PDA

View Full Version : Why no registration under SB-249


Moonshine
08-08-2012, 10:08 AM
I'm a bit confused as to how they are able to retroactively ban something that was lawful... When the original AW ban passed we were allowed registration which is consistent with no ex post facto... What justification are they using for confiscation and what about BB owners who either can't afford a gun smith and/or don't have the knowledge to reconfigure a rifle?

frankm
08-08-2012, 10:15 AM
They don't care. They're showing their true face, communism.

m03
08-08-2012, 10:16 AM
I'm a bit confused as to how they are able to retroactively ban something that was lawful... When the original AW ban passed we were allowed registration which is consistent with no ex post facto... What justification are they using for confiscation and what about BB owners who either can't afford a gun smith and/or don't have the knowledge to reconfigure a rifle?

It's being pitched as a clarification of existing law rather than an entirely new law.

If this is actually the case though, there should have already been convictions of owners of maglock equipped rifles.

383green
08-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Voluntarily redacted: Why provide free consultation to our opponents?

jonc
08-08-2012, 10:32 AM
this sucks!

Moonshine
08-08-2012, 11:02 AM
If they say this is a clarification then logically thy should reopen registration based upon the precedent they made when they reopened for LEOs who didn't register... Guess they forgot that episode...

bohoki
08-08-2012, 11:15 AM
It's being pitched as a clarification of existing law rather than an entirely new law.

If this is actually the case though, there should have already been convictions of owners of maglock equipped rifles.

a clarification of something that was clearly defined

i cannot think of an analogy to this law

bwiese
08-08-2012, 11:33 AM
That's why this is being done under legislative instead of regulatory process.

They can say they're "adding clarity' to what they really wanted before.

A-J
08-08-2012, 12:03 PM
Maybe they need to look up the term "ex post facto" and realize that banning something after the fact is illegal.

383green
08-08-2012, 12:34 PM
Maybe they need to look up the term "ex post facto" and realize that banning something after the fact is illegal.

What makes you think that they don't already know that? Or that they care? Remember, gun control isn't about the guns. It's about the control. They will do whatever they think they can get away with to achieve their goals.

mymonkeyman
08-08-2012, 12:35 PM
It's not ex post facto unless they actually try to convict someone who:
1) had a proper Bullet-Button-equipped, 10-round or less magazine, unlisted, unregistered AR or AK before SB-249 goes into affect;
2) that person disposed of that gun before SB-249 went into affect (or rendered it compliant with SB-249 if that was even actually possible);
3) they accuse him of violating the AW ban based on possession of the BB gun before the law went into affect.

That's ex post facto.

What they are doing is changing the law to completely ban certain guns without offering compensation. It doesn't matter if the law is a regulation or a statute, they are changing the law to completely ban certain, completely legal guns. That violates the takings clause of the constitution, as incorporated by the due process clause against the states.

Yee thinks he's being clever, but he's completely violating all of the budgetary rules of California law by creating this situation that California absolutely cannot pay for and for which there is no money in the budget for. He just doesn't care about the consequences, which could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars going out of the education to gun owners because a court has ordered so.

This is of course ignoring the obvious 2nd amendment issues as well.

383green
08-08-2012, 12:41 PM
Voluntarily redacted: Why provide free consultation to our opponents?

JasonM
08-08-2012, 12:52 PM
It's not ex post facto unless they actually try to convict someone who:
1) had a proper Bullet-Button-equipped, 10-round or less magazine, unlisted, unregistered AR or AK before SB-249 goes into affect;
2) that person disposed of that gun before SB-249 went into affect (or rendered it compliant with SB-249 if that was even actually possible);
3) they accuse him of violating the AW ban based on possession of the BB gun before the law went into affect.

That's ex post facto.

What they are doing is changing the law to completely ban certain guns without offering compensation. It doesn't matter if the law is a regulation or a statute, they are changing the law to completely ban certain, completely legal guns. That violates the takings clause of the constitution, as incorporated by the due process clause against the states.

