PDA

View Full Version : 2013 CA SB 47 - Yee, Assault weapons ** VERY LIMITED DISCUSSION!**


Pages : [1] 2

Librarian
12-19-2012, 10:05 AM
New-style legislative link - leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47

OLD-style legislative link http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_47&sess=CUR&house=B&author=yee

as introduced:
BILL NUMBER: SB 47 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Senator Yee

DECEMBER 18, 2012

An act relating to assault weapons.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 47, as introduced, Yee. Assault weapons.
Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of
assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of
Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or
transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase,
importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified
individuals, including law enforcement officers.
Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault
weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is
authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person
registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation relating to assault weapons.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation relating to assault weapons.





Note: this thread is for discussing the PROGRESS, not the content.

See also the Guide to reading bills (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873) and How a bill becomes law (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=591209).

Librarian
12-19-2012, 10:07 AM
Sticky, for today, so the number of threads is lower ...

wildhawker
12-19-2012, 10:15 AM
Parking for FPC intel.

-Brandon

Moonshine
12-19-2012, 10:48 AM
So basically this is a placeholder for the bill to be introduced while specific language is being developed correct?

Librarian
12-19-2012, 10:52 AM
So basically this is a placeholder for the bill to be introduced while specific language is being developed correct?

Yes.

Librarian
12-19-2012, 3:36 PM
Wait so I can no longer shoot "assault type weapons" on BLM this weekend?

Sigh. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/sites/default/files/resize/uploaded/u6278/Don%27t%20panic-300x252.jpg

This is just the beginning - the end of the process is the Governor signing a bill, sometime around July at the probable earliest, and effective not sooner than 2014.

Please read the first post, and these links:
See also the Guide to reading bills (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=161873) and How a bill becomes law (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=591209).

==================

Please do not ask 'what is in the bill?' kinds of questions.

See this? SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact
legislation relating to assault weapons.
That's all there is on Dec 19, 2012. Really. Nobody 'officially' knows anything else.

It will be amended in due time. When that happens, this thread will be updated.

==================

Please allow me to remind everyone - THIS thread is NOT the random discussion thread. For now, that's
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=658575

profbri
12-19-2012, 6:49 PM
I was sent an e-mail w/ a potential invite to a FTF brunch w/ Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Might be an opportunity for a ranking CalGunner to get the scoop on where all the AW ban talk is really likely to head, or an opp. to press CGN agenda. I don't know how to put a link to an e-mail from my personal acc't. If you would like, I will copy and paste the e-mail. Just let me know if there is interest.

atc4usmc
12-19-2012, 8:39 PM
profbri, I think thats a great idea, there are plenty of calgunners on here that can lay out the facts and fight for our rights! At this point, we need all the help we can get to ensure we keep our rights and freedoms. This is only the beginning!

stix213
01-02-2013, 5:29 PM
What does "12/19/12 From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 18." mean when you click on "History" of the bill?

LMTluvr
01-02-2013, 5:33 PM
Thats some rather interesting language...
We shall see.

FoxTrot87
01-02-2013, 7:27 PM
There should be a directive requiring all laws to provide a test & measure showing the problem, relative problems, and comparison of relativity to see if it is in fact a serious problem. After the problem and causes are defined creating a law which only impacts such problem. Any effects outside the problem would create an injunction until such law passes through the process again.

Librarian
01-02-2013, 9:29 PM
What does "12/19/12 From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 18." mean when you click on "History" of the bill?

It means that the legislature is following its rules.

Cannot consider a bill until it has been 'in print' for 30 days. No votes, no formal amendments, no hearings.

Sanchanim
01-10-2013, 12:42 PM
I noticed right now is only the limited text, not the amendment. Doesn't the full text need to be accessible for 30 days?
I believe the full text is supposed to be available today.

TacoJockey
01-11-2013, 10:54 AM
Bill text has disappeared, looks like status change to

01/10/13 Referred to Com. on RLS.

GrizzlyGuy
01-11-2013, 11:25 AM
Bill text has disappeared, looks like status change to

01/10/13 Referred to Com. on RLS.

I'm pretty sure that "Com. on RLS" is the Rules Committee, in this case the Senate Rules Committee (ftp://leginfo.public.ca.gov/pub/dailyfile/sen/senate_committees) since it is a senate bill:

Rules-(5)-Steinberg (Chair), Fuller (Vice Chair), Emmerson, Lara and Jackson. Secretary of the Senate: Greg Schmidt. Assistant: Jane Brown. Phone: (916)651-4120. Room 400.

I don't understand why they pull the text when this happens.

stix213
01-11-2013, 2:13 PM
Bill text has disappeared, looks like status change to

01/10/13 Referred to Com. on RLS.

Bill text appears to be the same now as in the OP.

seabee1
01-11-2013, 4:15 PM
Am I confused? SB47 is the topic here, but what's this? http://stopsb249.org

stix213
01-11-2013, 4:50 PM
Am I confused? SB47 is the topic here, but what's this? http://stopsb249.org

SB 47 Is this year's version of SB 249 from last year.

seabee1
01-11-2013, 5:02 PM
Got it thanks

Johnnyfres
01-11-2013, 6:44 PM
Basically a back up plan if for CA if the federal ban does not go through.

jimezdoesit
01-14-2013, 9:38 AM
Language has been submitted for SB 47

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-01-14-yee-submits-legislation-strengthen-ca-assault-weapon-ban-close-bullet-button-loophol

RobGR
01-14-2013, 9:43 AM
And a petition for CA voters to sign is now circulating

https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/california_bulletbutton/index.html?p=california_bulletbutton&r=6994802

Do we have a counter petition? I know we all signed one before, but what else can we do to get our voices heard.

Librarian
01-14-2013, 9:45 AM
Language has been submitted for SB 47

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-01-14-yee-submits-legislation-strengthen-ca-assault-weapon-ban-close-bullet-button-loophol

Hasn't hit the official site yet, but probably we can take this as good.
(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action. but this part will be fun - new registration period! (c) Any person who, between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in section 30515 and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.

Even more interesting is the as-yet-unsubmitted SB 108, (This .PDF doesn't highlight the changes to PC, so hard to see exactly what they are without side-by-side examination.)CHAPTER 4. Storage of firearms within residences.
25235. (a) No person 18 years of age or older who is the owner, or leaseholder, or renter, or other legal occupant of a residence while outside of that residence shall keep a firearm he or she owns or has legal possession of in that residence unless that firearm is stored in one of the following ways:
(1) The firearm is within a locked container.
(2) The firearm is disabled by a firearm safety device.
(3) The firearm is within a locked gun safe.
(4) The firearm is within a locked trunk.
(5) The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
(b) A violation of this section is punishable as follows:
(1) A first violation not involving a handgun as an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100).
(2) For a second violation involving any firearm or a first violation involving a handgun, as an infraction, punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(3) For a third or subsequent violation, guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) The provisions of this section are cumulative, and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by different provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision.

live2suck
01-14-2013, 10:14 AM
And the link that had the bill's langauge is now broken - joy.

stix213
01-14-2013, 10:23 AM
Ummm is it wrong part of me wants to see sb47 pass now? I don't think he understands what the new text does.

(I'm still against of course)

Staticsouls
01-14-2013, 11:55 AM
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCommentsClient.xhtmlGo to the page from the link posted by the OP, and hit comment to author, and let melt down this guys email. Flood them.

bigb0886
01-14-2013, 12:16 PM
I know this is for SB47 but as far as SB108 is concerned, didn't DC v Heller already set the precedent that DC's laws requiring storage in safes or requiring trigger locks in the home are unconstitutional?

**Doubt theres anything antis can use, but Mods feel free to delete my post or PM to edit/remove it

chris
01-14-2013, 12:37 PM
I know this is for SB47 but as far as SB108 is concerned, didn't DC v Heller already set the precedent that DC's laws requiring storage in safes or requiring trigger locks in the home are unconstitutional?

**Doubt theres anything antis can use, but Mods feel free to delete my post or PM to edit/remove it

Yee or his minions do not care about the Constitution it gets in their way. we know what the goal is.

stix213
01-14-2013, 1:13 PM
I know this is for SB47 but as far as SB108 is concerned, didn't DC v Heller already set the precedent that DC's laws requiring storage in safes or requiring trigger locks in the home are unconstitutional?

**Doubt theres anything antis can use, but Mods feel free to delete my post or PM to edit/remove it

Looks like sb108 only applies when you are not home. Not sure how Heller applies. I believe DC's storage law applied also when you were home, which prevented having a firearm available for self defense.

This looks like for anyone who is already responsible with their firearm storage, there will be no effect. I hate to see more restrictions, but you should already be locking up your firearms when you're not at home anyway.

glbtrottr
01-14-2013, 2:19 PM
The pro-dictatorship monkeys in Yee's office have been hard at work.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2047%20Language.pdf


Language:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine does not have a fixed magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
(b) (c)The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting from the definition of "assault weapon" pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that were used for Olympic target shooting purposes as of January 1, 2001, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (c) (d).
(c) (d) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the following: (1) Any antique firearm.

