defeated SB 249 twice now. The "conversion kit" ban was such an unpassable mess that Senator Yee has had to gut and amend SB 249 - again - and create an entirely new bill. We look forward to defeating this fourth iteration of SB 249 and hope you'll continue to help us Stop SB 249.

SB 249 Version 4 is a facially unconstitutional change to the Penal Code that bans outright "Bullet Button" firearms and criminalizes the possession of currently-legal firearms without offering any method of compensation or grandfathering of these existing guns. As our Fact Sheet (http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf) explains, this new SB 249 has a number of fatal flaws.

SB 249, if passed as it stands today, would change the Code as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

(d)

(1) For the purposes of this section, “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. “Detachable magazine” includes a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.

(2) The Attorney General shall amend applicable regulations to bring those regulations into conformity with this subdivision.

(3) This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.

SEC. 2. The amendment of Section 30515 of the Penal Code made by Section 1 of this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 3. 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.



Please help us keep the pressure on our Legislature and STOP SB 249.

-Brandon

Stop SB 249 Take Action page: http://stopsb249.org/take-action

SB 249 Fact Sheet: http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf

SB 249 Twitter feeds: @StopSB249, @CalgunsFdn, @Cal_FFL

Stop SB 249 Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/StopSB249campaign

i have a question about section 1.does it just apply to OLL's equiped with the BB.

glad to hear that this has been beaten again. i will send emails again.

jimezdoesit
08-07-2012, 9:00 PM
i have a question about section 1. does it just apply to OLL's equiped with the BB.

glad to hear that this has been beaten again. i will send emails again.

I am going to take a stab here. I believe Brandon should explain. If it says "push button" or "BB/Tool" to remove the magazine then it is including BB rifles. This is a guess.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-07-2012, 9:02 PM
Most people reading a fact sheet don't follow Fed.R.Civ.P.

So Kamala Harris didn't sign that under penalty of perjury? Lol.

OleCuss
08-07-2012, 9:03 PM
.
.
.
More worrisome,there is strategic importance for the anti-gun side in wording this bill like that. The Brady's are literally playing chicken with the established rulings of Mcdonald /Heller. For them, the long term payoff in enacting this bill is to see how much teeth the Federal Government is going to put on the 2nd Amendment.

When they pass this in CA-no offense to you guys', but that's the demographic reality in California-its going to set things up for a judicial confrontation of lasting import. What they're hoping for is that the Judiciary will establish new precedent after Heller/McDonald legalizing "reasonable restrictions" on the individual exercise of the 2nd Amendment. If that happens, the RKBA in anti gun states becomes another toothless law on top of the FOPA and other ignored statues, since CA's definition of reasonable means "no guns for anyone but cops and military".

Should our side win the judicial fight , well , the anti's tried their best. Worst case for them, they lose, SB249 gets struck down alongside every AWB law in the nation, and the CA politicians get a few free years in screwing the law abiding gun owner with legal impunity.

OK, I understand that I am far from being a lawyer. So I could be saying something very stupid.

But so far as I can tell, this is about as stupid a move as could be made. They are taking on one of the most common forms of arms here in the US and they've got a Chief Justice in the form of Roberts who is (I think) a constructionist.

Based on previous rulings, then, trying to ban the most common configurations of the some of the most common rifles in the nation in a particularly egregious fashion just seems like a ridiculous thing to do.

Maybe I'm reading this all wrong, but it seems like an exceedingly bad bill for those who are anti-liberty.

Oh, and I do understand the argument that says that you can keep your firearm if you simply change the configuration to fit that of the new statutory definition.

Thing is that if you change the configuration it is not, in some sense, the same rifle. The rifle I wanted will have been taken from me.

And after all, what percentage of the AR-15s sold in the US are featureless? Who really wants those featureless firearms?

Zebra
08-07-2012, 9:04 PM
The Longest Day (1962)
John Wayne, Robert Ryan and Richard Burton.

ePzwg0LyYL0

Never saw the movie. Need help getting this? Thx

Zebra
08-07-2012, 9:07 PM
And your point is...???

So Kamala Harris didn't sign that under penalty of perjury? Lol.

Librarian
08-07-2012, 9:16 PM
This provision SEC. 2. The amendment of Section 30515 of the Penal Code made by Section 1 of this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.
strikes me as false-to fact.

http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/linkedslice/shared/help.asp?RS=GVT1.0&VR=2.0&SP=CCR-1000#40 tells us What is a regulation?

A regulation is a rule adopted by a state regulatory agency to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by it, or to govern its procedure.

Do regulations have the same effect as laws?

Yes. Legally adopted regulations filed with the Secretary of State have the force of law.

What would happen if I did not comply with regulations that apply to me?

You could be cited, fined or suffer other adverse consequences (such as losing a license) if you fail to comply with regulations that apply to you.

What is the difference between a regulation and a statute?

A regulation is adopted by a state regulatory agency, approved by OAL, and filed with the Secretary of State. A statute is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor (or is approved by the voters as a ballot measure).

(not taking the FAQ language as definitive here, but as indicative of what the OAL and the Secretary of State think regulations are.)

So, the existing regulations defining 'detachable' are, indeed, law.

The amended statute - which the Legislature is empowered to offer - DOES amend statute, as 30515 does not have the language in the newly-offered (d)(1). It is a change.

'We wish someone had said this long ago' is not the same as 'declaratory of existing law'.

Pathetic, really.

anthonyca
08-07-2012, 9:16 PM
[/B]4639]4 years after Heller, there is still almost no ability to legally own a handgun in DC. The SCOTUS decisions are being ignored, so why would we expect it to be any different if THIS goes there? The court rules, the law is modified in wording only to fit the letter of the law while still being a defacto ban. Why would it be different here?

Like I said in the old thread, this will be the beginning of the end of Gun Control in California.

CALIFORNIA WILL BECOME A FREE STATE THANKS TO THIS BILL.

This bill is not only unconstitutional, but there is absolutely NO Grandfather Clause or a Grace Period of reasonable length (11 months is not that long, especially if you're a very busy person, as I imagine most of y'all are). If this becomes law, we'll all become Felons in July of 2013 and some of us will not even know it (This reeks of Entrapment!)

The rest of the country will learn what has happened and will provide legal and political aid to us. Not only will this law fall, the currently existing ones will not survive in the US Supreme Court when (not if) they get there!

We should be THANKING Mr. Yee, Mrs. Feinstein/Boxer and co. for (unintentionally :43: ) freeing us from the shackles we call "California Law" :cool:

So, who is correct?

Unfortunately, one is current fact. The government has no repercussions for breaking the law.

rkt88edmo
08-07-2012, 9:17 PM
And after all, what percentage of the AR-15s sold in the US are featureless? Who really wants those featureless firearms?

I'd rather run featureless than fixed mag, hands down.

frankm
08-07-2012, 9:23 PM
Buy those guns now. I don't care what you do with them when this law passes, but this might be your only chance.

glock7
08-07-2012, 9:29 PM
Keep on keepin on....

donw
08-07-2012, 9:29 PM
Just because it's unconstitutional, doesn't mean it can't be passed. It can be passed, and enforced, even if it's unconstitutional but we have to wait for a court to strike it down. Law-makers these days don't give a rats a** about what's constitutional and what isn't.



bold, italic, underlined is my emphasis

this is what it's all about...

this is a "Power play" by legislators! pure and simple...Yee got angry becasue of opposition. he even went so far as to cry "Racism" against him...

desparate men resort to desparate measures...the rats are cornered now and they resent it!

we have to INCREASE pressure...not relent...i have my email, fax and fone in turbo drive...

JSolie
08-07-2012, 9:29 PM
Just in case this got overlooked, the updated text is at

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/home.xhtml

You'll have to put in the bill number.

cdtx2001
08-07-2012, 9:32 PM
The ex post facto, AR and AK convertibility issues aside, thousands and thousands of currently legal BB firearms would be affected by this and unlike AR's and AK's, they absolutely cannot be converted to a featureless configuration.




You mean like AR pistols? How the heck can you make those compliant?

VaderSpade
08-07-2012, 9:34 PM
All those crossed out lines just makes them look stupid. And somehow they think they got it right THIS time???

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
08-07-2012, 9:35 PM
And your point is...???

Gee, I dunno!

curtisfong
08-07-2012, 9:42 PM
I can't wait to register my featureless rifles as AWs.

Thanks Adam!

Librarian
08-07-2012, 9:46 PM
All those crossed out lines just makes them look stupid. And somehow they think they got it right THIS time???

