PDA

View Full Version : SB249 New Text


USMCM16A2
08-08-2012, 7:57 PM
Folks,



Looking the new language of SB249 I find a couple of points interesting,
"Sec 2 The Amendment of Section 30515 of the Penal Code made by Section 1 does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of existing law." This pertains to his amendments of Penal Code 30515, explaining that the bullet button is now considered detachable magazine. Look close at the language I have in quotes, he amends the definition of detachable magazine, amend means to change, and then says that this amendment is NOT a change in but declaratory of existing law. Legal definition of declaratory is to state the existing law.
So, my take is that Yee is saying that what we are doing is already illegal, despite CCR 5469, and Kamallahs own opinion in the Haynie case. And with that since we are IN HIS MIND doing illegal acts, we do not deserve 5th Amendment or Ex Post Facto protections. Wow when is a change not a change? This guy is out of his skull, A2

mmayer707
08-08-2012, 8:03 PM
Didn't the DOJ already say the bullet button made the magazine non detachable?

AeroEngi
08-08-2012, 8:05 PM
Very interesting and I see your point. It says that it's being amended but then states that this is not a change. Last time I checked, an amendment = a change. Or am I wrong?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

USMCM16A2
08-08-2012, 8:05 PM
Mayer,



Yes, CCR 5469, I will post a copy of the definition. A2

USMCM16A2
08-08-2012, 8:08 PM
Folks,


Here is the current definition of what a detachable magazine is or is not, and remember Yee did not change he just amended it.:D:D:D
TITLE 11. LAW
DIVISION 5. FIREARMS REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 39. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES
ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS

11 CCR 5469 (2009)

5469. Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
A2

curtisfong
08-08-2012, 9:53 PM
boggle

dantodd
08-08-2012, 10:12 PM
That is the implementing regulation, not the actual law, Yee's bill is essentially claiming that the DoJ regulations did not accurately capture the intent of the legislature and that his bill is merely clarifying what the legislature meant when they originally wrote the law.

XD40SUBBIE
08-08-2012, 10:15 PM
Folks,


Here is the current definition of what a detachable magazine is or is not, and remember Yee did not change he just amended it.:D:D:D
TITLE 11. LAW
DIVISION 5. FIREARMS REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 39. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGULATIONS FOR ASSAULT WEAPONS AND LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES
ARTICLE 2. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY ASSAULT WEAPONS

11 CCR 5469 (2009)

5469. Definitions

The following definitions apply to terms used in the identification of assault weapons pursuant to Penal Code section 12276.1:

(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
A2


So how is SB249 "clarifying" this law? It looks a lot like he is changing it...

dustoff31
08-08-2012, 10:17 PM
What difference does it make whether it's a change or not? Laws are changed all the time.

phdo
08-08-2012, 10:19 PM
This crap gets more and more confusing. I try to keep up with the definition but it's overwhelmingly frustrating. I'm just going to assume BS249 is BAD and I will continue to do my part by communicating to my representatives.

cleonard
08-08-2012, 10:30 PM
The code (aka law) appears to have no definition of a detachable magazine. If there were a definition, just that could be changed leaving the law alone. However, in this case they are adding a new section (d) to the law. That's got to be an amendment as it was not present before.

Does this technical point matter? Somehow I doubt it.

Micro48
08-08-2012, 10:47 PM
"(a) "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine."

Looks like a definition to me.

wildhawker
08-08-2012, 10:53 PM
See http://stopsb249.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/sb249_fact_sheet1.pdf

truthseeker
08-08-2012, 10:59 PM
The code (aka law) appears to have no definition of a detachable magazine. If there were a definition, just that could be changed leaving the law alone. However, in this case they are adding a new section (d) to the law. That's got to be an amendment as it was not present before.

Does this technical point matter? Somehow I doubt it.

It does matter!

Everyone with a BB has been COMPLYING with the law, as the CADOJ has confirmed, but YEE thinks he can tell everyone that owns a BB semi auto-matic rifle with a BB that they are not allowed to own them anymore, so they will have o surrender them without compensation!

How is it that "WE" (I have donated money to Cal Guns Foundation) have already taken to court and confirmed through "Attorney General Kamala Harris has gone on record under penalty of perjury in federal court" extrapolating/solidifying what "WE" (not YEE) have already known, that is that BB rifles are NOT AW?

WOW! I am baffled as to how this "amendment" is even required or asked for, by constituents of Yee.

Seems he is trying to use this as a stepping stone to make more money and gain a higher position in the .gov arena!

goodlookin1
08-09-2012, 7:37 AM
The Code of Regulations has the force of Law. Changing the regulation = change the law. The DOJ clarified what the "intent of the law" was at the time of its passing. Further, with the DOJ having already accepted the definition in court, this will be thrown out in no time if the legislature/gov passes it.

randian
08-09-2012, 1:19 PM
What difference does it make whether it's a change or not? Laws are changed all the time.
If it's not a change in the law, then it's not a taking.

Librarian
08-09-2012, 1:41 PM
plenty of open 249 threads