(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b) (c):
MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
BENELLI MP90 BENELLI MP90 BENELLI MP95 BENELLI MP95 HAMMERLI 280 HAMMERLI 280 HAMMERLI SP20 HAMMERLI SP20 PARDINI GPO
.22LR
.32 S&W LONG .22LR
.32 S&W LONG
.22LR
.32 S&W LONG
.22LR
.32 S&W LONG .22 SHORT
PARDINI PARDINI PARDINI PARDINI PARDINI WALTHER WALTHER WALTHER WALTHER
GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT HP .32 S&W LONG
MP .32 S&W LONG
SP .22LR
SPE .22LR
GSP .22LR
GSP .32 S&W LONG OSP .22 SHORT OSP-2000 .22 SHORT
(3) The Department of Justice shall create a program that is consistent with the purposes stated in subdivision (b) (c) to exempt new models of competitive pistols that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon" pursuant to this section from being classified as an assault weapon. The exempt competitive pistols may be based on recommendations by USA Shooting consistent with the regulations contained in the USA Shooting Official Rules or may be based on the recommendation or rules of any other organization that the department deems relevant.
Section 2: Section 30900 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
(a) Any person who, prior to June 1, 1989, lawfully possessed an assault weapon, as defined in former Section 12276, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989, shall register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.5, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 874 of the Statutes of 1990 or Section 3 of Chapter 954 of the Statutes of 1991, shall register the firearm within 90 days with the Department of Justice pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(b) Except as provided in Section 30600, any person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.1, as it read in Section 7 of Chapter 129 of the Statutes of 1999, and which was not specified as an assault weapon under former Section 12276, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at any time before January 1, 2001, or former Section 12276.5, as added

by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at any time before January 1, 2001, shall register the firearm by January 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(c) Any person who, between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in section 30515 and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(c) (d) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate.
(d) (e) The department may charge a fee for registration of up to twenty dollars ($20) per person but not to exceed the actual processing costs of the department. After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustment for the department's budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account.

Omega13device
01-14-2013, 2:24 PM
Ummm is it wrong part of me wants to see sb47 pass now? I don't think he understands what the new text does.

(I'm still against of course)

That silver lining that you think you see is really 30 pieces of silver. You get a registration period but you lose all future rights. This is no different from a ban on "subversive" books that allows you to keep whatever books you have but prohibits you from buying new ones that the government doesn't like.

Let's not get sucked into the line of thinking that "I have what I want so it's not so bad."

AKSOG
01-14-2013, 2:28 PM
This really needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.

dmyhra
01-14-2013, 2:33 PM
Can it be stopped? The Democrats own the state government.

Surf Hunter
01-14-2013, 2:36 PM
Can it be stopped? The Democrats own the state government.

It can, but we won't discuss that so they don't arm themselves so to speak.

stix213
01-14-2013, 2:44 PM
That silver lining that you think you see is really 30 pieces of silver. You get a registration period but you lose all future rights. This is no different from a ban on "subversive" books that allows you to keep whatever books you have but prohibits you from buying new ones that the government doesn't like.

Let's not get sucked into the line of thinking that "I have what I want so it's not so bad."

I think you've missed what silver lining I'm talking about, since it is more than just keeping what you have. I won't explain it on the forum. And for the record I'm going to fight this as hard as I can regardless.

roushstage2
01-14-2013, 2:45 PM
It can, but we won't discuss that so they don't arm themselves so to speak.

As they seem to have a bit more from all of the SB249 talk.

merrill
01-14-2013, 2:46 PM
The battle is joined and we all can have a part in victory. The foot soldier sends emails, letters, signs petitions, takes part in rallies and makes phone calls. Sending money always helps (NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition). Others who have the skill and knowledge will talk to legislators and state leaders directly to see if we can reason together. The gun slingers will sue when the time is right.

stix213
01-14-2013, 2:47 PM
Can it be stopped? The Democrats own the state government.

We beat it last year. Email, snail mail, and call your reps over and over. I'll be doing it several times a week. Do the same to Jerry Brown if it goes to his desk. Jerry is partly responsible for OLL's in the first place, and has veto'd all gun bills that haven't involved open carry, so there is a good chance he won't sign.

SFgiants105
01-14-2013, 3:17 PM
Ummm is it wrong part of me wants to see sb47 pass now? I don't think he understands what the new text does.

(I'm still against of course)

Definitely still against

JamesH
01-14-2013, 3:23 PM
Looks tight as a drum to me. Damn... Yee really did his homework.

HowardW56
01-14-2013, 3:30 PM
Looks tight as a drum to me. Damn... Yee really did his homework.

For Yee to have done homework, it implies that he had a clue...
You mean LCAV (Now the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) may have done some homework....

wildhawker
01-14-2013, 3:42 PM
For Yee to have done homework, it implies that he had a clue...
You mean LCAV (Noe the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) may have done some homework....

Howard is correct.

-Brandon

The Mad Mule
01-14-2013, 3:59 PM
The latest update: http://www.firearmspolicy.org/2013/01/california-senator-leland-yees-sb-47-new-assault-weapons-ban-and-sb-108-mandatory-safe-storage-are-out/

microstencil
01-14-2013, 4:11 PM
Greetings fellow gun lovers.

Like many of you, I too am looking for ways to scoff the law and rules that keep society safe from mass murderers by keeping my military-style rapid fire assault rifles with high capacity clips. It's my God-given right to have 100s of rounds of cop-killer ammo for hunting.

Based on the way the propossed legistlation is written, what loopholes might there be that will allow me to keep my guns so that me and my family will be safe from gangs and rapists?

Don't worry about me being a gun grabber. As you can see from my username, I am totally not. Plus Senator Yee is a stupid communist.

Have a nice day.


Wow sounds like Yee

stix213
01-14-2013, 4:17 PM
And how would all of this affect 80% builds since there are no serial numbers?

As written compliance means registration, so you need a serial number I would assume.

ke6guj
01-14-2013, 4:19 PM
As written compliance means registration, so you need a serial number I would assume.
correct, those that had homebuilt 50BMG rifles had to serialize them in 2004.

Surf Hunter
01-14-2013, 4:19 PM
Are you for real?

I'm pretty sure he is a legit CA gun owner concerned about his eroding second amendment rights. (insert sarcasm).
:rolleyes:

microstencil
01-14-2013, 4:39 PM
One more question please. This is on 80% pistol builds. Would these be included in SB47 as well?

CBruce
01-14-2013, 4:47 PM
One more question please. This is on 80% pistol builds. Would these be included in SB47 as well?

Does it matter?

We should all be united behind this on principle alone. It's reactionary, do-nothing legistlation seeking to create a problem and then solve it for someone's political legacy. All while grandstanding on the corpses of children.

ambis
01-14-2013, 5:03 PM
Anyone see Yee's facebook page for the bullet button? It's hilarious. I wonder how many 'bullet buttoned' AR 15's were responsible for murders in California last year?

ambis
01-14-2013, 5:04 PM
Anyone see Yee's facebook post for the bullet button? It's hilarious. I wonder how many 'bullet buttoned' AR 15's were responsible for murders in California last year?

stix213
01-14-2013, 5:20 PM
Anyone see Yee's facebook post for the bullet button? It's hilarious. I wonder how many 'bullet buttoned' AR 15's were responsible for murders in California last year?

LOL, almost unanimous opposition to SB47 on his own page. He's going to have to start banning people to save face.

Omega13device
01-14-2013, 5:26 PM
LOL, almost unanimous opposition to SB47 on his own page. He's going to have to start banning people to save face.

If everyone who posted something on his page would also send him a concise, polite, printed letter (on paper) indicating their opposition to the bill, that would be a huge help.

AKSOG
01-14-2013, 5:38 PM
It's times like these I wish facebook still had a "dislike" button.

chris
01-14-2013, 6:01 PM
what's his facebook page

chris
01-14-2013, 6:02 PM
We beat it last year. Email, snail mail, and call your reps over and over. I'll be doing it several times a week. Do the same to Jerry Brown if it goes to his desk. Jerry is partly responsible for OLL's in the first place, and has veto'd all gun bills that haven't involved open carry, so there is a good chance he won't sign.

doesn't matter the legislature is veto proof. doesn't matter what brown does.

freonr22
01-14-2013, 6:20 PM
If everyone who posted something on his page would also send him a concise, polite, printed letter (on paper) indicating their opposition to the bill, that would be a huge help.
How would it help? That would be a waste of energy.
Now, volunteering for cgf and cgn, to get the word out to the public would be a huge help.
Yee/Adam doesn't give a hoot about your letters

stix213
01-14-2013, 6:25 PM
doesn't matter the legislature is veto proof. doesn't matter what brown does.

Fail, as not all dems are anti

AKSOG
01-14-2013, 6:28 PM
what's his facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/VoteYee

chris
01-14-2013, 6:56 PM
Fail, as not all dems are anti

yeah ok. we'll see about that when party pressure is put on them they will vote for it.

kaligaran
01-14-2013, 6:57 PM
I think I'm missing something. I have two questions.

1 So the result of this new definition of AW is to prevent the future sale/import/manufacture of AWs in CA? That seems to be the goal, right?

2. I didn't live in the state for the last AW registration. Can a person who legally owned the firearm and is not a prohibited person be denied the registration?

On a side note, I guess Mr Yee doesn't care about the jobs or industry that will be impacted by this at all... I hope the firearms manufacturing/retail industry goes after this hard. I assume it may increase the unemployment rate.

chris
01-14-2013, 7:06 PM
https://www.facebook.com/VoteYee

i left a few comments on his page. people are really letting him have it on this crappy legislation he's pushing.

stix213
01-14-2013, 7:18 PM
I think I'm missing something. I have two questions.

1 So the result of this new definition of AW is to prevent the future sale/import/manufacture of AWs in CA? That seems to be the goal, right?

2. I didn't live in the state for the last AW registration. Can a person who legally owned the firearm and is not a prohibited person be denied the registration?

On a side note, I guess Mr Yee doesn't care about the jobs or industry that will be impacted by this at all... I hope the firearms manufacturing/retail industry goes after this hard. I assume it may increase the unemployment rate.

The goal is to ban the bullet button by changing the definition of fixed magazine to exclude bullet buttons. AWs are already largely banned from sale, import, and manufacture, and will continue to regardless of this bill.

I don't see any reason to conclude this bill will affect sales numbers for non-AW firearms after this goes into effect.

DarkSoul
01-14-2013, 7:28 PM
When will some flyer jpegs be available for the new Stop Yee / SB47 campaign? I passed out a ton of them last time around for SB249, and would like to get started ASAP this time around.