Well, the 'getting it right' bit is certainly questionable, but the strikeout type is standard CA legislative practice for 'in this version of the bill, this stuff is removed'. At that web site, removed stuff is both strikeout and red.

Anything in italic is 'new this version'; anything not otherwise emphasized is the same as the previous version. Again, at that web site, new stuff is both italic and blue.

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

senorpeligro
08-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Any interest in putting together a youtube channel (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=605558)?

Farrier-1
08-07-2012, 10:08 PM
I can't wait to register my featureless rifles as AWs.

Ummm - be very careful what you ask for.

neouser
08-07-2012, 10:11 PM
You mean like AR pistols? How the heck can you make those compliant?

Prince 50. Then the mag cannot be removed without disassembling the receiver.

Lone_Gunman
08-07-2012, 10:12 PM
You mean like AR pistols? How the heck can you make those compliant?

You can't, nor can you make Saiga 12s, or 14" barreled firearms with flash hiders pinned and welded to make them federally compliant.

abishai
08-07-2012, 10:12 PM
Just emailed about 20 news orgs (local, online, talk radio) per
https://www.facebook.com/StopSB249ca...27617043943169

59ricardo
08-07-2012, 10:13 PM
Thank you Brandon. May I ask your take on Section 3?

Although the Fact Sheet is a great piece, Section 3 of the bill is in fact unrelated to the main thrust of the bill. It is what is known as a "mandates claims disclaimer" in that it is a statement that attempts to preclude any local government from making a claim against the state for an "unfunded mandate"

Several years ago there was a law passed that required the state to reimburse local government when the state passed a law requiring them to do X, but didn't provide the oney to carry out the mandate. There are exceptions, one of which is when the Legislature enacts a new crime, which is the exception invoked in this bill...

Lone_Gunman
08-07-2012, 10:14 PM
Prince 50. Then the mag cannot be removed without disassembling the receiver.

Nope, you can just back out the set screw.

59ricardo
08-07-2012, 10:15 PM
He may think he can pass this one, but I'm not sure even the California legislature is that dysfunctional.

This one is just plain veto bait.

In fact, the Legislature IS this dysfunctional, and the bill is not veto bait. Brown is not likely to veto it, although it is possible...

joe_gman
08-07-2012, 10:16 PM
The new version of SB 249 as written states that a detachable magazine is defined as a "magazine that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet." Would this include a lever on an AK variant, or am I just using semantics?

Never mind. It includes, but not limited to.

sharxbyte
08-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Tagged.

Thank you all!

Fot
08-07-2012, 10:16 PM
Sent in another donation.. Not much but will send more as I can.. Think this is gonna be a good fight.

vincewarde
08-07-2012, 10:18 PM
4 years after Heller, there is still almost no ability to legally own a handgun in DC. The SCOTUS decisions are being ignored, so why would we expect it to be any different if THIS goes there? The court rules, the law is modified in wording only to fit the letter of the law while still being a defacto ban. Why would it be different here?

The difference is that in DC, they at least moved in the direction of gun rights - as slowly as possible - but this movement has been steady.

Here in California, the reaction has basically been, "We don't care what SCOTUS has said in Heller and McDonald, we are going to ban as many guns as possible. We will pass new bans."

I really think that our only hope of stopping this bill is a veto from Gov. Brown........

AeroEngi
08-07-2012, 10:18 PM
The new version of SB 249 as written states that a detachable magazine is defined as a "magazine that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet." Would this include a lever on an AK variant, or am I just using semantics?

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think that would work though. If you look at the first sentence in the definition for a detachable magazine, it says that the only way you can unload is by disassembling the firearm action.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Zebra
08-07-2012, 10:18 PM
Classy - thank you.
Gee, I dunno!

ewarmour
08-07-2012, 10:20 PM
SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(1) For the purposes of this section, “detachable magazine” means any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. “Detachable magazine” includes a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.

"Firearm" and "detachable magazine"... that's a lot of guns.

cdtx2001
08-07-2012, 10:23 PM
"Firearm" and "detachable magazine"... that's a lot of guns.

That's the whole point of this legislation.

sharxbyte
08-07-2012, 10:37 PM
Just posted this on my Facebook page:


So, that stupid law that requires that semi-automatic rifles (READ: one bullet per trigger pull, NOT fully automatic), with a certain set of features , have the magazines fixed? Well, they are making it worse.

They are attempting to ban the bullet button, a device that facilitates removing the magazine for reloading purposes, as well as allowing shooters to safely remove a bullet in case of a double feed or jam. It will also require us to shoot every round from the firearm before being able to open it safely, because, being auto-loading, it will chamber the next round after the previous cartridge ejects. This is dangerous, (as well as plain inconvinient) because it is illegal to transport firearms that are loaded. Manually unloading a magazine that is not only fixed, but unable to be removed from the firearm is both unsafe, time consuming, and just plain ridiculous.


This new law does not have any provisions for compensation to gun owners who would have their previously legal arms confiscated, and is ex post facto (after the fact) which is explicitly against the constitution.

I don't care if you are on the fence about whether you live in California or not, or if you are pro or anti gun, and I know I post quite a few things, that most definitely get annoying, but if nothing else, please take the time to read and share this. This isn't just about guns, it's about FREEDOM. Once they take away guns, they can take just about anything else. It may not happen in the near future, but history shows that it does happen, in civilized countries. It's not long, and even if you don't read it, you can share it with people who will.

Thank you.

http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf

AlexDD
08-07-2012, 10:52 PM
I am confused. So my SKS will be illegal? Since it doesn't have other features is it exempt but if it is "tapco bubba" with grip it is not.

So no VZ 58 top loading either.

I think there is also that Barrett rifle with the mag that swings out is also illegal.

WTF do you do with a Saiga 12?

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 10:55 PM
It makes pretty much everything but tube-fed magazines or revolvers illegal it seems. And things with integral magazines. Garands would be okay. Lee-Enfields would not.

Honestly I'm torn, I almost want to see this pass because I think the SCOTUS line up we have now is as good as we're going to get. A lot depends on this election.

There just seems to be so much at stake these days, times are changing faster and faster.

Agent Orange
08-07-2012, 11:02 PM
Why do I keep seeing Feinstein/Boxer mentioned in all this? You'd think gun owners would understand who is who or at least how the political system works.

hornswaggled
08-07-2012, 11:04 PM
Weird how they modified it into self-destruct mode.

59ricardo
08-07-2012, 11:06 PM
Weird how they modified it into self-destruct mode.

Regardless, if I were betting, I would wager that this bill passes both houses and is signed by Brown.

AlexDD
08-07-2012, 11:07 PM
Also, they took out the exemption for law enforcement. Wonder why?

Will PORAC ever support gun owners on this one? Doubt it.

r1ghtw1ng
08-07-2012, 11:07 PM
In the fact sheet, there is a bullet point that states: "SB 249 would criminalize the possession of firearms that are currently legal to possess. States are prohibited from passing and enforcing ex post facto laws by Clause 1 of Article I of Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution."

How did SB23 pass constitutional muster back in 1999? Seems like almost the same thing went down back then: a subset of firearms were declared illegal after they were obtained legally. Was there ever a constitutional challenge to SB23 based on the clause cited?

flyingcaveman
08-07-2012, 11:07 PM
Can somebody comment on how Yee thinks this is 'clarifying existing law'? This has already been ruled on, adding the (including the use of a tool) seems like a little more than a 'clarification'. So essentially, the law is banning the use of tools. this is just ridiculous.

Also, wasn't the original law weaselled through because it was a ban on certain features and not semi-auto rifles in general.

wyrm2021
08-07-2012, 11:07 PM
The chair is against the wall, the chair is against the wall.:TFH:


AVENGE ME......AVENGE MEEE!!!!!!!!

jdberger
08-07-2012, 11:08 PM
A hearty thanks to Brandon and the StopSB249 Team.

When people hear about the "tip of the spear" - this is what they're talking about.

hkusp
08-07-2012, 11:11 PM
remember that the atrocity in Aurora made AR15s a huge story nationwide, and more & more pundits are calling for bans on assault weapons. In the minds of non-gun owners these types of rifles have no purpose other than slaughter, and any restrictions on ownership & use are regarded as healthy for society. There's still plenty of fuel to fire up the gun ban supporters and legislators like Yee. No matter how big a legal mess SB249 may be, he's got most of the public fooled into thinking the type of gun is the problem versus the guy pulling the trigger.

dantodd
08-07-2012, 11:11 PM
In the fact sheet, there is a bullet point that states: "SB 249 would criminalize the possession of firearms that are currently legal to possess. States are prohibited from passing and enforcing ex post facto laws by Clause 1 of Article I of Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution."