Yee thinks he's being clever, but he's completely violating all of the budgetary rules of California law by creating this situation that California absolutely cannot pay for and for which there is no money in the budget for. He just doesn't care about the consequences, which could easily be hundreds of millions of dollars going out of the education to gun owners because a court has ordered so.

This is of course ignoring the obvious 2nd amendment issues as well.

How is the "for public use" clause interpreted? If they don't specifically require seizure in the law is it still a de facto taking?

OlderThanDirt
08-08-2012, 1:11 PM
That's why this is being done under legislative instead of regulatory process.

They can say they're "adding clarity' to what they really wanted before.

It is pretty obvious that they originally intended to ban assault rifles (the evil looking ones at least), but not similar semiauto rifles that were considered acceptable.

I don't think they care if their legislation is unconstitutional. They seem willing to take their chances in court. For them, the worst that can happen is that their law gets overturned, since there are no penalties for writing unconstitutional laws. They can cry to their constituents that they tried, but their best efforts were defeated by judicial activism. For someone like Yee and other Democrats in very left leaning districts, there is no real downside.

Moonshine
08-08-2012, 2:16 PM
Not entirely true there is one possible downside... The courts could rule registration needs to reopen for the BB guns to become "assault weapons" because they are now an "evil feature". Once registered as such the BB could then be removed. Of course if this happened they still win a minor victory by preventing future BB equipped rifles from entering the state, at least until someone gets clever again and the cycle starts all over again!

PhillyGunner
08-08-2012, 2:35 PM
Sorry folks, I'm a little confused. I purchased a firearm from a national manufacturer, that was clearly labeled as CALIFORNIA COMPLIANT. If it was legal for them to sell me that firearm and transfer it to me, across state lines, through a FFL who performed a DROS of said weapon... how is it's becoming illegal now [I]NOT[I] ex post facto?

phrogg111
08-08-2012, 2:43 PM
Sorry folks, I'm a little confused. I purchased a firearm from a national manufacturer, that was clearly labeled as CALIFORNIA COMPLIANT. If it was legal for them to sell me that firearm and transfer it to me, across state lines, through a FFL who performed a DROS of said weapon... how is it's becoming illegal now [I]NOT[I] ex post facto?

It can't be. SB249 won't pass the courts because it's unconstitutional.

It's a constitutional issue that forced the government to allow people to register their "newly banned" rifles as "assault weapons" when they put new rifles on the banned list for the AR/AK series firearms.

Worst case, we all now have registered "assault weapons", and we can modify them however the heck we want to.

BigDogatPlay
08-08-2012, 2:47 PM
Worst case, we all now have registered "assault weapons", and we can modify them however the heck we want to.

Worst case would be that no court overturns and we all have to turn in, destroy or remove our rifles from the geographical borders of California. Litigation is a crap shoot and this is why we must defeat the bill in the Legislature, now!

rspar
08-08-2012, 2:54 PM
This may be a dumb question but I thought after six months rifle registration papers were supposed to be destroyed? If that's the case then how do they know where these rifles are?

mud99
08-08-2012, 2:58 PM
I think this bill might be our ticket out of hell. Think about it, we still have SCOTUS leaning our way, and confiscation of a billion dollars worth of firearms without compensation seems like a slam dunk case on our side.

So if it doesn't pass, we return to status quo, and if it does pass, we have a rocket ship to SCOTUS before the pro-2A judges retire.

The short term consequences might be bad, real bad, but hopefully it might be the ticket to securing 2A for generations to come.

creekside
08-08-2012, 3:15 PM
I think this bill might be our ticket out of hell. Think about it, we still have SCOTUS leaning our way, and confiscation of a billion dollars worth of firearms without compensation seems like a slam dunk case on our side.

So if it doesn't pass, we return to status quo, and if it does pass, we have a rocket ship to SCOTUS before the pro-2A judges retire.