AKSOG
01-14-2013, 7:54 PM
From the interview on his Facebook he claimed the attorney general (Kamala Harris) is backing him on this.

rimfire78
01-14-2013, 8:27 PM
I'll be leaving before then.
I'll be taking my wife, my cat, all my toys, and our taxable income with me.

chris
01-14-2013, 8:29 PM
From the interview on his Facebook he claimed the attorney general (Kamala Harris) is backing him on this.

of course she will democrats will back eachother up when the pressure is on. there is no pressure for harris she will be more than happy to cause gun owners problems.

who here liked his facebook page?

gotshotgun?
01-14-2013, 8:51 PM
Featureless ftw?

kaligaran
01-14-2013, 9:22 PM
The goal is to ban the bullet button by changing the definition of fixed magazine to exclude bullet buttons. AWs are already largely banned from sale, import, and manufacture, and will continue to regardless of this bill.

I don't see any reason to conclude this bill will affect sales numbers for non-AW firearms after this goes into effect.

Ah yes, I had a mistype, I meant 'ban furture sale/import/manufacture of AR's' not AWs. My bad on that typo.

I meant sales numbers of overall firearms. Since ARs are the best selling firearm in America, I assume it will severely impact CA. I could be wrong.

Any info on the other question I had about registering if this goes through?

stix213
01-14-2013, 9:28 PM
Ah yes, I had a mistype, I meant 'ban furture sale/import/manufacture of AR's' not AWs. My bad on that typo.

I meant sales numbers of overall firearms. Since ARs are the best selling firearm in America, I assume it will severely impact CA. I could be wrong.

Any info on the other question I had about registering if this goes through?

Yee has already said top loading will be a way to comply going forward, which I expect will be the typical AR configuration sold to newbies post SB47.


Specifically, Yee’s SB 47 will prohibit the use of the bullet button and other devices that allow for easily changeable magazines on all military-style assault weapons, such as AR-15s. Under SB 47, featured weapons would only be allowed to have low capacity (10-round) ammunition magazines that could not be changed without dissembling the weapon. Essentially, bullets could only be loaded one-by-one from the top of the gun.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-01-14-yee-submits-legislation-strengthen-ca-assault-weapon-ban-close-bullet-button-loophol

Registration will likely be shall issue I suspect

Ford8N
01-14-2013, 9:51 PM
Word of advice for anyone who doesn't have an AW or missed out on one the last registration, BEND FLATS.

Scott Connors
01-14-2013, 9:55 PM
Yee is like Jeb Stuart at Gettysburg: making a lot of fuss and getting his name in the papers, but ultimately accomplishing nothing but the bankrupting of the state treasury.

huntercf
01-14-2013, 10:08 PM
Fail, as not all dems are anti

But none of them live in PRK. Even the supposed pro-gun dems in US congress have been speaking for more gun control. Sorry, but when it really counts dems will always vote against us.

DrVino
01-14-2013, 10:44 PM
We need a petition to oppose these bills, STAT, ASAP, PRONTO.
Please post link.

hoffmang
01-14-2013, 11:05 PM
Hrm... Register a few, build up a few new featureless. It's amusing!

-Gene

BMartin1776
01-14-2013, 11:06 PM
is anyone on our side or is this it(it being our guns rights going bye bye)?

I was always understanding that federal law trumps state law... 2A(fed law) says "shall not be infringed"... all guns laws are infringing on 2A so someone pls explain to me what Im missing that this is all ok?!

DrVino
01-14-2013, 11:12 PM
Hrm... Register a few, build up a few new featureless. It's amusing!

-Gene

Gene, can you please PM me. I have an off-line legal question.

jdberger
01-14-2013, 11:30 PM
Ummm is it wrong part of me wants to see sb47 pass now? I don't think he understands what the new text does.

(I'm still against of course)

Of course...:D

Sen. Yee - that there is a briar patch. Please-o-please, whatever you do, DON'T toss me in there.

oh no. Pleeeeeaaaase don't.... [/roger rabbit voice]

Rattlehead
01-14-2013, 11:45 PM
...I hope the firearms manufacturing/retail industry goes after this hard. I assume it may increase the unemployment rate.

I am sure it will, but they will not care. They do not care about 'those' kinds of jobs or businesses.

SFgiants105
01-15-2013, 12:32 AM
Our only hope here is for gun-control politicians to step on our rights so extensively that the judiciary branch is forced to intervene and reverse it all

BMartin1776
01-15-2013, 1:48 AM
It can, but we won't discuss that so they don't arm themselves so to speak.
I hope your right this is getting out of hand with these progressives infringing 2A... going to set the wrong person off and then we are all done

TeamPie
01-15-2013, 1:49 AM
How will the proposed law effect bullet-buttoned ar/ak pistols? If you have an 80% ar pistol, would it need to be registered by july 2014?

stix213
01-15-2013, 2:05 AM
How will the proposed law effect bullet-buttoned ar/ak pistols? If you have an 80% ar pistol, would it need to be registered by july 2014?

The change in definition of a "fixed magazine" affects pistols, rifles, and shotguns to exclude the use of bullet buttons. Registration is the way to comply written into the law. Yee has also mentioned top loading.

jaustin612
01-15-2013, 2:14 AM
This really agravates me... Im a hard core gun guy, I swear the only reason I go to California is because I'm active duty military. I have 3-4 year tours coming up, and now not only have they effectively made the Military friendly Assault weapon exemption impossible to obtain but this will get railroaded through too I bet. **** Californias politics and **** all the people stupid enough to either A not vote or B vote for these pigs.

mshill
01-15-2013, 2:42 AM
Invest in Exile Machines, MonsterMan and Thordsen Customs if you know what I mean.

Omega13device
01-15-2013, 9:16 AM
How would it help? That would be a waste of energy.
Now, volunteering for cgf and cgn, to get the word out to the public would be a huge help.
Yee/Adam doesn't give a hoot about your letters

Do that other stuff too, but writing does help. It's a numbers game. Would you rather they say, "well I didn't hear any opposition to it"? Write to your own senator and assembly member, then write to every other senator and assembly member. Keep it brief and polite, and ask them to vote against a specific bill. Here's an example you can tweak depending on the bill and legislator you're writing to. Obviously if you're not in their district then it's not a question of you voting for or against them, but you can tell them you'll actively campaign for, and donate money to, their opponent.

Dear [Senator or Assembly member name],

I'm writing to express my opposition to [bill number]. I oppose this bill and I am asking you to vote against it.

I vote, and if you oppose this bill I will support you in the next election, and I'll actively encourage my family and friends to do the same. If you support this bill you will lose my vote and that of my family and friends.

Sincerely,
Name
Street address
City, State, ZIP

SWalt
01-15-2013, 10:28 AM
Tagged

stix213
01-15-2013, 10:38 AM
I wouldn't talk about this too much, you don't want to give them any ideas.


Edit: where did you find that text?

It is written right into the bill specificly, and is the most significant change since the SB249 version so it was obviously on purpose as a means of compliance, so isn't something that we need to hide or anything :rolleyes:

The bill only adds 3 changes. It changes all references to "has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" to "does not have a fixed magazine", it adds a definition of fixed magazine requiring disassembly of the firearm action to remove, and opens registration. Pretty simple and not much to be secret squirrel about.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2047%20Language.pdf

Dantedamean
01-15-2013, 10:45 AM
It is written right into the bill specificly, and is the most significant change since the SB249 version so it was obviously on purpose as a means of compliance, so isn't something that we need to hide or anything :rolleyes:

The bill only does 3 things. It changes all references to "has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" to "does not have a fixed magazine", it adds a definition of fixed magazine to require disassembly of the firearm action to remove (so excluding bullet button type devices), and opens registration for everyone who now suddenly is in possession of an AW.

I just looked at the bill, all I can see is a few paragraphs.

When I say don't talk about it, I mean don't talk about the implications because they may not realize what door they really are opening. Just saying.

01trubluecobra
01-15-2013, 10:57 AM
It is written right into the bill specificly, and is the most significant change since the SB249 version so it was obviously on purpose as a means of compliance, so isn't something that we need to hide or anything :rolleyes:

The bill only adds 3 changes. It changes all references to "has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" to "does not have a fixed magazine", it adds a definition of fixed magazine requiring disassembly of the firearm action to remove, and opens registration. Pretty simple and not much to be secret squirrel about.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08.senate.ca.gov/files/SB%2047%20Language.pdf

!!!

CBruce
01-15-2013, 11:20 AM
Anyone see Yee's facebook page for the bullet button? It's hilarious. I wonder how many 'bullet buttoned' AR 15's were responsible for murders in California last year?

How many AR-15s, AK-47s, or any firearm that the "assault weapons" ban was attempting to to ban were legally purchased and owned as 'bullet-buttoned'? Of those, how many were later used to commit a crime.

That's the implication. That once these weapons are in state, they'll be abused or fall into the wrong hands where those magazine locks will come off and people will run around shooting up schools full of children.

Vlad 11
01-15-2013, 11:43 AM
On a side note:

This years SuperBowl is

SB -47 :TFH:

Guapoh
01-15-2013, 11:58 AM
Well, here is magic language for all of us BB gun owners:

(c) Any person who, between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in section 30515 and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(c) (d) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate.
(d) (e) The department may charge a fee for registration of up to twenty dollars ($20) per person but not to exceed the actual processing costs of the department. After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living adjustment for the department's budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act. The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account.

ambis
01-15-2013, 12:30 PM
Leland Yee decided to block me from his facebook page. No, I didn't cuss him out (he leaves stuff like that up) nor did I threaten him. I find it awkward that he holds a public office, a public facebook page, but chooses to deny my freedom of speech on his page...