How did SB23 pass constitutional muster back in 1999? Seems like almost the same thing went down back then: a subset of firearms were declared illegal after they were obtained legally. Was there ever a constitutional challenge to SB23 based on the clause cited?

When SB23 was passed people who owned effected firearms we're permitted to register them.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 11:14 PM
Regardless, if I were betting, I would wager that this bill passes both houses and is signed by Brown.

I think you're right. They see a big opportunity with these two recent shootings and they are seizing it.

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 11:17 PM
Regardless, if I were betting, I would wager that this bill passes both houses and is signed by Brown.

LQdMZ1qrn6k

-Brandon

curtisfong
08-07-2012, 11:17 PM
Here is the problem: there will ALWAYS be shootings. Whatever happens (ban or no), at some point you're going to have to argue this. Now, or later. It will come up again, and again, and again. No matter how stringent the ban, a string of shootings will cause a whole new batch of idiot Adam Keigwins to spew nonsense.

wildhawker
08-07-2012, 11:20 PM
http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4297/nokiddingsb249.jpg

-Brandon

Just-in
08-07-2012, 11:21 PM
I'd rather run featureless than fixed mag, hands down.

I'm going to enjoy mine and if it passes sell it and buy another handgun. I Refuse to go featureless.

Blackcrow
08-07-2012, 11:23 PM
The more I think about this the more my head hurts, after reading the new wording I am not happy at all.

So what does it mean if this passes, we have to make our BB firearms featureless, turn them over, or what?

Just-in
08-07-2012, 11:26 PM
Has anyone ever seen an anti-gun politician explain how gun control affects criminals? How restricting a weapons features, capacities etc affects those who don't bother to comply anyway.

FCinCA
08-07-2012, 11:28 PM
Utterly incredible. Lord help us. :censored:

frankm
08-07-2012, 11:29 PM
The more I think about this the more my head hurts, after reading the new wording I am not happy at all.

So what does it mean if this passes, we have to make our BB firearms featureless, turn them over, or what?

Make them featureless, turn them in, or other options that seem best to you.

teebiss
08-07-2012, 11:30 PM
If this passes that would leave me with a revolver, a pump shotgun, and a bolt rifle. Sigh. But how long do I have before they come for THOSE guns?

Dhena81
08-07-2012, 11:33 PM
This is just absolutely ridiculous I'm happy to contribute monthly to the cause

JSolie
08-07-2012, 11:33 PM
The more I think about this the more my head hurts, after reading the new wording I am not happy at all.

So what does it mean if this passes, we have to make our BB firearms featureless, turn them over, or what?

Wait and see. I'm sure once the stay is granted, we won't have to go featureless or turn them in for a period of time. Welcome to the Briar Patch. :D

My dog has fleas. My dog has fleas.

disturbed1
08-07-2012, 11:34 PM
If you dont register them, how would they even know you have them? Just hide and sue the crap out of them if it gets signed by brown.

59ricardo
08-07-2012, 11:34 PM
Also, they took out the exemption for law enforcement. Wonder why?

Will PORAC ever support gun owners on this one? Doubt it.

There is no need to have a law enforcement exemption in Section 30515 because they are already exempt from punishment for owning AWs.

30630. (a) Sections 30605 [wobbler for possession of AW] and 30610 [misdemeanor for possessing .50 BMG] shall not prohibit the possession or use of assault weapons or a .50 BMG rifle by sworn peace officer members of those agencies specified in Section 30625 for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 11:34 PM
It's so interesting how things went from status quo to this so quickly. Life is funny like that.

In the end though, it's all according to plan, only now near the end are we really able to see how the socialist agenda has been working all along. A gun ban that effectively disarms the populace is one of the last big items on the list.

You can bet if this passes, and SCOTUS upholds it, we'll see more states taking similar measures. If the momentum and votes exist at the federal level I foresee it occurring there.

SH8LkIqu1c8

Dhena81
08-07-2012, 11:35 PM
Don't they have over 800 other bills to deal with

duggan
08-07-2012, 11:41 PM
I sold a few guns back in the day when I ETS'd before I came back to Cali. at the time I didn't know about ways to legally configure them to be legal here. I have bent over backwards and paid at times double the cost to try and replace weapons I sold only to have nuetered versions that limit functionality and/or ergonomics. I'm tired. Tired of explaining how and why the weapons I have are legal for me to own, tired of passing on out of town shooting trips for fear I'll run into an ill informed LEO, tired of jumping through hoops to purchase a firearm that someone in another state can walk in and get that same day, but the thing that has me worn out the most is toeing the line only to have that line scratched out and drawn further away. At this point in time I have no intention of complying with this law if it passes, I figure I'll either get rich from the lawsuits or have my three hots and a cot on the taxpayers dime.

SacTown
08-07-2012, 11:42 PM
Good work. Keep up the fight!

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 11:42 PM
Don't they have over 800 other bills to deal with

800 bills aren't as important as striking the iron while it is hot on one of the big dreams of socialism.

grunz
08-07-2012, 11:47 PM
How does SB249 affect Hollywood and the guns owned and used by movie prop houses which are very real guns, using very real detachable magazines?

Would they be illegal too? Has anybody explored that angle given the revenue generated by Hollywood action movies and the power of this industry? Might they be an ally?

At the very least it may be an embarrassment of hypocrisy if SB249 would have to be ammended to exclude real guns used in filimg violent holywood movies.

POLICESTATE
08-07-2012, 11:52 PM
How does SB249 affect Hollywood and the guns owned and used by movie prop houses which are very real guns, using very real detachable magazines?

Would they be illegal too? Has anybody explored that angle given the revenue generated by Hollywood action movies and the power of this industry? Might they be an ally?

At the very least it may be an embarrassment of hypocrisy if SB249 would have to be ammended to exclude real guns used in filimg violent holywood movies.

Corporate trust or something similar. They get around it now with full auto and other stuff that us plebs aren't allowed to have already.

Rest assured they aren't going to mess up Hollywood, that's a lot of tax revenue right there, and Hollywood is at the heart of the socialist propaganda machine.

59ricardo
08-07-2012, 11:54 PM
How does SB249 affect Hollywood and the guns owned and used by movie prop houses which are very real guns, using very real detachable magazines?

Would they be illegal too? Has anybody explored that angle given the revenue generated by Hollywood action movies and the power of this industry? Might they be an ally?

At the very least it may be an embarrassment of hypocrisy if SB249 would have to be ammended to exclude real guns used in filimg violent holywood movies.

They are specifically exempted from these laws.

FCinCA
08-07-2012, 11:55 PM
What Our Founding Fathers Really Said About Guns


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What did they really mean? What were they thinking?... Read on to learn what our founding fathers really said about the right to keep and bear arms.

TO TAKE ARMS AGAINST THE BRITISH
From "A Journal of the Times", calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

ASSAULT RIFLES, COLONIAL STYLE
George Mason's Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:

"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls."

GIVE ME FLINTLOCKS OR GIVE ME DEATH
Patrick Henry, 1775:

"They tell us that we are weak—unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us."

THOUGHTS ON DEFENSIVE WAR
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."

SOUND BITES FROM BEFORE AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION

Samuel Adams:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."

Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."

WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND HE IS US
Patrick Henry:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

TREAD LIGHTLY
Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew:

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Noah Webster, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."

ON THE ROLE OF THE MILITIA

James Madison, "The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, "46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 6-8-1789

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia,
composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."

Alexander Hamilton, "Concerning the Militia," 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:

"There is something so far fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia."

Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that
army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..."

Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Trench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Thomas Jefferson

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, "Debates in the Several State Conventions" 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia,
1836

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with
arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction,
and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms,
in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:

"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service."

Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."

Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by George Mason:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals."

ROUGH DRAFT
An amendment to the Constitution, proposed by James Madison:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

THE FINAL DRAFT
The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Be a True American would you!?!

divercal
08-07-2012, 11:58 PM
Sorry for being thick headed but - How can it be said that anything was defeated? The bill as amended is worse now than before - and it's supposed to be enacted July 2013?

Was the new amended bill voted on?
How can a bill change existing law? Wouldn't the existing law have to be struct down officially at the same time?
Looks like my recently purchased S&W M&P 15 ORC will still be illegal - What have we gained.???