The short term consequences might be bad, real bad, but hopefully it might be the ticket to securing 2A for generations to come.

In a word, NO.

If this passes, don't count on either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to come save you. This could just as easily be the case that loses gun owners all across America their access to most semi-automatic rifles.

That for all the non-California gun owners who are indifferent to our rights. Bad ideas are often born in California and migrate nationwide.

mud99
08-08-2012, 3:28 PM
In a word, YES.

Because I have a magical wand and can predict the future with 100% accuracy.

In a word, NO.

If this passes, don't count on either the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court to come save you. This could just as easily be the case that loses gun owners all across America their access to most semi-automatic rifles.

That for all the non-California gun owners who are indifferent to our rights. Bad ideas are often born in California and migrate nationwide.

Anchors
08-08-2012, 3:33 PM
This may be a dumb question but I thought after six months rifle registration papers were supposed to be destroyed? If that's the case then how do they know where these rifles are?

It is supposed to be much quicker than that and it isn't registration via DROS. They just know a LONG GUN has been purchased, nothing else.

However...
4473s still exists.

Every manufacturer has records of where they dispo'd their rifles (to distributors and dealers), who in turn have records/4473 of where they dispo'd their rifles (ultimately to you and I).
Federal registration doesn't exist the way it does in California for handguns, but it still exists to an extent in my opinion. Especially in states like California where all private transfers get 4473'd.

Either way, they don't have the resources to go door to door or even dig all those up. They won't come for your property. You'll just become a felony criminal over night and they'll get to you someday down the road. Little by little.

mymonkeyman
08-08-2012, 3:37 PM
How is the "for public use" clause interpreted? If they don't specifically require seizure in the law is it still a de facto taking?

The public use clause is as dead as a door nail, see Kelo. The test is if there is some public purpose. It's not going to fail the public use test unless the law expressly says "we are taking properties from these dudes and giving properties to these other dudes and we have no public purpose behind it." It's even more dead for personal property.

It's a taking because it destroys all personal and economic use and compels the destruction or surrender of property.

JTROKS
08-08-2012, 3:54 PM
The executive is a Harvard law school grad and a former Constitutional Law professor. Can't he see that all these D- CA Senators are infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights?


:rolleyes: with severe sarcasm.

Scratch705
08-08-2012, 4:08 PM
This could just as easily be the case that loses gun owners all across America their access to most semi-automatic rifles.

That for all the non-California gun owners who are indifferent to our rights. Bad ideas are often born in California and migrate nationwide.

for some reason, i am fine with this fact, that if it went that far, that all gun owners will now have to fight, instead of the "oh who cares about CA gun owners" attitude they have in other states.

JTROKS
08-08-2012, 4:15 PM
It is supposed to be much quicker than that and it isn't registration via DROS. They just know a LONG GUN has been purchased, nothing else.

However...
4473s still exists.

Every manufacturer has records of where they dispo'd their rifles (to distributors and dealers), who in turn have records/4473 of where they dispo'd their rifles (ultimately to you and I).
Federal registration doesn't exist the way it does in California for handguns, but it still exists to an extent in my opinion. Especially in states like California where all private transfers get 4473'd.

Either way, they don't have the resources to go door to door or even dig all those up. They won't come for your property. You'll just become a felony criminal over night and they'll get to you someday down the road. Little by little.

Most bought OLLs and not complete long guns. I can't believe my deer rifles and target guns that are bolt actions can turn me into a felon overnight. I don't know why I came back to this state.

chris
08-08-2012, 4:26 PM
They don't care. They're showing their true face, communism.

exactly. the democrats are showing their true colors. they want to ban them confiscate these rifles first then you know what's next.