I wrote:

- he is trying to gain momentum from Cuomo and the NY Ban. I urge you to write to your representatives here, in California

- how many bullet buttoned AR 15's killed people in California last year?

- Why don't you go after handguns?? Have 10 rds, used more in crimes than rifles?

lilro
01-15-2013, 12:50 PM
Who can I PM for clarification of the language?

Surf Hunter
01-15-2013, 12:54 PM
Leland Yee decided to block me from his facebook page. No, I didn't cuss him out (he leaves stuff like that up) nor did I threaten him. I find it awkward that he holds a public office, a public facebook page, but chooses to deny my freedom of speech on his page...

I wrote:

- he is trying to gain momentum from Cuomo and the NY Ban. I urge you to write to your representatives here, in California

- how many bullet buttoned AR 15's killed people in California last year?

- Why don't you go after handguns?? Have 10 rds, used more in crimes than rifles?

Funny, I got bloacked as well but was not as nice as you. I wrote someting along the lines of:

Killing an apex predator of the ocean for its fins for soup only to throw the body back into the water to die a horrible death = good. My second ammendment god given rights = bad.
i don't follow your logic Lelan Yee.

ambis
01-15-2013, 1:13 PM
haha, hilarious. He's quite restrictive.

freonr22
01-15-2013, 1:25 PM
what's his facebook page

http://www.facebook.com/fakeleeland.yee?fref=ts

jrr
01-15-2013, 1:28 PM
nice. Remember to keep it respectful though. The go back to where you came for type comments really got us some bad media last time. Whether you think its racist or not is irrelevant. All that matters is that this is the way it will be perceived and spun. Dont make his job easier.

Dantedamean
01-15-2013, 1:30 PM
Lol someone on there just said all gun owners should kill themselves.

rimfire78
01-15-2013, 10:34 PM
Once registered, can you lose the bullet button?

Librarian
01-15-2013, 11:00 PM
Once registered, can you lose the bullet button?

Not clear.

GM4spd
01-16-2013, 4:43 AM
Once registered, can you lose the bullet button?

Very interesting:eek: Pete

Dutch Schultz
01-16-2013, 5:41 AM
How did registration work the first time around? Registering didn't invite them in your home for inspections or other such nasties did it?

Omega13device
01-16-2013, 7:38 AM
How did registration work the first time around? Registering didn't invite them in your home for inspections or other such nasties did it?

Nope, you just send in the application with the fee and they send you a letter confirming the firearms that you registered.

valleyrat
01-16-2013, 10:32 AM
Not clear.

Those are the sort of questions that need to be censored. Discussion of the possible implications of written legislation will only undermine our cause by providing intel to the opposition, unless it is a deliberate and coordinated misinformation campaign.

My 2c..

Dantedamean
01-16-2013, 12:39 PM
Those are the sort of questions that need to be censored.

My 2c..

QFT

people need to relax for a few months.

Librarian
01-16-2013, 12:54 PM
How did registration work the first time around? Registering didn't invite them in your home for inspections or other such nasties did it?

Nope. Folks voluntarily sent in paperwork and the fee.

Won't involve any home visits this time, either - nobody knows who has rifles.

skibuff
01-16-2013, 1:44 PM
I was guessing that the newest bill would basically be a 3rd round of registering as AW's.

I didn't see any language regarding the transfer once registered. Is it safe to assume that once registered your BB gun can no longer be sold or transferred in CA.
If so I think I'm going to transfer my BB guns to my boys 13 and 20 and have them open a DOJ card.
Any language as to an age requirement to register a gun as a RAW?

This sucks because the registered owner of a RAW must be present when the gun is being used.

cdtx2001
01-16-2013, 7:44 PM
So would this proposed legislation make an SKS an assault weapon and need to be registered?

Dutch Schultz
01-16-2013, 7:44 PM
How did registration work the first time around? Registering didn't invite them in your home for inspections or other such nasties did it?

Actually I meant more after you were registered, when they had you on file if they were free to come knocking and "inspect" or if there were any other catches like that requiring you to give up the right to privacy or any other rights.

Librarian
01-16-2013, 7:57 PM
This sucks because the registered owner of a RAW must be present when the gun is being used.
Just for this part, that's the way the law is now; can't tell if you might believe this is a new twist.

Actually I meant more after you were registered, when they had you on file if they were free to come knocking and "inspect" or if there were any other catches like that requiring you to give up the right to privacy or any other rights.No, none of that.

skibuff
01-16-2013, 8:17 PM
Just for this part, that's the way the law is now; can't tell if you might believe this is a new twist.


I've been trying to hold back on wild guesses, speculation and panic but from the little bit that has been let out it's looking like they are just going to reopen the AW registration for a 3rd time to include BB guns. So if I do give my children my BB guns and they have them registered then I will no longer be legally able to shoot them with out them.

I currently own several RAW's and am aware that they can't be used with out me being present.

Rattlehead
01-17-2013, 1:13 AM
Tag for updates.

Vinz
01-17-2013, 1:53 AM
I just looked at the bill, all I can see is a few paragraphs.

When I say don't talk about it, I mean don't talk about the implications because they may not realize what door they really are opening. Just saying.

my thoughts too. Historically they have no imagination and look to us for ideas. My guess is why the executive order didn't address it...yet.

DonFerrando
01-17-2013, 2:57 AM
I have a question about "(c) (d) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate." Who can I pm?

BumBum
01-17-2013, 8:46 AM
I wrote Yee a letter this weekend (respectful, of course) expressing opposition. He actually called me and left me a voice mail message yesterday asking me to call him back. I'm in Orange County, so not a voter in his district. Has anyone else received calls back, or spoke to him on the phone?

lilro
01-17-2013, 10:29 AM
They make grips that thread to the barrel of pistols?

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

parcours
01-17-2013, 10:31 AM
Noticed in the text, centerfire firearms. What about dedicated 22lr uppers on a non BB lower?

DonFerrando
01-17-2013, 11:00 AM
I have a question about "(c) (d) The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate." Who can I pm?

So anyways, does this mean XXX.*

*removed as to not give ideas.

jrr
01-17-2013, 11:12 AM
Guys, seriously. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT ANY OF IT MEANS. And we won't know for months, not until it is in its final version, fully amended several times, gone through at least three committees and passed in both the senate and assembly.

Until then, this is JUST A PLACEHOLDER. It is 100% subject to change, and almost certainly WILL change before all is said and done.

Every question you ask is potentially an avenue to a change or new subsection being added in. That is why there is LIMITED discussion on the board. The last thing we want is an SB249 type debacle where changes in the provisions of the law kept mysteriously mirroring what was being discussed on this and other gun boards.

If you have a question that absolutely must be answered right now, despite all of that, send a PM to one of the senior members or something. Don't just point out how this law as currently written allows for x configuration, or would ban y but not z.

ok.. rant off. :oji:

WeekendWarrior
01-17-2013, 11:18 AM
Guys, seriously. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT ANY OF IT MEANS. And we won't know for months, not until it is in its final version, fully amended several times, gone through at least three committees and passed in both the senate and assembly.

Until then, this is JUST A PLACEHOLDER. It is 100% subject to change, and almost certainly WILL change before all is said and done.

Every question you ask is potentially an avenue to a change or new subsection being added in. That is why there is LIMITED discussion on the board. The last thing we want is an SB249 type debacle where changes in the provisions of the law kept mysteriously mirroring what was being discussed on this and other gun boards.

If you have a question that absolutely must be answered right now, despite all of that, send a PM to one of the senior members or something. Don't just point out how this law as currently written allows for x configuration, or would ban y but not z.

ok.. rant off. :oji:

Loose lips sink ships... holds as true today as it ever did. :90:

glbtrottr
01-19-2013, 5:26 AM
If Kegwin and Yee had any sack they would try to ban pistols as is their true intention instead of the passive aggressive pandering they do to the desperate housewives of California they aspire to become. Stockton and Oakland? Pshaw.

I watched Yee tonight on Stossel- never have I seen such an unresponsive moving of the goal post "we don't need to arm our children, we can't order teachers to carry arms" and completely ignoring Suzanna Hupps experience or Stossels actual statistics. The champion of Chinese Shark Fin Soup went so far as to claim that cities in California have the lowest per capita murder rate in the country, arguing that those most restrictive cities have the best stats, railroading and ignoring fact upon fact.

Clearly Californians prefer an agenda focused on gay and union rights, entitlements and illegal immigration over safety, security, civil rights and fiscal responsibility.

Refresh the tree, people.

glock7
01-19-2013, 8:36 AM
This really needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.

exactly, we should not have to give up anything, we are already oppressed. lets not get stockholm syndrome here folks.

glock7
01-19-2013, 8:39 AM
Clearly Californians prefer an agenda focused on gay and union rights, entitlements and illegal immigration over safety, security, civil rights and fiscal responsibility.

Yeah you got that right.

Anchors
01-19-2013, 1:21 PM
Dude we need to really work on OpSec here. Maybe we should disseminate ideas that will actually help us and pretend they're negative so Yee will see them lol :TFH:

sdfire
01-19-2013, 2:17 PM
Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death at wasn't bad enough.

sdfire
01-19-2013, 2:17 PM
Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death tax wasn't bad enough.

Wiz-of-Awd
01-19-2013, 2:24 PM
Really, it's not at all far fetched to think of this as true for their long term end game, in their war against our guns.

Just wait us out, and force their hand through repossession made possible via legislation (after death) by the government. It will take a while, but is very telling of the common push among the anti-crowd year after year.

This fight is for tomorrows citizens of this country more than it is for us - living hear today.

A.W.D.

Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death tax wasn't bad enough.

patweb
01-22-2013, 1:15 PM
--by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at any time before January 1, 2001, shall register the firearm by January 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(c) Any person who, between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in section 30515 and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.---


According to the last statement the bullet button would become obsolete, since they are allowing persons that own the weapon to keep it whether the magazine is detachable or not.

jrr
01-22-2013, 1:35 PM
Really dude... we can read. And once again - the bill isn't final. See above re: "registration = confiscation". Any other effects of the bill are conjecture at this point, and discussing them only gives any staffer with a brain and access to google more ideas.

zvardan
01-22-2013, 2:15 PM
If they force me to register, I'm nit paying a dime. I really don't care what they attempt, I'm tired of paying money.

NorCalMik
01-22-2013, 2:18 PM
What about the ineffectiveness of a registry?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

nothinghere2c
01-22-2013, 2:18 PM
I lost my wallet in a boating accident and can no longer afford registration. Do they accept EBT?

mosinnagantm9130
01-22-2013, 2:29 PM
What about the ineffectiveness of a registry?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/11/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did/

You think they care?

Librarian
01-22-2013, 3:55 PM
The bill is still in the Rules Committee, not yet assigned to its first 'actual' committee, and no amendments have been filed to 'fill out' the original, very short text.

MacDaddy
01-22-2013, 5:06 PM
Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading. It's really Stossel and Hupp versus Yee...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/

bigbully
01-22-2013, 5:24 PM
That's some funny sh--! Even John Stossel was like WTF!

mud99
01-22-2013, 6:47 PM
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

OMG Yee is a moron

He absolutely got owned.

Where does he get his statistics from? They should have asked him to cite them.

The best victory is knowing that he and Adam are probably watching this thread right now stewing from their loss.

AKSOG
01-22-2013, 7:26 PM
Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/

Bwahahahaahha. Yee got destroyed:p

mshill
01-22-2013, 7:54 PM
Yee is an absolute idiot. How did this guy get elected? He does not comprehend "per capita" data and I am not even sure he comprehends English all that great. His thought process is nonsensical.

I am surprised though that neither Stossel nor Hupp mentioned that Columbine happened during the AW ban.

a1fabweld
01-22-2013, 9:28 PM
I can't believe people elected Yee to do anything more than clean toilets. He sounds like a developmentally disabled elementary school age kid.

speleogist
01-22-2013, 10:06 PM
That guy is such an idiot. Doesn't even know what per capita means.

DonFerrando
01-22-2013, 10:35 PM
It's painful to listen to this guy. So uninformed, helpless and besides the point. Is this how politicians handle all legislation or just gun control measures? Scary.

KIMBER8400
01-22-2013, 11:14 PM
I heard it on the radio that Yee immigrated to US at age of 3. My grandfather's English is much better and he came to US at age of 30.

a1fabweld
01-23-2013, 4:46 AM
I heard it on the radio that Yee immigrated to US at age of 3. My grandfather's English is much better and he came to US at age of 30.

Welcome to the forum! Great 1st post! :D

MEGSDAD
01-23-2013, 2:24 PM
Sorry, I'm new to the 2A battle. do we wait until this goes to committee and contact the committee members then? or who do we voice our displeasure to?
thanks

merrill
01-23-2013, 2:54 PM
Huh - listening to Yee was almost as if reality got suspended for a minute or two. I better check the house for a gas leak.

LoneYote
01-23-2013, 3:15 PM
Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading. It's really Stossel and Hupp versus Yee...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/

At the end Yee said "We don't let children carry guns. Why are we going to let teachers carry guns!?"

I thought the teachers were supposed to be the responsible ones in a classroom?!?!?!

oldyeller
01-23-2013, 3:19 PM
We don't let teachers carry guns, why should we let police carry them?

Makes about as much sense :p

SKSer
01-23-2013, 5:09 PM
Sorry, I'm new to the 2A battle. do we wait until this goes to committee and contact the committee members then? or who do we voice our displeasure to?
thanks

Voice your displeasure with anyone and everyone that matters now. Also not just the legislatures and officials, talk to friends and family as well. Most of the people view government as all powerful and just look at every thing after the laws come out with the mentality of "oh well, I guess this is what I have to do now"

SKSer
01-23-2013, 5:14 PM
Yee was a joke. He has the attitude of "I know what is best for the people. I am the one in charge. The people are all like little children that don't know what is best for them." He used to work in the school so im sure he views the people as young and immature just like the students.

Librarian
01-24-2013, 11:42 PM
Status today is From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.?? Still in Rules?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47&search_keywords=

An act relating to assault weapons. An act to amend Sections 30515 and 30900 of, and to add Section 30680 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 47, as amended, Yee. Assault Firearms: assault weapons.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers. Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
This bill would revise these provisions to mean a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes.
This bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
By expanding the definition of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires that any person who, within this state, possesses any .50 BMG rifle, except as otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would exclude from those provisions a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to July 1, 2014, if specified requirements are met.
(3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice.
This bill would require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December, 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm before July 1, 2014, with the Department of Justice.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers.

Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.

Remember, BLUE ITALIC is new text, different from the previous version, RED STRIKEOUT is text from the prior version but removed in the current one.

stix213
01-25-2013, 3:10 AM
Status today is ?? Still in Rules?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47&search_keywords=

An act relating to assault weapons. An act to amend Sections 30515 and 30900 of, and to add Section 30680 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 47, as amended, Yee. Assault Firearms: assault weapons.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers. Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
This bill would revise these provisions to mean a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes.
This bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
By expanding the definition of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires that any person who, within this state, possesses any .50 BMG rifle, except as otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would exclude from those provisions a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to July 1, 2014, if specified requirements are met.
(3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice.
This bill would require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December, 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm before July 1, 2014, with the Department of Justice.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers.

Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.

Remember, BLUE ITALIC is new text, different from the previous version, RED STRIKEOUT is text from the prior version but removed in the current one.

Appears similar to what Yee posted on his site not that long ago.

courtc2911
01-25-2013, 8:18 AM
What are CalGunner's personal speculation on the chances Yee's Bullet Button ban will pass? Consider of course CA is now entirely Democrat controlled... :-(

Do you think the chances are 10%, 50%, 95%???

oldyeller
01-25-2013, 8:58 AM
100% - can you say super majority?

JohnnyG
01-25-2013, 10:14 AM
Thanks for that video. I LOL'd at work watching Yee try to construct a logical thought, but then I got real sad thinking about all the people that voted him into office. This state is doomed...

REH
01-25-2013, 10:20 AM
Thanks for that video. I LOL'd at work watching Yee try to construct a logical thought, but then I got real sad thinking about all the people that voted him into office. This state is doomed...

Thats the problem. All the people who voted him in, a small area in SF, are like minded.

JoshuaS
01-25-2013, 11:32 AM
I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far

Dantedamean
01-25-2013, 11:39 AM
I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far

I don't know, if this is what it takes to get rid of the assault weapon ban in California, I say go for it.

However if we want to avoid this, yes Brown is our only hope. Even then I think the dems have a super majority, from my limited understanding, that means they can override a governor veto.

Calplinker
01-25-2013, 12:15 PM
What are CalGunner's personal speculation on the chances Yee's Bullet Button ban will pass? Consider of course CA is now entirely Democrat controlled... :-(

Do you think the chances are 10%, 50%, 95%???

My prediction is that as long as it grandfathers in existing bullet button guns, it will easily pass through the legislature, and under pressure, Brown will sign it.

I'd give it a 80% chance of happening.

edwardsb
01-26-2013, 8:33 AM
If they keep opening up registration, doesn't that make AWB ineffective? Just wait when they want to make a change and then register it and you are in compliance without any worry of legal hassle.

Maybe it would be more effective for them just to keep registration open, I believe Maryland has open registration for there definitions of assault weapons.

If too much info, please delete or PM me to remove

JoshuaS
01-26-2013, 10:50 AM
Not all of the Dems are as radical on this as others. Quite a few from the central valley cannot afford to push to hard for this. Just because the Dems have a super majority, doesn't mean every single one of them would vote against a veto...quite a few could lose big time.

Rob Roy
01-28-2013, 9:25 PM
I wonder if there is anything we can do to prevent this bill from becoming a law? This bill is such a waste of taxpayers' money as it's totally uncalled for. I haven't heard of any crime committed with a BB'ed rifle... Seems like a solution to a non existent problem with one objective in mind - to harass law abiding gun owners.

CraigC
01-28-2013, 10:02 PM
Any of you who believe there's any chance that Brow would veto this, are fooling yourselves. IIRC, the governor has 3 options with regards to any bill that lands on his desk. He can sign it, veto it, or "punt," basically letting it sit and it'll go into effect anyway.

The media is NOT our friend. Public shows of solidarity will either not be covered, or will only focus on Cletus and his inbred kin. We must fight this every step of the way. Every committee, every vote. Hammer the emails, faxes, and switchboards.

rritterson
01-29-2013, 12:55 PM
I, like a few others, have a curiosity question about some of the terminology in the bill. I wonder if it has every been the topic of a court case or DOJ memo.

Can someone either tell me who would have access to case history, or knows it very well, so I can PM that person, or could one of those people PM me?

stix213
01-29-2013, 1:56 PM
Any of you who believe there's any chance that Brow would veto this, are fooling yourselves. IIRC, the governor has 3 options with regards to any bill that lands on his desk. He can sign it, veto it, or "punt," basically letting it sit and it'll go into effect anyway.

The media is NOT our friend. Public shows of solidarity will either not be covered, or will only focus on Cletus and his inbred kin. We must fight this every step of the way. Every committee, every vote. Hammer the emails, faxes, and switchboards.

Based on his inaction as attorney general when oll's got going, I'd give it a 50/50 chance for veto.

Lost.monkey
01-29-2013, 3:04 PM
http://gunowners.org/nws9911.htm

<snip>
Registration and confiscation go hand-in-hand

The semi-automatic firearms to be seized were registered with the state pursuant to former Attorney General Dan Lungren's instructions. He had allowed thousands of gun owners to register these guns after the initial deadline for doing so had lapsed.