Brown Rock
08-08-2012, 12:31 AM
I'm going to enjoy mine and if it passes sell it and buy another handgun. I Refuse to go featureless.

Same here. If this thing passes i'll sell the AR and buy that 1911 I always wanted. Or go back to a Mini 14.

Hallucinosis
08-08-2012, 12:43 AM
Please throw me into that briar patch.

-Brandon

Isn't it "Please don't throw me into that briar patch."?

DonFerrando
08-08-2012, 12:49 AM
I got a feeling if this thing makes it to SCOTUS we are up for something monumental. Whether it will work out for us or against us, we will have a much better idea of what type of country we live in after the hammer falls. It looks to me like we just went all in.

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 12:50 AM
Isn't it "Please don't throw me into that briar patch."?

I'm done playing coy.

-Brandon

winxp_man
08-08-2012, 12:52 AM
Same here. If this thing passes i'll sell the AR and buy that 1911 I always wanted. Or go back to a Mini 14.



MOLON LABE :D


Also this is communism at its finest :mad::mad::mad: Having learned the commie ways and ideas of taking peoples freedoms away from my father being he was once a prisoner of the regime this is way worst!!!!

AirShark
08-08-2012, 12:52 AM
I got a feeling if this thing makes it to SCOTUS we are up for something monumental. Whether it will work out for us or against us, we will have a much better idea of what type of country we live in after the hammer falls. It looks to me like we just went all in.

^what this guy said. Yes.

IPSICK
08-08-2012, 12:53 AM
I'm going to enjoy mine and if it passes sell it and buy another handgun. I Refuse to go featureless.

I hope that this bill doesn't pass. However, why the hell would you give up a good gun instead of going featureless?

Both BB'd and featureless rifles are both neutered versions of a great sporting rifle each with their own drawbacks.

Btw, I think I've figured out a way for them to tackle featureless and I hope the other side never arrives to that answer.

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 12:58 AM
Sorry for being thick headed but - How can it be said that anything was defeated? The bill as amended is worse now than before - and it's supposed to be enacted July 2013?

Was the new amended bill voted on?
How can a bill change existing law? Wouldn't the existing law have to be struct down officially at the same time?
Looks like my recently purchased S&W M&P 15 ORC will still be illegal - What have we gained.???

The bill's been totally gutted into a new bill because we beat them.

Others here can walk you through the basics in answering your questions.

-Brandon

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 1:00 AM
I got a feeling if this thing makes it to SCOTUS we are up for something monumental. Whether it will work out for us or against us, we will have a much better idea of what type of country we live in after the hammer falls. It looks to me like we just went all in.

Yup, though I'm confident that the Second Amendment means what it says.

-Brandon

Rumline
08-08-2012, 1:05 AM
I read the SB 249 Fact Sheet and it makes the assertion that SB 249 would be an ex post facto law. From the fact sheet:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action" or "after the fact") or retroactive law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed [like SB 249 does].
I am not a lawyer, but I am wondering if this is really true of SB 249, or if we are just deluding ourselves. The bill would not make it illegal to have ever owned or have previously obtained an AW, (under the newly-expanded definition) but rather it will make future possession after 7/1/2013 illegal. How does that equate to ex post facto?

I did a Google search for ex post facto (yes, I know, that's not exactly a scholarly legal research tool) and there were other cases where it seemed that laws challenged under this provision were upheld on the basis that they regulate future actions, not past ones.

IPSICK
08-08-2012, 1:06 AM
I got a feeling if this thing makes it to SCOTUS we are up for something monumental. Whether it will work out for us or against us, we will have a much better idea of what type of country we live in after the hammer falls. It looks to me like we just went all in.

I'd like to believe this were true but too many non-EBR gun owners out there who either remain uninformed or could barely care any less. We pretty much have to get those people involved to be really all in. Should version 4 be defeated and Yee & Co get even more creative and cocky, then those guys could get drawn in.

unusedusername
08-08-2012, 1:22 AM
Those guys are already involved, and have been from the start. They don't often work in public.


The bill would not make it illegal to have ever owned or have previously obtained an AW, (under the newly-expanded definition) but rather it will make future possession after 7/1/2013 illegal. How does that equate to ex post facto?



If you look at it really close you will see that it does make ever owning one illegal (and a felony at that), at least ever owning one after the AW regs initially passed.

I won't explain as I don't personally know you. Loose lips and all that. Short to say that I am of the same opinion as the CGF.

Safety1st
08-08-2012, 1:23 AM
Same here. If this thing passes i'll sell the AR and buy that 1911 I always wanted. Or go back to a Mini 14.

If I understand it correctly, 1911's and Mini 14's would be illegal too. Unless they had some sort of fixed magazine?

darkest2000
08-08-2012, 1:40 AM
Just made a donation, keep up the good work!

Brown Rock
08-08-2012, 1:41 AM
If I understand it correctly, 1911's and Mini 14's would be illegal too. Unless they had some sort of fixed magazine?

No I don't think so. Are they banning all semi autos now?:confused:

Rumline
08-08-2012, 1:44 AM
If you look at it really close you will see that it does make ever owning one illegal (and a felony at that), at least ever owning one after the AW regs initially passed.

I won't explain as I don't personally know you. Loose lips and all that. Short to say that I am of the same opinion as the CGF.
Fair enough. I get the need for tight lips etc. Is there any way that the logic can be distilled / sanitized so it can be used to reinforce the argument? I asked my question because I am trying to write up a blurb for my Facebook and was hoping to center it around "look at Yee writing another blatantly unconstitutional law and wasting our taxpayer money" but when I thought more about the ex post facto part it didn't make sense to me.

Maybe if I did more research and thought about it more I would accidentally discover / post the same thing you don't want to let out. If the "tip of the spear" can come up with better verbiage that protects our OPSEC I would be happy to use it.

Rumline
08-08-2012, 1:44 AM
No I don't think so. Are they banning all semi autos now?:confused:
Not unless your 1911 has a flash hider on it. ;)

sharxbyte
08-08-2012, 1:52 AM
If anyone doesn't want to go featureless and will be getting rid of their toys, I'll gladly accept gifts of BB'd rifles, and convert them myself...:rolleyes:

unusedusername
08-08-2012, 1:53 AM
I asked my question because I am trying to write up a blurb for my Facebook and was hoping to center it around "look at Yee writing another blatantly unconstitutional law and wasting our taxpayer money" but when I thought more about the ex post facto part it didn't make sense to me.


If you don't feel comfortable arguing the ex post facto part, just use the confiscation without due process (compensation) angle.

This is just as illegal as ex post facto, and easier to explain.

You could also argue the money angle, as CA is broke and implementing/enforcing/defending aginst the lawsuits would be expensive.

Finding a reason this law is bad for the state of CA isnt hard... You have many to choose from!

Kavey
08-08-2012, 2:06 AM
After watching all of the posts concerning the various iterations of SB249 during the past few weeks, I have learned a lot about my fellow Calgunners. I can sum up what I have learned as follows:

Some see the glass as half full while others see the glass as half empty. Then there are those who never see anything but a stinking cracked and dirty glass!

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 2:14 AM
If you don't feel comfortable arguing the ex post facto part, just use the confiscation without due process (compensation) angle.

This is just as illegal as ex post facto, and easier to explain.

You could also argue the money angle, as CA is broke and implementing/enforcing/defending aginst the lawsuits would be expensive.

Finding a reason this law is bad for the state of CA isnt hard... You have many to choose from!

This is a great post.

-Brandon

tbhracing
08-08-2012, 2:25 AM
Tagged

SilverTauron
08-08-2012, 2:55 AM
I would caution that those of you running featureless weapons better not get complacent. Assuming this mess passes into law it will be years before the judiciary may rule to strike it down, during which time they'll offer yet another "modification" banning thumbhole stocks and the like.

Make no mistake about it folks;they're not stopping until every gun you guys own is in a pile at the docks getting crushed.Once that happens, they'll start on in with knives as the hoplophobes have in the UK. We can't afford to say "well ill just reconfigure my gear", because the goal is total destruction of every gun you own.

thomascrowe
08-08-2012, 3:47 AM
Tagged

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 4:32 AM
You really need to better understand CA law before offering tidbits of wisdom.

-Brandon

I would caution that those of you running featureless weapons better not get complacent. Assuming this mess passes into law it will be years before the judiciary may rule to strike it down, during which time they'll offer yet another "modification" banning thumbhole stocks and the like.

OleCuss
08-08-2012, 5:15 AM
A quick note to those who are saying that it will pass the legislature and be signed by Brown?

