PDA

View Full Version : AB-1645 passed


redneckshootist
10-14-2007, 8:53 PM
:D http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/7713/ :D

at least he had was thinking strait on this one. I am still pissed about the other two though.

jjperl
10-14-2007, 9:29 PM
finally some good news :)

NeoWeird
10-14-2007, 9:39 PM
Is this the one that is supposed to protect our right to firearm posession in case of natural disasters and state emergencies? What does it do in case of Martial Law?

Paladin
10-14-2007, 11:40 PM
Hot Dang! At long last some GOOD NEWS out of Sacto! ! ! :D

Then next time we have a major earthquake, fire or riot in CA, your guns will be safer (I still don't totally trust Sacto).

*****

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

Hi Folks,

We have some good news.

After shafting we the Californian people, anti-gun Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threw us a bone.

In the waning moments before tonight's deadline, he signed NRA's AB 1645, the "Katrina Bill", into law.

Although overshadowed by the microstamping bill and lead ammo ban, this is a great victory, and we need to recognize it as such.

♦ AB 1645 (Doug La Malfa, R-Redding) 'Katrina' Firearms Protection Would prohibit the Governor from authorizing the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency.

fireblast713
10-14-2007, 11:44 PM
Natural disasters are few and far between, to date I can't think of a disaster in CA when firearms were seized, so it's kinda protecting us from a unlikely situation... however we will have to live with this stupid microstamping and lead ammo ban every day for the foreseeable future... I don't think it makes up for it. He's just trying to play both sides.

Paladin
10-14-2007, 11:47 PM
AB 1645 (Doug La Malfa, R-Redding) 'Katrina' Firearms Protection – Would prohibit the Governor from authorizing the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency.I haven't read the law, so I have a question: Does this apply to local governments (county, city) too?

I still remember the Rodney King riots and how LA Mayor Tom Bradley stopped the sale of guns, ammo, reloading supplies and even stopped people from picking up guns that were waiting for them after clearing the waiting period. Pro-gun people who are for waiting periods have usually never considered riots, natural disasters (earthquakes, hurricanes, firestorms), and other emergencies that might make them want a gun or ammo immediately.

thominator
10-15-2007, 9:59 AM
LOL at razor's post.


This bill is just the socialists throwing us a bone to make us think we have rights. The 2nd ammendment already gives us emergency powers protection.

Isn't there this law called the 2nd ammendment that allows us to keep and bear arms? Oh, it says that in writing, but CA ignores that by making me keep my arms locked up in my car, denies me a CCW. :mad:

Why should I believe they are going to honor this Katrina bill?

ldivinag
10-15-2007, 10:06 AM
oh please...

like this will really make a diff during a SHTF scenario.

i can bet that local gov or even county sheriff will give orders to confiscate.

Kestryll
10-15-2007, 11:19 AM
Threads merged.
Big bright retina searing letters reduced.

PistolPete75
10-15-2007, 11:37 AM
i heard that that the governor singed both AB 821 (led ammo ban) and AB 1471 (microstamping of ammo) into law today.

berto
10-15-2007, 11:46 AM
Wave this bill at the police/guard/blackwater goons when they come to disarm you. You can argue and go to jail and be found correct after the fact or you can shoot it out and be found correct and dead after the fact.

bulgron
10-15-2007, 12:36 PM
Wave this bill at the police/guard/blackwater goons when they come to disarm you. You can argue and go to jail and be found correct after the fact or you can shoot it out and be found correct and dead after the fact.

If they take your guns, get their badge number and then sue the bejeezus out of them after the fact ... assuming you survive the natural disaster and subsequent social unrest that is.

Hey, it's one way to make a couple of million bucks.

Applehaus21st
10-15-2007, 12:42 PM
If they take your guns, get their badge number and then sue the bejeezus out of them after the fact ... assuming you survive the natural disaster and subsequent social unrest that is.

Hey, it's one way to make a couple of million bucks.



Exactly, assuming you survive the natural disaster and social unrest.

chris
10-15-2007, 1:19 PM
he screwed us on the other two laws and now signs this one. he has lost my support for him.

CCWFacts
10-15-2007, 4:53 PM
Crazy question about this bill and CCW:

This bill creates a statutory statement that firearms have a purpose of self-defense in the case of a disaster. Specifically, carrying functional firearms is defined as a protected activity here. As we know, in California, the only way to carry a functional firearm in an incorporated area of a non-rural county is with a CCW.

Does this bill by any chance help by creating a statutory good cause? IANAL and I'm being creative here, but I just want to throw this question out. Does this statute let me say, "My GC is that I may need to carry a gun after a major natural disaster; this is defined as GC in statute ___".

Or is this just wishful thinking?

CitaDeL
10-15-2007, 5:47 PM
Crazy question about this bill and CCW:

This bill creates a statutory statement that firearms have a purpose of self-defense in the case of a disaster. Specifically, carrying functional firearms is defined as a protected activity here. As we know, in California, the only way to carry a functional firearm in an incorporated area of a non-rural county is with a CCW.
Does this bill by any chance help by creating a statutory good cause? IANAL and I'm being creative here, but I just want to throw this question out. Does this statute let me say, "My GC is that I may need to carry a gun after a major natural disaster; this is defined as GC in statute ___".