GOA founder and chairman, Senator Bill Richardson, blistered California officials after plans to confiscate firearms became public.

In good faith, these gun owners handed over their names, addresses and firearms information to the government. But now the state was reversing course.

GOA's founder and Chairman, Senator Bill Richardson, sharply rebuked administration officials after news of the documents leaked out.

"This is what law abiding gun owners get for trying to do the right thing by registering their guns according to the Attorney General's instructions," said Sen. Richardson.

"This proves our point once again: the ultimate goal of registration is to facilitate confiscation! If you don't believe me, just look at what's happening right now in Australia."

Not surprisingly, once the official documents were leaked, the DOJ denied that they ever planned to confiscate anything and that these documents were merely "drafts" and "for discussion only" and that they had no plans to implement them at that time.

"It never fails," Richardson said. "As soon as these guys get caught with their hands in the 'cookie jar,' they lie about what they're trying to do."

-hanko
01-29-2013, 3:08 PM
This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko

bubbapug1
01-29-2013, 10:02 PM
Many posters refer to Yee as an idiot. Why is it an idiot can get elected to the senate and threaten your right to own an ar, even with a bb.

He's not an idiot. He has a plan, an agenda, and he's scaring the wits out of gun owners in California.

This guy is serious so we need to respect the threat he is and deal with it. I'm sure he's also polling his base to determine his strength. If he gets the bill passed you can bet he will run for AG with our gun rights scalp on the front of his jacket.

Get a clue guys, this time he's done his homework and we helped him write the term paper.

He has sandy hook at his back and his sails are full. What we need to do is somehow rattle some dems into understanding this will one day have a backlash.

killmime1234
01-30-2013, 4:27 PM
Many posters refer to Yee as an idiot. Why is it an idiot can get elected to the senate and threaten your right to own an ar, even with a bb.

He's not an idiot. He has a plan, an agenda, and he's scaring the wits out of gun owners in California.

This guy is serious so we need to respect the threat he is and deal with it. I'm sure he's also polling his base to determine his strength. If he gets the bill passed you can bet he will run for AG with our gun rights scalp on the front of his jacket.

Get a clue guys, this time he's done his homework and we helped him write the term paper.

He has sandy hook at his back and his sails are full. What we need to do is somehow rattle some dems into understanding this will one day have a backlash.

Have you spoken with him in person? He articulates like trained chimp.

Have you read the first incarnation of his bill last year? The one he wrote, himself? It had to be redone several times by different lawyers to even get close to becoming a threat.

I think "idiot" is more than fair, although I don't condone name calling.

goodlookin1
01-30-2013, 7:10 PM
For those proposing featureless: How do you propose this since the "barrel shroud" is now a feature? You gonna leave that off with a bare barrel?

Not looking for conversation on this as we need to keep mum....but just food for thought.

jj805
01-30-2013, 7:16 PM
For those proposing featureless: How do you propose this since the "barrel shroud" is now a feature? You gonna leave that off with a bare barrel?

Not looking for conversation on this as we need to keep mum....but just food for thought.

It is a feature for a PISTOL, not a rifle.

goodlookin1
01-30-2013, 8:49 PM
It is a feature for a PISTOL, not a rifle.

Doh! How right you are, thanks.

I have a question on procedure: Does the part that says "For the purposes of this section, a fixed magazine shall mean....." get inserted into the California CCR 5469 as an additional definition?

As if CA gun laws weren't convoluted enough already!

jj805
01-30-2013, 9:21 PM
Doh! How right you are, thanks.

I have a question on procedure: Does the part that says "For the purposes of this section, a fixed magazine shall mean....." get inserted into the California CCR 5469 as an additional definition?

As if CA gun laws weren't convoluted enough already!

First, IANAL. I belive it will be an additional definition. IMHO it really doesn't matter as far as 30515 is concerned, as the bill amends which magazine definition 30515 uses to specify an AW.

jpigeon
01-30-2013, 9:25 PM
I am in panic mode

goodlookin1
01-31-2013, 10:20 AM
First, IANAL. I belive it will be an additional definition. IMHO it really doesn't matter as far as 30515 is concerned, as the bill amends which magazine definition 30515 uses to specify an AW.

The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:

Plaintiff Haynie was arrested in Alameda County for allegedly violating the AWCA , when Pleasanton Police thought that his Colt AR-15 was a banned weapon. However, the rifle possessed by Haynie was equipped with a “bullet button,” a device which required the use of a tool to remove the magazine,

...(redacted)...

Plaintiffs implicitly concede, as they must, that both California’s regulations and the Assault Weapons Identification Guide issued by the California Department of Justice accurately recite California law, and demonstrate that Haynie’s gun was a “fixed magazine” weapon not banned by the AWCA

So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?

Prince50
01-31-2013, 5:54 PM
Probably, but maybe not. Look at the 50 cal ban..... It created a new catagory of weapon that could not be included in the previous ban.... I bought a 50BMG Barrett 82A1 with the intent of removing the swing down magazine after implementation.... It never happened, as the last release of the ban, included the provision that any gun in a configuration previously covered, would not be allowed. I still own the BMG 82A1, but it still has a Bullet-Button® in lieu of the swing down magazine, as registration did not make it an Assault Weapon, it made it a registered 50BMG.

Beware this Yee guy, he is not an idiot.

Darin

jj805
01-31-2013, 7:11 PM
The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:



So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?

I see where you are going with this, but I don't think that I have the correct answer for you. IANAL and the answer about the procedure in this case is a little above my pay grade. Sorry. If you do find out, please PM me the answer. I would like to know as well.

DrVino
01-31-2013, 7:46 PM
I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/

jj805
01-31-2013, 8:28 PM
I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/

Why? I don't see any of the answers to the questions being asked here. I know that most of the questions cannot be answered, but some can. There is no discussion there, and it dose not solely pertain to CA.

rootuser
01-31-2013, 8:46 PM
The issue with this is that the Haynie vs Pleasanton case specifically rules the definition of "fixed" as otherwise:



So the law currently doesnt say fixed, the regulations dont specifically mention fixed, but the new proposed changes do and basically add in a new meaning of "fixed magazine".

My question is, which definition will supersede the other: The new proposed definition, or the Haynie court case definition that was decided prior to the new legislation (assuming it passes)?

The new legislation becomes the law of the land until challenged and ruled on by the court.

Laws are changed all the time. The court decision is not law, it is the clarification/regulation/review/interpretation of the law. It does set how the law is implemented in this case and interpreted as to what is "removable". The court can invalidate a law completely, but the courts do not make the laws themselves.

chris
01-31-2013, 8:47 PM
This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko

i remember that fiasco. thanks lundgren

tpc13
01-31-2013, 9:11 PM
Yee is a Hitler in the making just a different face

chris
01-31-2013, 9:26 PM
I wonder if there is anything we can do to prevent this bill from becoming a law? This bill is such a waste of taxpayers' money as it's totally uncalled for. I haven't heard of any crime committed with a BB'ed rifle... Seems like a solution to a non existent problem with one objective in mind - to harass law abiding gun owners.

there never needs to be a reason to harass gun owners. that is the point. we know their plan and it was leaked out in NY. confiscation is the goal. too bad the sheep in this country and state are too stupid to see it.

LBDamned
01-31-2013, 9:43 PM
Yee is a Hitler in the making just a different face

are you saying he contracted syphilis?

Karma is a b!tch.

stix213
01-31-2013, 10:07 PM
How would this apply if i have a stripped lower right now? Would that stripped lower be considered grandfathered in? Or do i now have an incentive to finish the lower as fast as possible?

Would people please stop asking these ****ing questions.... Are you trying to get language thrown in to the next revision of the bill to ban finishing your lower or what? When the final bill is submitted for vote, and if it is passed and signed by the governor, you'll have another 5 months or so to go over all these details before it goes into effect.

IPSICK
02-01-2013, 12:30 AM
I say we just shut down comments and send people looking for info here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/

Ironically, the people on that site encourage discussion here. It is the forum members and moderators here that discourage discussion.

jeffrice6
02-01-2013, 12:54 AM
This all harkens back to the SKS confiscation.

Business as usual.

-hanko

This!

goodlookin1
02-01-2013, 10:22 AM
The new legislation becomes the law of the land until challenged and ruled on by the court.

Laws are changed all the time. The court decision is not law, it is the clarification/regulation/review/interpretation of the law. It does set how the law is implemented in this case and interpreted as to what is "removable". The court can invalidate a law completely, but the courts do not make the laws themselves.

Quite.

But in this case, there was a court case that essentially ruled on the definition of "fixed" before this law was proposed. Now comes this law which has a definition of "fixed magazine" that is different than what the court ruled the definition to mean.

IANAL, but if courts give interpretations of the law, which supersede the language of the bill, I would take the Haynie v Pleasanton ruling to supersede the definition proposed in this new legislation.

See what I'm getting at here? Rulings come down after laws are enacted. In this case, they are proposing a law with a definition that has already been defined and ruled on, and is different from that ruling.

randian
02-01-2013, 10:51 AM
See what I'm getting at here? Rulings come down after laws are enacted. In this case, they are proposing a law with a definition that has already been defined and ruled on, and is different from that ruling.
If passed into law, it invalidates the court's ruling. Legislatures do that all the time.

DefendTen
02-02-2013, 12:59 PM
If passed into law, it invalidates the court's ruling. Legislatures do that all the time.

This might normally be the case in state legislatures yet with respect to Supreme Court rulings, not so much. Article VI (Supremacy Clause) makes the Constitution supreme law of the land, and even the Congress cannot (effectively) restate law to work-around (for lack of a better term) the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Doing so could subject the new (restated with same affect) law to immediate stay by only one SCOTUS Associate Justice, of course, after procedural issues in district court.