OK, it just might pass the legislature. I tend to rely on them to do the stupid thing. But this one is just so insane that even the California legislature might stop it.

So far as Brown signing it? Honestly, I think the odds are very good that he will veto the thing if he has a little political support. I don't like the guy's politics much at all, but he doesn't often do the legally insane thing.

But there is a chance that Brown will have the idea that it is better to sign it so that the NRA and CGF get the opportunity to pull the current law on "assault weapons" through the court system and kill the whole thing.

I'm betting Brown will want to conserve the current law and thus will veto SB249 if given any appreciable political support for doing that.

But we'll see how it goes. . .

ptoguy2002
08-08-2012, 5:47 AM
You can't, nor can you make Saiga 12s, or 14" barreled firearms with flash hiders pinned and welded to make them federally compliant.
Other guns like HK's, where the barrel is attached to the receiver (and can't be easily changed) are in the same boat. G3K builds for example, with pinned on FH.

Prince 50. Then the mag cannot be removed without disassembling the receiver.
Incorrect. A set screw from the outside locks it in.

You mean like AR pistols? How the heck can you make those compliant?
Yeah, screwed on that one.

Long story short, lots of people, including Yee, keep thinking about ARs. Lots of guns that can't be top loaded or reconfigured to featureless would be screwed by this.

havegonetooz
08-08-2012, 6:06 AM
Why don't they have another registration for AW like in '99 and then ban everything moving forward?

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 6:11 AM
Why don't they have another registration for AW like in '99 and then ban everything moving forward?

Incompetence? Arrogance? Hatred of gun owners? Who knows. Outcome is the same.

-Brandon

yakmon
08-08-2012, 6:13 AM
because Yee would look like a dumb *** if he opens the registry to 500K RAWs.

DarkSoul
08-08-2012, 7:04 AM
I believe we all need to double, triple, and quadruple our efforts to be sure that the politicians in this state know where we as law abiding firearm owners stand on this BS bill, and get back to handing out flyers, writing, calling and emailing our senators and representatives. As has been mentioned, just because it's unconstitutional, does not mean it won't pass, the assault weapons ban has expired, and yet, they are still banned. The govt. has been derailed by self serving, egotistical twits that obviously DO NOT have their constituents interests at heart, and we need to make sure they know we are paying attention.

I implore all of you to get back out there and email, write and call, hand out flyers, and throw a few bucks to the CalGun Foundation to BE SURE that this bill does not make it any further.

Ripon83
08-08-2012, 7:39 AM
I don't believe Brown will veto it in the wakes of recent shootings. That will provide him the catalyst to "ok" it. The only recourse will be in the courts.


A quick note to those who are saying that it will pass the legislature and be signed by Brown?

OK, it just might pass the legislature. I tend to rely on them to do the stupid thing. But this one is just so insane that even the California legislature might stop it.

So far as Brown signing it? Honestly, I think the odds are very good that he will veto the thing if he has a little political support. I don't like the guy's politics much at all, but he doesn't often do the legally insane thing.

But there is a chance that Brown will have the idea that it is better to sign it so that the NRA and CGF get the opportunity to pull the current law on "assault weapons" through the court system and kill the whole thing.

I'm betting Brown will want to conserve the current law and thus will veto SB249 if given any appreciable political support for doing that.

But we'll see how it goes. . .

SocomM4
08-08-2012, 7:42 AM
Recall Yee.

Prince50
08-08-2012, 7:51 AM
Why don't they have another registration for AW like in '99 and then ban everything moving forward?

Those wanting registration,need to review the recent California past to know it is not something you want...

It does not mean removal of the Bullet-Button® or other device. BUT it does mean no more being sold in the state for future owners.

I tried that when the .50BMG ban went in to effect, I bought a Barrett M82A1-CAL with the swing down mag, and thought I would remove the swing down magazine after the registration. Alas, the ban stated it could not have been an assault weapon previously, so the mag still has a lock on it today. Registration does not mean you can go back to the way your rifle should be. I think any registration would be "As-Is" and no more can be had.

Fight SB249, Donate all you can, call your friends, family, and co-workers who might not care. Let thme know it is important to you and you need their help to oppose it.

Heck even my weekly advertisement in the North County Times this week will be a political statement sending readers to www.stopsb249.org.

We need to FIGHT this.

Best Regards,

Darin Prince

advocatusdiaboli
08-08-2012, 7:51 AM
Recall Yee.

I am pretty sure Yee is confident this pandering plays well in his gerrymandered enclave of SF and SM and he isn't worried about any recall gaining critical mass. We'll gut his monstrosity through the legislative process and judicial process if needed and neuter him as a legislator. That is what victory for us will look like.

mag360
08-08-2012, 7:57 AM
I hope they hurry up and pass this crap. It will get stayed while we take it all the way to scotus and win.

Hoop
08-08-2012, 7:57 AM
If anyone doesn't want to go featureless and will be getting rid of their toys, I'll gladly accept gifts of BB'd rifles, and convert them myself...:rolleyes:

If anyone here thinks that featureless AR rifles are somehow safe from a ban then they are fools.

Mag lock ban flies, then it'll be on to those horrible monsterman grips.

Hoop
08-08-2012, 8:01 AM
Honestly, I think the odds are very good that he will veto the thing if he has a little political support.

20$ says if it gets to his desk he'll sign it.

NotEnufGarage
08-08-2012, 8:04 AM
Recall Yee.

Do you live in his district? If so, start s recall drive. If not, good luck with that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

zombiescanlearn
08-08-2012, 8:13 AM
Good! The more outrageous the law, the easier it'll be when we go to court to challenge its Constitutionality. I say "GO YEE!!!"

We are working with a law firm right?

IPSICK
08-08-2012, 8:18 AM
If anyone here thinks that featureless AR rifles are somehow safe from a ban then they are fools.

Mag lock ban flies, then it'll be on to those horrible monsterman grips.

Featureless may not be perfectly safe but it is the ultimate briar patch for us if they decide to go after them. They barely have a chance to get this to pass constitutional muster much less featureless.

Below is my favorite example of a featureless centerfire semi-automatic detachable mag rifle. Once they go after these, they will rile up the fence-sitters and challenge even what liberals incorrectly try to pass off as an understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/2168701_BrowningBAR_01_aln?hei=380&wid=380

Other examples will include the Mini-14 and the M1A, but the Browning above would also be in jeopardy should they choose to pursue featureless.

IPSICK
08-08-2012, 8:21 AM
Just got off the phone with Assemblyman Bradford's office.

SB249 is scheduled to be heard today supposedly.

*ETA: Scheduling confirmed by Assemblywoman Campos' office.

HowardW56
08-08-2012, 8:21 AM
Good! The more outrageous the law, the easier it'll be when we go to court to challenge its Constitutionality. I say "GO YEE!!!"

We are working with a law firm right?

The goal is to stop this before we need to engage & fund the Attorneys.

Stopping SB-249 now is far less expensive than litigating. If it gets to that we'll all be digging deep to help CGF, SAF, and the rest of the pro-rights organizations fund litigation...

Farrier-1
08-08-2012, 8:24 AM
If anyone here thinks that featureless AR rifles are somehow safe from a ban then they are fools.

Mag lock ban flies, then it'll be on to those horrible monsterman grips.

RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!! MOSTER MAN GRIPS ARE HERE! EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!

jrr
08-08-2012, 8:24 AM
Ironically, they are finally going to outlaw all SKS type rifles with this law. The regs were specifically written to exclude SKS types from AW detachable mag laws. I can see no way an SKS could be made compliant with this law short of welding the mag release. And that prevents disassembly, essentially making the gun useless.

How many thousand SKS takings alone do you figure the govt has budgeted for?

Prince50
08-08-2012, 8:27 AM
The SKS would not be affected by this proposed ban. To remove a SKS rifle magazine, one must partially dissasemble the action on an SKS by removing the trigger assembly.

Dumping the magazine contents, does not require removing the magazine on an SKS.

Darin

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 8:29 AM
SKS would not be affected by this proposed ban. You must partially dissasemble the action on an SKS by removing the trigger assembly, to REMOVE the mag.

Dumping the mags contents, is not removing the magazine on an SKS.


Past and future...?

putput
08-08-2012, 8:32 AM
Let’s take Leland Yee at his word:

1. “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

2. “What I am proposing is to essentially prevent any mechanism that would allow the conversion of an assault weapon into a way that you can fire these magazines upon magazines without effort,” he said.