IVC
08-08-2012, 4:33 PM
Sorry folks, I'm a little confused. I purchased a firearm from a national manufacturer, that was clearly labeled as CALIFORNIA COMPLIANT. If it was legal for them to sell me that firearm and transfer it to me, across state lines, through a FFL who performed a DROS of said weapon... how is it's becoming illegal now [I]NOT[I] ex post facto?

It doesn't fit the definition. There are other Constitutional problems with this law, though.

.22guy
08-08-2012, 4:34 PM
One thing that keeps bouncing around in my head is that if, God forbid, this monstrosity passes and we end up somehow being able to register AR's as RAW's we won't be able to hunt with them. Or is that only on BLM land?

Anchors
08-08-2012, 4:43 PM
@JTROKS lowers are reported the same way as complete long guns via DROS.
Via 4473 the only difference is whether you check the "long gun - rifle or shotgun" box or the "other" box.

Oh and now you have to report multiple purchases of certain rifles (thanks to Obama admin BS), but lowers ("others") have no such requirement.

Anchors
08-08-2012, 4:45 PM
Also, only semi-auto pistols* and semi-automatic, center fire rifles and shotguns* are currently being targeted by SB249. But don't believe for a second they want you to have a deer gun (high powered sniper rifle only made for assassinating innocent people by their definition).

*Corrected to add pistols and shotguns

Quiet
08-08-2012, 5:01 PM
Also, only semi-automatic, center fire rifles are currently being targeted by SB249. But don't believe for a second they want you to have a deer gun (high powered sniper rifle only made for assassinating innocent people by their definition).
Correction.

SB249 affects:
semi-auto centerfire rifles
semi-auto pistols
semi-auto shotguns

HBrebel
08-08-2012, 5:12 PM
I ask one question, if they don't care what we say, why the hell do we care what they say? Yee is only a small man with dollar signs and votes in his eyes along with an extreme fear of guns. You have to understand why they want to slowly disarm us all the while telling us "i'm not gonna take your guns" It will come down to who needs who eventually and babylon will fall, I have no fear.

motorwerks
08-08-2012, 5:24 PM
I'm a bit confused as to how they are able to retroactively ban something that was lawful... When the original AW ban passed we were allowed registration which is consistent with no ex post facto... What justification are they using for confiscation and what about BB owners who either can't afford a gun smith and/or don't have the knowledge to reconfigure a rifle?

Yep they feel like our legal guns are already illegal, and because of that they feel like they can go ahead and take what we have worked so hard for.

HBrebel
08-09-2012, 2:45 PM
If we let them take away everything we love, what would be the point of even existing? This is America and the whole idea behind this country is that we resist illegal taxation, resist disarmament, and resist all tyranny. I know Yee is no tyrant, he would like to be but he would be disposed of on day one. But men(if you can call him that)like Yee use fear to get votes and he needs to be unseated asap

RuggedJay
08-09-2012, 2:53 PM
SO when is the next meeting or hearing in Sac on SB249 and why isn't anyone organizing to get people to go to it?

Rock6.3
08-09-2012, 2:54 PM
SO when is the next meeting or hearing in Sac on SB249 and why isn't anyone organizing to get people to go to it?
Next Thursday:

http://www.gunownersca.com/news/news-current/item/2431-help-defeat-sb249

^^ follow link for details.


.

nicki
08-09-2012, 2:57 PM
Last DOJ screwup resulted in a state buyback of SKS rifles.

Now of course those were relatively low cost, the compensation actually was around market price for SKS rifles.

Today however, the costs of ARs and AKs is significantly higher.

100,000 ARs for example at say 1,000 dollars each would be 100 million dollars.

What if there are say 500,000 ARs in the state and lets not forget all the other guns too.

This could easily be a 1 billion dollar mess for the state if passed.

Nicki

unusedusername
08-09-2012, 3:28 PM
100,000 ARs for example at say 1,000 dollars each would be 100 million dollars.


That would be quite the underestimation for the number of EBRs in the state if my source is correct.

Also remember that only an entry-level AR is $1k. Many of them cost much more then that.