This is what I, personal, find interesting about SB 47 in the face of Heller and McDonald. The hubris in pushing forward with such legislation, in light of both these Supreme Court rulings is telling. Sen. Yee must certainly be aware of the “common use” doctrine adopted in Heller from Miller, which could effectively thwart enforcement of this draconian folly if signed into law. Although, methinks Brown is well aware of this probability.

I’d be pleased to explain my basis in more detail, however, given this is my first post here on CalGuns I’ll reserve further comment until more appropriate.

Drivedabizness
02-02-2013, 1:47 PM
Legislatures can and do overrule courts all the time. The courts would have to come up with a constitutionally founded basis for overturning a duly passed piece of legislation.

Yee isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer - in fact his IQ appears to hover right at about room temperature. But he knows that the fix is pretty much in (at least in this Circuit) and it will be years, if ever, before his statute faces any meaningful judicial review.

lja
02-02-2013, 9:39 PM
Bless all your hearts - you sound like frogs in a cauldron debating whether it's getting hotter in there. While I so admire the spirit and the fight of Cal Guns and the other RKBA organizations, and donate heavily to most, methinks California is toast - in so many ways and not just from a 2nd Amendment standpoint. We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

My answer? Move to Texas or Arizona - just like so many former Californians have done. There comes a time to accept what you can't change. Sorry for the negative outlook - and I look forward to the looming fight, but all the folks at the Alamo understood the outcome (and fought anyway). Will there be an Alamo in California?

Scarecrow Repair
02-02-2013, 11:00 PM
We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

Welllllll .... the good thing about their super-majority is that both parties have no more excuses about Republican obstructionism. The Republicans have been campaigning on their only use, that of blocking budgets, and might have to get serious about choosing electable candidates, which in California means STFU about abortion and immigration. The Democrats have been able to make all sorts of stupid promises to unions, knowing the Republicans would block it, and might have to be realistic about finances for a change.

Not that anything will happen right away, it will take a year or two at least for even signs of sanity to appear. But I won't be surprised if things are remarkably different five years from now.

Both parties have been like two kids at school, swinging their fists and yelling "Lemme at him!" while a teacher holds the two apart. They could avoid reality as long as they had the teacher as an excuse. Now they don't.

The Dems just got a temporary surprise morale boost with an unexpected $5B increase in tax revenue over last year / last month expectations. But much of that probably came from people pulling in income early to avoid the Jan 1st tax increases, so their dreams of new money found under the seat cushions are going to be hit even harder in a few months. Too bad for the rest of us, who they will hurt in the meantime.

SlobRay
02-02-2013, 11:56 PM
I'm sorry to say it, but that I think CA is screwed for a long time. I think that the CA legislature will be emboldened by the recent events in NY. They will pass this and every gun control measure that is put before them and depending on what Jerry Brown does, there will be many years of court battles to try to overturn the laws that have been passed, and even then I'm not so sure if these laws will be overturned.


Ray

Khyber
02-03-2013, 3:18 AM
I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far

Hopefully our legislature as learned its lesson from Leland Yee's other costly bill.

Any of who are gamers remember the anti-gamer legislation which was authored by Leland Yee which the State of California passed and later overturned by the Supreme Court that cost the State of California over $1.8 million in legal fees alone? Thats just an example of how bad Yee's record/legislation as been. He as costed us tax dollars in the past and continues to infringe on our constitutional rights.

Supreme Court - 1
Leland Yee - 0

Lets keep the scorecard that way.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/01/25/anti-game-lawmaker-says-gamers-don-39-t-have-credibility.aspx

zvardan
02-03-2013, 3:24 AM
Leland Yee, in the end, is nothing more than a political footnote aspiring to be a coffee stain in an old text book.

Ford8N
02-03-2013, 7:53 AM
Bless all your hearts - you sound like frogs in a cauldron debating whether it's getting hotter in there. While I so admire the spirit and the fight of Cal Guns and the other RKBA organizations, and donate heavily to most, methinks California is toast - in so many ways and not just from a 2nd Amendment standpoint. We passed the tipping point last November. The lunatics are now running the asylum.

My answer? Move to Texas or Arizona - just like so many former Californians have done. There comes a time to accept what you can't change. Sorry for the negative outlook - and I look forward to the looming fight, but all the folks at the Alamo understood the outcome (and fought anyway). Will there be an Alamo in California?

I agree. Even if there is a snowball's chance of getting even a modicum of Californias gun control laws taken off the books, IT WILL BE DECADES BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. I will probably be dead of old age. I want the same gun rights as people just across the state border, now.

WindwalkerAmerican
02-06-2013, 11:14 AM
Califeinstein already has many of the proposed laws enforced here. i figure Califeinstein is the prototype for all the nations gun restrictions.

glocksmith
02-06-2013, 1:22 PM
Leland Yee, in the end, is nothing more than a political footnote aspiring to be a coffee stain in an old text book.

I sure fkn hope so.

Crazed_SS
02-07-2013, 6:58 PM
EDIT: Nevermind

VAReact
02-08-2013, 10:39 AM
Bill re-referred to Committee on Public Safety yesterday (02/07/13). Guess its time to start contacting committee members...

Me m b e r s
Senator Loni Hancock (Chair)
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
Senator Marty Block
Senator Kevin de León
Senator Steve Knight
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Darrell Steinberg

Hoooper
02-08-2013, 11:58 AM
so weve got Anderson and Knight, the other 5 either have a 0% rating from the NRA or have introduced their own gun control bills. Things are sure looking up :rolleyes:

Dantedamean
02-08-2013, 12:17 PM
Hopefully our legislature as learned its lesson from Leland Yee's other costly bill.

Any of who are gamers remember the anti-gamer legislation which was authored by Leland Yee which the State of California passed and later overturned by the Supreme Court that cost the State of California over $1.8 million in legal fees alone? Thats just an example of how bad Yee's record/legislation as been. He as costed us tax dollars in the past and continues to infringe on our constitutional rights.

Supreme Court - 1
Leland Yee - 0

Lets keep the scorecard that way.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2013/01/25/anti-game-lawmaker-says-gamers-don-39-t-have-credibility.aspx

Didn't he propose another gaming bill?

glbtrottr
02-08-2013, 12:18 PM
Send them all back to China with Yee.

stix213
02-08-2013, 12:19 PM
Bill re-referred to Committee on Public Safety yesterday (02/07/13). Guess its time to start contacting committee members...

Me m b e r s
Senator Loni Hancock (Chair)
Senator Joel Anderson (Vice Chair)
Senator Marty Block
Senator Kevin de León
Senator Steve Knight
Senator Carol Liu
Senator Darrell Steinberg

Kevin de Leon will stop it for sure.....

Hoooper
02-08-2013, 12:27 PM
the key to this fight might be convincing the other bill writers that if Yee's bill passes theirs wont, so they need to defeat his bill or theirs wont pass

lja
02-17-2013, 11:27 PM
Not that anything will happen right away, it will take a year or two at least for even signs of sanity to appear. But I won't be surprised if things are remarkably different five years from now.

Both parties have been like two kids at school, swinging their fists and yelling "Lemme at him!" while a teacher holds the two apart. They could avoid reality as long as they had the teacher as an excuse. Now they don't.

The last time I looked, the term "tipping point" meant the point of no return. I hate to rain on your parade, but California is past that point. It did happen last November. You can be deluded by what you think you are seeing, or what you hope will happen, but, it just ain't so. California is not run by the politicians. The politicians suck-up to, and take orders from, the large public sector unions that run this state. The correctional unions, teachers' unions, CSEA, SEIU, police and fire unions and various other state and/or municipal employee unions call the shots and elect their puppets. The unions give large bucks to their stooges' campaigns, and the stooges give the money right back to them in one form or another. It is a circular road to perdition.

As far as gun control goes, the Democrats can and will do whatever they want to do. Moonbeam may or may not veto some bills, but some will make it no matter what. It will take years for courts to undo the wrongs - if ever.

Again, knowing that the outcome is certain should not deter anyone from raging against that outcome. The Alamo would not stand for what it does if those who knew they were going to die took Santa Ana's early offer to walk away. The Constitution is what is at stake - who cares about California? Whatever made this state such a great place to live vanished long ago in the deluge of illegals and welfare dependents who suck the life out of the rest of us - encouraged by the government unions all the way. It is not just a California problem, it is the American nightmare. I repeat the question, will there be an Alamo in California?

Scarecrow Repair
02-18-2013, 7:31 AM
The last time I looked, the term "tipping point" meant the point of no return. I hate to rain on your parade, but California is past that point. It did happen last November.

You're not raining on my parade, only your own. There are no permanent tipping points in politics, and California will recover. We've been through far worse.

The Democrats may have won a super majority, but they are not robots with a common mindset and goals. They will fracture, they already have, with the wingnuts pushing for too much too soon, which alarms the halfway sane into thinking they might lose their goals by waking up Republicans and moderates.

You can be as afraid of the sky falling as you want. It isn't.

LBDamned
02-18-2013, 11:32 AM
You're not raining on my parade, only your own. There are no permanent tipping points in politics, and California will recover. We've been through far worse.

The Democrats may have won a super majority, but they are not robots with a common mindset and goals. They will fracture, they already have, with the wingnuts pushing for too much too soon, which alarms the halfway sane into thinking they might lose their goals by waking up Republicans and moderates.

You can be as afraid of the sky falling as you want. It isn't.

not in my lifetime... it's been steadily getting worse for the past 20 years (or more)... I've been saying it for the past 5-10 years - it's nothing new, but more people are fed up (or at least voicing it now) - and I'm not referring only to this forum.

unless you are much older than me I'm not sure when you have encountered "far worse". It's as bad as it's ever been in the last 45-50 years... and prior, as far as I know it was great.

