PDA

View Full Version : Not-unsafe list and AB1471


halifax
09-06-2007, 6:50 AM
Can any one point me to the original text of the bill that created the "not-unsafe" list of handguns?

I am assumming that it had some statement of intent/purpose in its preamble as most bills do. Such as "to protect the children of the Great State of California, we need to get rid of saturday-night specials..."

If the intent statement is codified, does it have any legal weight? For instance, AB1471 has nothing to do with the safety features of individual handguns, but the "not unsafe" procedures/list will be used to further ban firearms en masse that can be imported into CA. Wouldn't that violate the original intent? Could that violation be used in a suit to stop the its implementation?

Just curious.

Librarian
09-06-2007, 10:03 AM
Doesn't matter - can't invalidate on that basis - it's been tried.

Facts seem only to matter before the legislation is passed, and then only if they contribute to polticians getting re-elected.

Anthonysmanifesto
09-06-2007, 10:17 AM
Can any one point me to the original text of the bill that created the "not-unsafe" list of handguns?



the orginal Bill was SB 15 , and It was in 2001 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_15&sess=9900&house=S&author=polanco)

bwiese
09-06-2007, 11:16 AM
I believe legislative statements of broad intent in preamble/prefatory sections of law are regarded as broad political statements but not really of 'true intent'.

The Calif. AW ban could have been prefaced with some text concerning preservation of green cheese on the moon, and that would have little or no use in attacking or supporting the law in court cases.

halifax
09-06-2007, 11:25 AM
If the legislature wanted to state intent, and the bill passed in that form. It would be in the codes in that same form.

the orginal Bill was SB 15 , and It was in 2001 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_15&sess=9900&house=S&author=polanco)

Thank you for the link.

Seems to me the bill passed on language specific to safety issues and was codified thusly. What does microstamping have to do with the safety of individual firearms?

I guess I'm just missing the point. Sorry

Anthonysmanifesto
09-06-2007, 11:30 AM
Thank you for the link.

Seems to me the bill passed on language specific to safety issues and was codified thusly. What does microstamping have to do with the safety of individual firearms?

I guess I'm just missing the point. Sorry



since the framework exists to test and approve handguns, its likely all new handgun bills will add onto this code section.

bwiese
09-06-2007, 11:38 AM
since the framework exists to test and approve handguns, itss likely all new handgun bills will add onto this code section.

Correct.

This is why we were sold down the river by CRPA and SASS on SB15 originally. Even if SB15 were relatively tame, it provided the skeletal infrastructure to "hang" other bills from in the future - which we are seeing now with 1471 and with SB489 before

NOW DO Y'ALL SEE WHY ALL GUN CONTROL BILLS - NO MATTER HOW MILD THEY ARE - ARE ALWAYS THE "CAMEL'S NOSE IN THE TENT" AND MUST BE OPPOSED WITH MAXIMUM EFFORT?

Start calling!

halifax
09-06-2007, 11:49 AM
I think there is a question in there.

Ill give an answer and see if we connect:

The microstamping langauge is being incorporated in to the "not unsafe" handgun , SB 15 code for sake of convenience.

its also where they stuck the loaded chamber indicator language.

since the framework exists to test and approve handguns, itss likely all new handgun bills will add onto this code section.

Adding the loaded chamber indicator to SB15 makes sense to me because it's about the safety of individual firearms (at least from a legislator's POV). Microstamping has nothing to do with the "safety" aspects of any individual firearm. An individual firearm is not any safer from a functional aspect with microstamping.

But I understand the idea of a hook to hang anything and everything on to.

Damn :mad:

fairfaxjim
09-06-2007, 12:19 PM
Get a clue! None of this makes any sense! It is a left handed back door, incremental, "sensible" (go figure that buzz word out!) attack on your's and my right to keep and bear arms! It has NOTHING to do with Safety, children, or anything else that it may be claimed to provide. It is, as bwiese says, the camel's nose in the tent, then his head, then his front feet, then his freaking hump, then, before you know it, we have the whole damn animal in there, nuts, guts, and fur! NO MORE GUNS FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

Don't waste your time trying to figure out which and what of these goofy laws are reasonable or make sense. Attack each and every one of them as if they were the end of your gun rights, because in reality, they are!

(Steps down off of soap box, thank you very much!)

dfletcher
09-06-2007, 12:25 PM
Adding the loaded chamber indicator to SB15 makes sense to me because it's about the safety of individual firearms (at least from a legislator's POV). Microstamping has nothing to do with the "safety" aspects of any individual firearm. An individual firearm is not any safer from a functional aspect with microstamping.

But I understand the idea of a hook to hang anything and everything on to.

Damn :mad:

I'm on the same page as you. I have to believe that if anyone looks up the word or phrase safe, unsafe or not unsafe they will have to conclude that microstamping has nothing to do with safety. Is there any inclination to challenge that in court?

I would expect the list of requirements will continue to grow - no handguns sold unless they are "smart guns". And don't we also face the possibility that long guns or SA revolvers can be added? If amending to exempt single shot pistols was acceptable in 2006, then amending to include long guns & SA revolvers would be acceptable also.

bwiese
09-06-2007, 1:26 PM
It's actually the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale, and inclusion/exclusion on that Roster can logically be due to any 'gating' criteria (payment to stay on list, drop test, inclusion of safety features, etc.)

[Frankly, since it seems folks aren't calling in enough (you lazy bums!), you should be glad that microstamping is included under PC 12125 et seq and not elsewhere.]