3. “It’s never going to be easy, but by the end of the day we are here in Sacramento to protect the general public and I think that is my priority,” said Yee.

Even if this bill passes and we don’t do one single thing about it:

1. Individuals in the state of California will still own “Assault Weapons”. Fail
2. Yee will have made it even easier to “fire these magazines upon magazines” with less effort. Fail
3. Since essentially nothing will have changed, the general public will be no better protected. Fail

Mr. Yee will have completely failed.

Now that Yee’s made this new mess the future is looking something like this…

http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k546/calgunsputput/YeesLegacy-1.jpg

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 8:34 AM
http://i1115.photobucket.com/albums/k546/calgunsputput/YeesLegacy-1.jpg

:twoweeks:

reznunt
08-08-2012, 8:43 AM
I wish there was a law about creating bills that were against the constitution.. Make the legislator personally liable for damages caused by illegal/unconstitutional bills.

ditto

CHIEFone
08-08-2012, 8:45 AM
time to keep pushing guys.

another donation made this morning.

gotta keep on fighting.

desertjosh
08-08-2012, 8:47 AM
So even though it says "firearm" and "detachable magazine" it doesnt include handguns? What is the major differences between this version and the last version of the bill?

IPSICK
08-08-2012, 8:50 AM
So even though it says "firearm" and "detachable magazine" it doesnt include handguns? What is the major differences between this version and the last version of the bill?

This will affect handguns if your handgun is currently considered a fixed magazine handgun and has one or more of the features listed on CA PC 30515.

After this bill, AR pistols are in grave jeopardy.

ap3572001
08-08-2012, 8:55 AM
From what I read, the chance of this to become Law is zero.

RazzB7
08-08-2012, 8:59 AM
If you look at the current makeup of the California legislature, it is Democratic by a wide margin. Most (putting on flame suit here) Democrats are anti-gun, so there is a very real possibility that this could pass if put to a vote.

Depending on how the elections go in November, there is even a possibility that they have enough votes to overturn a governor's veto.

Some on here seem eager for this to get enacted into law so that it can be "smacked down" in court, possibly the SCOTUS. I don't share that enthusiasm.

I'd like to see us step up our efforts to defeat this bill and not ever have it see the light of day as a law.

Let's all put petty differences aside and come together as a grass-roots organization and do our part. As has been suggested many times, www.stopsb249.org is where you can go to find out what you can do to help.

hornswaggled
08-08-2012, 9:02 AM
Ex post facto, due process, The 2A, previous DOJ statements, Heller, McDonald.... This is very good.

"Don't give your enemy choices, leave him dilemmas."
- 33 Strategies of War

Now the only part for us is to KEEP DONATING so our lawyers get paid. :)

defcon
08-08-2012, 9:04 AM
Signed it.

man this pisses me off. i dont vote at all and this makes me want to vote for the next election.

hopefully they can list if theyre pro gun next to their name so i can vote them in.

im wondering if this doesnt pass, what else can Yee think of for his next revision if he cant ban all rifles?

SixPointEight
08-08-2012, 9:04 AM
Is there another handout flyer in the works? I work at a gun store and want to pass these out to the less internet active customers

Bhobbs
08-08-2012, 9:05 AM
But there is a chance that Brown will have the idea that it is better to sign it so that the NRA and CGF get the opportunity to pull the current law on "assault weapons" through the court system and kill the whole thing.

I'm betting Brown will want to conserve the current law and thus will veto SB249 if given any appreciable political support for doing that.

But we'll see how it goes. . .

Hahahahahaha

I didn't realize Brown was some super secret NRA pro 2A plant in the government.

Brown isn't pro 2A. Brown will have no problem signing this because it will have plenty of support. The Dems will love it, the police unions will love it, the media will love it, Brady's, VPC and all the anti loud mouths will love it. The only people that won't love it are the few hard core gunners in this state.

IEShooter
08-08-2012, 9:05 AM
Well, I didn't think the good Senator was capable of writing a bill worse than the last version, but I was wrong. :rolleyes:

I wonder if he knows he's crafted something that will be incredibly easy to get a stay against enforcement and just as easily overturned?

Like I said yesterday when the proposed text was posted, this bill would ban tens of thousands of firearms that simply cannot be modified to comply with the law.

Without opening the AW registry and grandfathering them in, OR compensating us for our loss, he has crafted a bill that is simple to have shot down as an illegal taking.

So, the best outcome he can hope for is that it get's stayed and struck down. Worst case is they are actually dumb enough to continue appealing it all the way to SCOTUS where they get yet another slap down.

This would make Yee the Senator who helped us solidify the scope and breadth of 2A and what "in common use" really means.

My prediction is when this is finally over, we will owe the good Senator a big thank you for being such an emotionally driven (and not too bright) ideologue. :D

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 9:09 AM
AAShooter:

My limited understanding is that this change would redefine magazines as used in rifles, pistols, and shotguns.

Keep up the pressure!

So, how am I expected to "top load" my Browning BDA .380? There would LITERALLY be no way to do it. The ejection port is WAY too small.

I KNOW that this is literally about trying to ban firearms outright, but if they are trying to make this APPEAR logical, how do they explain things if it is to pertain to hand guns? Only a fraction of semi-auto hand guns are even CAPABLE of top loading conversion.

Yee needs to go...vote him out permanently. He needs to go back to the real world and find out how difficult it is to deal with liberal politics when you can't write your own exclusions to the laws.

njineermike
08-08-2012, 9:11 AM
I've signed it, sent letters, made calls, and reposted this on some motorcycle websites I'm also on. Hopefully more than just this group is getting involved. I even had one person say they DON'T own guns but would help.

Wherryj
08-08-2012, 9:12 AM
Well, I didn't think the good Senator was capable of writing a bill worse than the last version, but I was wrong. :rolleyes:

I wonder if he knows he's crafted something that will be incredibly easy to get a stay against enforcement and just as easily overturned?

Like I said yesterday when the proposed text was posted, this bill would ban tens of thousands of firearms that simply cannot be modified to comply with the law.

Without opening the AW registry and grandfathering them in, OR compensating us for our loss, he has crafted a bill that is simple to have shot down as an illegal taking.

So, the best outcome he can hope for is that it get's stayed and struck down. Worst case is they are actually dumb enough to continue appealing it all the way to SCOTUS where they get yet another slap down.

This would make Yee the Senator who helped us solidify the scope and breadth of 2A and what "in common use" really means.

My prediction is when this is finally over, we will owe the good Senator a big thank you for being such an emotionally driven (and not too bright) ideologue. :D

If he DOES manage to put in compensation, I can only imagine how high the price tag would go. CA doesn't have the money to get into that losing game.

Fair market value of my own collection (If handguns are included) would push the state to about $10k alone. I don't go for quantity, but I DO go for quality-and you get what you pay for. Not only that, but most of my firearms are now "discontinued", meaning that the prices have at least tripled since purchase.

Wiz-of-Awd
08-08-2012, 9:18 AM
...My prediction is when this is finally over, we will owe the good Senator a big thank you for being such an emotionally driven (and not too bright) ideologue. :D

This irony would be wonderful.

As I've said before, nature finds a balance.
This will be no different. It's just a matter of time really.

A.W.D.

IEShooter
08-08-2012, 9:20 AM
If he DOES manage to put in compensation, I can only imagine how high the price tag would go. CA doesn't have the money to get into that losing game.

Fair market value of my own collection (If handguns are included) would push the state to about $10k alone. I don't go for quantity, but I DO go for quality-and you get what you pay for. Not only that, but most of my firearms are now "discontinued", meaning that the prices have at least tripled since purchase.

That is EXACTLY the point. He's desperate to try and avoid the Taking issue as they don't have the hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to compensate us. If they were intellectually honest and took this approach, the bill would never make it out of appropriations.

Likewise, he's such an ideologue that he can't bring himself to accept the only other path that would make this legally viable, which would be to open the Assault Weapon Registry to another 600,000-800,000 weapons that are existing and ban all future ones.

Like many of us have been saying, he opened Pandora's box and is now desperately trying to close it again.

His ego is such that he simply can't bring himself to quietly kill this and slink away, which means we continue to win.

In fact, we can very likely leverage this to win BIG!!!!!

Thanks Senator!!! :D

green grunt
08-08-2012, 9:27 AM
Been watching this one close.........just sent monies to help , wish I could send more.....this bill is a must fail !!!

if not for Calguns this would be unknown by most firearm owners....thanks for all the good work.....