Unless there is MAJOR change (which wont happen in the near or even distant future) - it is not on any road to recovery by any stretch of the imagination... So like many things in life, we work with what we have - or make our own life changes (in this case move to a more sound state).

glocksmith
02-18-2013, 11:54 AM
They want to make it a Felony to have any hollow point bullets. As a match shooter, that is bull****. These people make my blood boil.

chris
02-18-2013, 1:34 PM
They want to make it a Felony to have any hollow point bullets. As a match shooter, that is bull****. These people make my blood boil.

this is the consequences of voting. most people have zero clue there is one in the first place.

SactoPlinker
03-13-2013, 11:05 PM
The bill is set for hearing on April 16th along with SB 374 on the same day

SB 47 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47&search_keywords=

SB 374 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml

rootuser
03-13-2013, 11:38 PM
Any word on likely or unlikely passage of these?

DonFerrando
03-13-2013, 11:41 PM
Any word on likely or unlikely passage of these?

Very likely.

SactoPlinker
03-13-2013, 11:42 PM
Any word on likely or unlikely passage of these?

I don't know, but its probably wise to keep those thoughts to ourselves, last time we basically wrote the bill for them, don't want a repeat there lol.

SuperMachoMan
03-14-2013, 12:33 AM
blah... this will be like watching a +3 month long horror movie...

rootuser
03-14-2013, 12:55 AM
I don't know, but its probably wise to keep those thoughts to ourselves, last time we basically wrote the bill for them, don't want a repeat there lol.

Good advice.

dmckean44
03-14-2013, 8:54 AM
The bill is set for hearing on April 16th along with SB 374 on the same day

SB 47 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47&search_keywords=

SB 374 http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml

Do they plan to go with one or the other? What would SB 47 do that SB 374 wouldn't?

jwkincal
03-14-2013, 9:21 AM
Do they plan to go with one or the other? What would SB 47 do that SB 374 wouldn't?

Nothing. On the other hand, it appears that 374 does the following things that 47 does not:

1) Requires you to register any detachable-magazine-fed rifle that you own (regardless of action type and when acquired)
2) Extends the SB47 definition of "assault weapons" to include ALL detachable-mag semi-auto rifles INCLUDING rimfires.

The conspicuous inclusion of language lifted directly from 47 in 374 implies that 374 would be the preferred vector of attack...

MaHoTex
03-14-2013, 10:03 AM
ALL of them are going to pass. These will ALL need to be battled in court.

Hoooper
03-14-2013, 10:14 AM
im still trying to figure out what the definition of detachable magazine is. Ive seen the "dis-assembly of the action" line, but what does that really mean? I have a lever action rifle that I can remove the tubular magazine from without disassembling the action. Also have a bolt action Winchester model 70 (just like millions of other Americans) that I could disassemble the "magazine" without dis-assembly of the action. Would those both need to be registered? If so, dont worry about flooding the system with useless hammer and axe registrations, the guns actually required to be registered would do that all on their own

gh429
03-14-2013, 10:59 AM
This bill is funny. Enough loops holes to drive a truck through it... And the unintended consequences are pretty funny too.

randian
03-14-2013, 11:32 AM
And the unintended consequences are pretty funny too.
Why do you think they're unintended?

Scarecrow Repair
03-15-2013, 8:21 PM
1) Requires you to register any detachable-magazine-fed rifle that you own (regardless of action type and when acquired)

Every Lee-Enfield owner should register.

DrVino
03-15-2013, 8:46 PM
Sounds like Mini14 and Mini30 will be included?...

spruce3311
03-20-2013, 9:38 PM
Sounds like Mini14 and Mini30 will be included?...

It is so poorly written that almost everything can be included unless otherwise exempted.

Also, did anyone notice that you can only pay by credit card or debit card? What happens to those with bad credit, or don't believe in anything other than cash and checks?

TheBest
03-20-2013, 11:19 PM
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47

Tons of amendments today. Allows internet registration for a fee. Sounds like a poll tax - $20/weapon, $15/person.

Interesting part: The fee shall be deposited in the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account - the $20M fund that we've all paid into. We should be entitled to a refund for that.

Vlad 11
03-21-2013, 1:26 AM
We should be entitled to a refund for that.


Refund?? LoL they are fixin to raid, pillage and plunder that DROS fund.

(4) The department may charge a fee of up to fifteen dollars ($15) per person but not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department. The fee shall be paid by debit or credit card at the time that the electronic registration is submitted to the department. The fee shall be deposited in the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account.


'not to exceed the reasonable processing costs' - yea right, then how is there 20 million surplus in the DROS fund? and now they want to pump it up some more


This bill would permit the department to increase the $20 registration fee



Bald Faced Crooks

ptoguy2002
03-21-2013, 4:55 AM
The phrase "exclude from those provisions" has been changed to "exempt from punishment."
WTF?
Is it just me, or does anybody find this kind of wording messed up?
And after the Bonta end exemptions thing, changing wording from "exclude" to "exempt from punishment" is kinda scary. Maybe I need to break out the tin foil hat.

donw
03-21-2013, 8:53 AM
gotta fight it tooth and nail...this guy, yee, is truly unbalanced...all you have to do is read his stuff: "Studies show...." just think about the population of the states compared...FACTS show differently according to FBI records...Jon Lott's extensive research show "More guns=less crime"...

wasn't the Stockton tragedy done by a woman, Brenda Spencer, IIRC and, she used a .22 rifle, NOT an "Assault rifle".

edfardos
04-18-2013, 9:48 AM
Our only hope here is for gun-control politicians to step on our rights so extensively that the judiciary branch is forced to intervene and reverse it all

The judicial branch has no such charter. They only hear complaints and injunctions. It takes a Patriot to find the time and money to bring a complaint to the attention of the legal system (yes, it's a legal system, not a judicial system).

--edfardos

Wherryj
04-18-2013, 6:07 PM
Any mention of limits on sun tan oil and hookers yet?

HowardW56
04-18-2013, 6:34 PM
Any mention of limits on sun tan oil and hookers yet?

Only for Secret Service agents...

enkrypt3d
04-23-2013, 3:07 PM
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47

Does this mean it just passed!? :eek: :mad::mad::mad:

curtisfong
04-23-2013, 3:10 PM
no.

enkrypt3d
04-23-2013, 3:11 PM
no.

So how can we stop the senate subcommittee from passing this? I wish this was put up for a public vote and not some backroom sketchy deal...

http://www.followthemoney.org/database/uniquecandidate.phtml?uc=4419

Looks like he has some serious support funds......

Librarian
04-23-2013, 4:19 PM
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47

Does this mean it just passed!? :eek: :mad::mad::mad:

It says Status
April 17 2013 - From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 567.) (April 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Pending: Senate Appropriations Committee

Please see http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=701762

Moonshine
04-23-2013, 4:28 PM
It's going to pass out of committee. The political fallout if it didn't would be too high. The only change that is remotely likely prior to the legislature passing this is the inclusion of an exemption list for "legitimate sporting arms" similar to DiFi's list that would include rifles such as the Ruger 10/22, Browning BAR stalker hunting rifle, etc to limit opposition from hunters.

This one is going to the courts and will essentially be a test of the "Common Use" language in the Heller case.

SactoPlinker
04-23-2013, 6:11 PM
It's going to pass out of committee. The political fallout if it didn't would be too high. The only change that is remotely likely prior to the legislature passing this is the inclusion of an exemption list for "legitimate sporting arms" similar to DiFi's list that would include rifles such as the Ruger 10/22, Browning BAR stalker hunting rifle, etc to limit opposition from hunters.

This one is going to the courts and will essentially be a test of the "Common Use" language in the Heller case.

I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like some thing we should keep on the down low, wouldn't want to help the out with the bill.

Bestguns
04-30-2013, 6:58 AM
It's been set for a hearing in the Appropriations Committee on May 6th.

NotEnufGarage
04-30-2013, 7:05 AM
I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like some thing we should keep on the down low, wouldn't want to help the out with the bill.

Some people don't understand the concept of operational security (OPSEC).

They just have to run their mouths, regardless of the consequences.

Damn True
04-30-2013, 8:59 AM
It's been set for a hearing in the Appropriations Committee on May 6th.

The cost analysis of this is our only hope with respect to getting any help from Appropriations. Anyone have a thumbnail as to what this turd will cost?

chris
04-30-2013, 9:12 AM
Money is no object to these people its not their money anyways.

Hoooper
04-30-2013, 9:15 AM
The cost analysis of this is our only hope with respect to getting any help from Appropriations. Anyone have a thumbnail as to what this turd will cost?

doesnt matter, its all monopoly money anyway

AceGirlsHusband
05-08-2013, 2:44 PM
The cost analysis of this is our only hope with respect to getting any help from Appropriations. Anyone have a thumbnail as to what this turd will cost?

Appropriations will look at the cost of implementation and enforcement against the fees that will be collected when whatever percentage of Californians who currently own them register. And now they can raid the DROS fund to bolster it, too.

Librarian
05-08-2013, 3:38 PM
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB47

Committee Action Date: 05/06/13
Committee Motion: Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.

As noted in other threads, Appropriations puts a lot of bills on the suspense file until the Budget bill(s) go through.

There is no current analysis (http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/) of the fiscal effects of the bill from the Department of Finance.

jcwatchdog
05-08-2013, 3:53 PM
I don't mean to be rude, but this seems like some thing we should keep on the down low, wouldn't want to help the out with the bill.


Is this really a secret? The politicians try to ignore the Heller decision, that doesn't mean they didn't read it. Their argument already is that the ar15 is a "dangerous and unusual" weapon. That's the only leg they have to stand on. And hopefully someone kicks that leg out from underneath them.

a1c
05-14-2013, 4:12 PM
Cracks me up that the "barrel shroud" is another evil feature. Still.

Also cracks me up that the registration fee for RAWs would go to... the DROS fund. I mean, they might as well give it to the APPS fund directly now.