Semper Fi.

rritterson
08-08-2012, 9:28 AM
Why don't they have another registration for AW like in '99 and then ban everything moving forward?

As the bill is currently written, it states that all of these weapons that would now become assault weapons were always assault weapons and so you were always a criminal for having one. (See section 2 of the bill) So, there is no need to have a new registration.

I have a lot more analysis I want to post, but loose lips and all...

jimezdoesit
08-08-2012, 9:29 AM
Good read from this morning's Sacbee:
Democrats line up to support tougher California assault weapons law

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/08/4703775/democrats-line-up-to-support-tougher.html

A quote from Yee:
"That's not the kind of weapon you want hanging around in a theater, a shopping center or a school," Yee said.

"There have been a number of incidents where some kind of automatic weapon has come into play and destroyed lives," Yee said. "There seems to be growing support for closing the (assault weapons) loophole."

SuicideCharley
08-08-2012, 9:33 AM
How the hell are there only 7,940 signatures here? http://stopsb249.org/tellyee/
How many active calgunners are there? Lots of work to do.

I was very encouraged that when I walked in today a co-worker of mine shoved a "No YEE CAN'T card in my hand and gave me the latest news....I just discovered he was a gun owner a few weeks ago. My point is, don't be afraid to have the discussion with those in your world. Every bit of support helps.

snowdog650
08-08-2012, 9:38 AM
deleted

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 9:41 AM
Doesn't look like anything SB249 is happening at Assembly Appropriations (http://assembly.ca.gov/todaysevents) today....

Standard
08-08-2012, 9:41 AM
Ironically, they are finally going to outlaw all SKS type rifles with this law. The regs were specifically written to exclude SKS types from AW detachable mag laws. I can see no way an SKS could be made compliant with this law short of welding the mag release. And that prevents disassembly, essentially making the gun useless.

How many thousand SKS takings alone do you figure the govt has budgeted for?

But wouldn't an SKS be OK with a detachable magazine anyway? It is inherently featureless. Doesn't this only affect rifles that have magazine locks as a requirement of the assault weapon statute?

njineermike
08-08-2012, 9:42 AM
So ... then ... how about making a bullet button that is locked in from the INSIDE of the receiver? Although it probably doesn't matter much, since tools would be banned by Comrade Yee.

No, allen wrenches would be re-classified as "assault tools", THEN banned.

SilverTauron
08-08-2012, 9:49 AM
You really need to better understand CA law before offering tidbits of wisdom.

-Brandon

These people do not care about legal precedent.Their goal is nothing less than ensuring every civil firearm in California ends up in a pile similiar to this one:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2008/0805/gun_law_0501.jpg

To them, there is NO DISTINCTION between top loading, mag locked, bolt action, slide action, semi auto, lever action,collapsible stock, etcetera.As far as the opposition is concerned, they'd just as soon pass one law saying "Only police and military can handle guns, and everyone else who even sees one laying in the street gets felony charges".

All those distinctions about mag capacity and stock types are written into the law because they can't pass a specific sweeping ban which meets legal muster-yet. The goal of the SB249 gang is simple:Find a way to write a general civil gun ban which stands the test of legal review. The only way they can do that is to introduce laws and see which one sticks.


The stakes are high on this one;if SB249 passes legal muster then every anti-gun city and state in America will be empowered to regulate guns right out of civil ownership despite Heller and McDonald.For the opposition, the payoff is beyond just scrapping some AR15s and AKs.

winnre
08-08-2012, 9:50 AM
When 249 is defeated can we go on the offensive at all? Not only stop the enemy but grab back some lost ground?

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 9:52 AM
When 249 is defeated can we go on the offensive at all? Not only stop the enemy but grab back some lost ground?

I'm wondering whether it would place the provisions of the original AWCA bill in jeopardy if passed. Let's say this goes all the way to SCOTUS... do we get to challenge just the changes in SB249, or the amended CA Penal Code?

SilverTauron
08-08-2012, 9:53 AM
When 249 is defeated can we go on the offensive at all? Not only stop the enemy but grab back some lost ground?

That was tried recently with a modest proposal to reduce the wait time for those with CA CCW permits from 10 days to 3.It was shot down with extreme prejudice in the CA Legislature.

Progress on gun rights will have to start from the voters' level on up, and not from the government level down.

mag360
08-08-2012, 9:54 AM
We will be a free state two years from now if sb249 passes. We will be stuck with bullet buttons for at least another 5 years if it doesnt pass. Think about it.

MadMax
08-08-2012, 9:54 AM
I am not a "the sky is falling" kind of guy but this bill is a big deal and we need to get the word out.

I was hesitant to put it up on Facebook for fear of offending people and then I realized, if they are offended by this I do not want to be there friends anymore. (Not like Facebook friends are all real friends anyway but that is not the point :))

This also shouldn't be about name calling or political affiliation or any of that crap, if you like firearms than get together spread the word and let’s get this bill shut down!

OK I will get off my soapbox now but really let's do this.

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 9:56 AM
Also, now would be a great time to sign up for a twitter account and help bump the numbers following @STOPSB249! We're still behind Adam Keigwin!

OleCuss
08-08-2012, 9:57 AM
Hahahahahaha

I didn't realize Brown was some super secret NRA pro 2A plant in the government.

Brown isn't pro 2A. Brown will have no problem signing this because it will have plenty of support. The Dems will love it, the police unions will love it, the media will love it, Brady's, VPC and all the anti loud mouths will love it. The only people that won't love it are the few hard core gunners in this state.

I wouldn't say that Brown is exactly pro-2A. But he is closer to that than anything we've had in quite a while.

And realistically? The last legislative session he was actually pretty good for the RKBA. Not great, but good.

There's been stuff said off the record. I don't know just what. But Brown is probably more our friend than our enemy. And if you give Brown political cover he will try to kill stuff he thinks is expensively stupid. I think Brown will find SB249 to be expensively stupid.

I disagree with Brown on an awful lot. But I consider him to be more honest than your average politician - and he really does want the government to run well. Overall I think he does a very poor job of things, but I'll give him credit where I think he deserves it.

So far he deserves a fair amount of credit on RKBA issues. He deserves a lot of credit for the person he appointed as the Adjutant General (not perfect, but probably the best possible choice).

Those are about the only two points I can think of where I mostly agree with him.

Breadfan
08-08-2012, 9:58 AM
Tagged. Thanks for everything Brandon!

jrr
08-08-2012, 10:01 AM
But wouldn't an SKS be OK with a detachable magazine anyway? It is inherently featureless. Doesn't this only affect rifles that have magazine locks as a requirement of the assault weapon statute?

Except "SKS with detachable magazine" is on the AW list. So some SKS that are not actually marked SKS, i.e. the Yugo m59/66 might be ok, but its a really gray area from what I understand. And if you have a polytech or norinco marked SKS, you're hosed.

And as many pointed out, there are many firearms that are not capable of being made compliant. ARs and AKs can be, but not AR/AK pistols. And not any of the Mac 10 or Uzi clone pistols. Or Saiga shotguns. Or a few dozen others that I haven't thought of yet. So the critique of some that say the CGF analysis is flawed is baseless. In fact the bill will simultaneously result in many firearms being taken without compensation, and many others being converted into featureless configurations.

adampolo13
08-08-2012, 10:02 AM
Brandon, thank you for fighting the long game for us. Also, thank you for giving us the tools to fight the short game!

Aldemar
08-08-2012, 10:11 AM
I'm wondering whether it would place the provisions of the original AWCA bill in jeopardy if passed. Let's say this goes all the way to SCOTUS... do we get to challenge just the changes in SB249, or the amended CA Penal Code?

If passed, why not just remove the BB entirely? After all, an unregistered AW is an unregistered AW, correct? Granted you could never use the gun again in California but what the heck; doing that just may make you feel better.:)

Standard
08-08-2012, 10:13 AM
Except "SKS with detachable magazine" is on the AW list. So some SKS that are not actually marked SKS, i.e. the Yugo m59/66 might be ok, but its a really gray area from what I understand. And if you have a polytech or norinco marked SKS, you're hosed.

And as many pointed out, there are many firearms that are not capable of being made compliant. ARs and AKs can be, but not AR/AK pistols. And not any of the Mac 10 or Uzi clone pistols. Or Saiga shotguns. Or a few dozen others that I haven't thought of yet. So the critique of some that say the CGF analysis is flawed is baseless. In fact the bill will simultaneously result in many firearms being taken without compensation, and many others being converted into featureless configurations.

Oh I see. I was thinking strictly in terms of features and forgot all about things that are banned by name. Sorry about that.
To clarify, I am 100% opposed to this legislation in any form, I just wasn't sure why the SKS was getting attacked too.

Scratch705
08-08-2012, 10:14 AM
well, they are finally going to make it so the bullet button will either be legal or illegal.

and i bet all those people that kept saying it won't ban the bullet button are eating their shoes now.

defcon
08-08-2012, 10:14 AM
i havent read it yet but does this have any affect to rimfires like the Ruger 10/22 or .22LR bolt actions?

id hate to give up my .22LR M82 and M200 conversions.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7235/7147279497_1708b263eb_o.jpg

jimezdoesit
08-08-2012, 10:15 AM
I am hoping with posting of this type of information it will help with telling the truth about crime/guns, even though I know Yee & Keigwin do not give a hoot.

MILLER: Dispelling gun myths
Perpetuating untruths about firearms with the Colorado tragedy
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/23/dispelling-gun-myths/

"Though it is one of the most popular rifles sold to civilians, the AR-15 is rarely used in crimes, presumably because it’s not readily concealed. The most recent FBI figures show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death with only hands that year, but no one has called for outlawing fists".

"It is natural to look for easy solutions to this problem, but the unpleasant truth is a free society can’t do much when it comes to this kind of evil. “Even if you didn’t have access to guns, this guy was diabolical,” said Colorado’s Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “He would have found explosives. He would have found something else — some sort of poisonous gas. He would have done something to create this horror.” The public is not well served by those who would use half-truths to take away our Second Amendment rights".

adampolo13
08-08-2012, 10:19 AM
Okay, I just realized something. (I'm a little slow) No matter whether this bill passes or not, we have still beatin Yee. His stated attempt was to rid CA of these types of weapons. (Weapons that can be reloaded rapidly) If this bill does pass we all go featurless, so in reality he hasn't gotten rid of anything, just pistol grips, forends etc. In the end SCOTUS, based on recent rulings, should rule in our favor. So we beat Yee in the short term and the long term.

I wonder if Yee has realized that he can't get rid of our rifles? He must feel pretty emasculated ...

chead
08-08-2012, 10:20 AM
I put a video up on Youtube talking about my rifle, bullet button, and SB249.
VQSdetFJ74Y

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 10:22 AM
ok video is fine now.

Uxi
08-08-2012, 10:24 AM
Regardless, if I were betting, I would wager that this bill passes both houses and is signed by Brown.

Yar, unfortunately I think you're right. Moonbeam has never been our friend and can get away with this politically. Ramifications would be down the road and judicial overturning would be despite his signature and most likely public opinion.

XD40SUBBIE
08-08-2012, 10:29 AM
Printed in color, two sided and will handout to businesses in Solano County. Keep up the fight!

Bhobbs
08-08-2012, 10:34 AM
I wouldn't say that Brown is exactly pro-2A. But he is closer to that than anything we've had in quite a while.

And realistically? The last legislative session he was actually pretty good for the RKBA. Not great, but good.

There's been stuff said off the record. I don't know just what. But Brown is probably more our friend than our enemy. And if you give Brown political cover he will try to kill stuff he thinks is expensively stupid. I think Brown will find SB249 to be expensively stupid.

I disagree with Brown on an awful lot. But I consider him to be more honest than your average politician - and he really does want the government to run well. Overall I think he does a very poor job of things, but I'll give him credit where I think he deserves it.

So far he deserves a fair amount of credit on RKBA issues. He deserves a lot of credit for the person he appointed as the Adjutant General (not perfect, but probably the best possible choice).

Those are about the only two points I can think of where I mostly agree with him.

Pretty good? It got us long gun registration that Brown signed even though it will cost plenty. There were other bills he signed too. Out of all the anti gun bills sent to him, he signed all but one but that's because the ammo ban is still in the courts.

IF Brown vetoes this bill, I may consider him neutral on 2A. He could veto it without even considering the 2A. I bet he signs it without a second thought. The costs involved mean nothing to them. They are building a multi hundred billion dollar high speed rail train that will never work.

Uxi
08-08-2012, 10:36 AM
If anyone here thinks that featureless AR rifles are somehow safe from a ban then they are fools.

Mag lock ban flies, then it'll be on to those horrible monsterman grips.

Right, it would just be closing another "loophole" aka statuatory definition detail.

Fiveohmike
08-08-2012, 10:38 AM
This irony would be wonderful.

As I've said before, nature finds a balance.
This will be no different. It's just a matter of time really.

A.W.D.

I could just see all the posters of him, stating that he is the greatest Pro-2A elected official in the history of california at that point :)

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 10:41 AM
Right, it would just be closing another "loophole" aka statuatory definition detail.

Back to another round of fumbling with conversion kit type language until they get it right. Here's their game plan. It's really simple. Once all the pesky "Assault Weapons" (especially long guns with pistol grips) are squared away, they'll wait until some failed human being goes crazy with a featureless rifle like the SKS or M1A and then use that to justify banning semi-automatic rifles with capacity > 5 rounds. Then all semi-auto's until we are stuck with bolt actions. We'll be allowed to keep our handguns for a little longer until the next isolated outburst of crazy. Then... they will be gone.

m03
08-08-2012, 10:41 AM
Ne jamais interrompre votre ennemi quand il fait une erreur.

(Never interrupt your enemy when he is making ​​a mistake.)

Jeffersonian
08-08-2012, 10:45 AM
When 249 is defeated can we go on the offensive at all? Not only stop the enemy but grab back some lost ground?

I don't understand where the confidence comes from. SB249 will probably pass.

senorpeligro
08-08-2012, 10:47 AM
I don't understand where the confidence comes from. SB249 will probably pass.

The optimism stems from the fundamental weaknesses in the bill. Illegal taking of property, retroactively making owners of bullet button equipped rifles into felons oh and the small thing about potentially forcing the SCOTUS to define 2A. It's going to get stomped in court at some level, if it is passed into law. I believe it has to be passed by the CA legislature by Aug 31.

Bhobbs
08-08-2012, 10:49 AM
Ne jamais interrompre votre ennemi quand il fait une erreur.

(Never interrupt your enemy when he is making ​​a mistake.)

The problem in this state is his mistake is supported by the other politicians.

adampolo13
08-08-2012, 10:51 AM
I don't understand where the confidence comes from. SB249 will probably pass.

Even if it does pass we beat Yee! He hasn't gotten rid of the rifles only cosmetic features that do not affect the way they opporate!

Add to the fact that it will get beat down by SCOTUS!

DVLDOC
08-08-2012, 10:52 AM
Tagged. Thanks for the update!

Sportsmans_Arms_Gabe
08-08-2012, 10:52 AM
Thank you Brandon. The banner is being added to my website www.sportsmansarms.net today. I tell any of my customers that will listen and make a blast about it daily on FB. Thanks to EVERYONE involved in defeating this nonsense.

m03
08-08-2012, 10:52 AM
The problem in this state is his mistake is supported by the other politicians.

That's perfectly fine. When it passes, and the entirety of California's anti-civil-rights scheme has to fall under scrutiny in a SCOTUS case, it wont matter any longer.

The Chess strategy has finally started making sense to me.

Bhobbs
08-08-2012, 10:53 AM
Even if it does pass we beat Yee! He hasn't gotten rid of the rifles only cosmetic features that do not affect the way they opporate!

Add to the fact that it will get beat down by SCOTUS!

Years later after we have already had to give up or get rid of our rifles. Even if the law is slapped down, he still wins.

IEShooter
08-08-2012, 10:53 AM
I don't understand where the confidence comes from. SB249 will probably pass.

The confidence comes from the fact that if it does actually become law, then our chances of being granted a stay (which prevents if from taking effect), AND having it overturned are tantalizingly close to 100%.

There are numerous things Yee could have done to increase the chances of SB-249 being upheld should it pass.

Luckily for us, his ego and ideology prevent him from making these hard choices.

End result of this will be he loses and we win.

If he's unlucky, he loses so badly that future efforts to ban these weapons in this state all but disappear.

Make no mistake, we ARE winning. :D

Bhobbs
08-08-2012, 10:54 AM
That's perfectly fine. When it passes, and the entirety of California's anti-civil-rights scheme has to fall under scrutiny in a SCOTUS case, it wont matter any longer.

The Chess strategy has finally started making sense to me.

Years later after we have already had to give up or get rid of our rifles. Even if the law is slapped down, he still wins.

We are playing chess against an opponent that has unlimited pieces. We have one or two.