Or is this just wishful thinking?

The text highlighted in RED is not entirely correct.

You do not need a license or permit of any kind to carry your weapon openly. A license to carry concealed (CCW) only legalizes a person carrying a concealable weapon concealed. Long guns clearly arent concealable and a license to carry concealed doesnt apply to carrying a rifle or a shotgun.

In incorporated city limits, PC12031 prohibits possessing loaded weapons except when one is in immediate grave danger, when others are in immediate grave danger, or to protect property. I believe it is also lawful when a person is making a lawful arrest or assisting a peace officer in an arrest. Penal code also says that you can carry openly or concealed on your private property and in your place of business. In the case of a temporary campsite, I believe you would have to carry openly.

This is the text of the bill-

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

SECTION 1. Section 8571.5 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
8571.5. Nothing in this article shall authorize the seizure or
confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is
lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition, or
authorize any order to that effect, provided however, that a peace
officer who is acting in his or her official capacity may disarm an
individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately
necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.
The officer shall return the firearm to the individual before
discharging the individual, unless the officer arrests that
individual or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an
investigation for the commission of a crime.

There is no need for good cause or a declaration for said cause- because PC12031 already defines what is a good cause to have a loaded weapon in spite of the prohibitions laid out in that law.

CCWFacts
10-15-2007, 6:14 PM
The text highlighted in RED is not entirely correct.

You do not need a license or permit of any kind to carry your weapon openly. A license to carry concealed (CCW) only legalizes a person carrying a concealable weapon concealed. Long guns clearly arent concealable and a license to carry concealed doesnt apply to carrying a rifle or a shotgun.

Note that I used the word functional, which, to me, means loaded (ready to function). There is no provision for carrying functional firearms in incorporated areas of non-rural counties, except a CCW (and other obscure not-generally-applicable things like LE status, maybe some type of guard permits, etc).

CitaDeL
10-15-2007, 11:10 PM
Note that I used the word functional, which, to me, means loaded (ready to function). There is no provision for carrying functional firearms in incorporated areas of non-rural counties, except a CCW (and other obscure not-generally-applicable things like LE status, maybe some type of guard permits, etc).

A firearm, whether or not it is loaded is a 'functional' firearm- It may not be ready to fire, but add ammunition into the chamber, it will go 'bang' when you pull the trigger. What 'functional' means to you is irrelevant in regards to the law.You're toying with semantics to spread inaccurate or easliy misinterpreted information.

This is confirmed by your blow off of exemptions in PC12031 that allow a person to have a loaded (ie; FUNCTIONAL) firearm inside incorporated city limits.

I quote from PC12031

http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

(j)(1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the person or property of himself or herself or of another is in immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its assistance.
(2) A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or safety. This paragraph may not apply when the circumstances involve a mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or of committing other similar offenses.

Also-

(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making or attempting to make a lawful arrest.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

Your assertion that only those licensed to carry concealed may carry a loaded weapon is proven false by this citation of code. What is your motivation to deny a citizens right to carry when they most need it?

Oh, that's right... Issuance of a limited membership card (CCW) is your industry, isnt it? And telling them that they dont really need one to assert their rights cuts into your bottom line. Sorry about that. Really... :rofl2:

CCWFacts
10-16-2007, 10:28 AM
A firearm, whether or not it is loaded is a 'functional' firearm- It may not be ready to fire, but add ammunition into the chamber, it will go 'bang' when you pull the trigger. What 'functional' means to you is irrelevant in regards to the law.You're toying with semantics to spread inaccurate or easliy misinterpreted information.

Chill out. To me, a gun that isn't loaded isn't functional. Note that I said, "in my opinion". In your opinion, an unloaded gun is functional. Ok we disagree. Do you really think I have some sinister motive for claiming that unloaded = non-functional?

This is confirmed by your blow off of exemptions in PC12031 that allow a person to have a loaded (ie; FUNCTIONAL) firearm inside incorporated city limits.

Yes I did blow that off. I put in parenthesis, "other obscure exceptions", and I include PC 12031 in that category. The key words of PC 12031 are "immediate" and "grave". You cannot walk around with a loaded gun based on 12031 for general protection, or because an earthquake just happened, or whatever. Potential threats are not immediate threats. I want people to be able to carry for general protection, not only when they are in immediate and grave danger. How to own a gun and stay out of jail discusses PC 12031 and it is a very narrow exemption. For example, you're driving home from the gun range with your gun in a locked case. Your car breaks down in a bad area. You call a towing company and wait in the car. While you're waiting, a car pulls up and three guys get out, armed with baseball bats, and start walking towards your car in a hostile way. At this point there is an immediate and grave danger, so you load up and arm yourself openly, relying on PC 12031. You dial 911 and explain what is happening. Let's say the three guys get closer and see that you are armed, and turn around and leave. The immediate grave danger is over, so the gun must be unloaded and locked. That is how it works. That is not general protection or a general way to carry a gun.

Your assertion that only those licensed to carry concealed may carry a loaded weapon is proven false by this citation of code.

No, I asserted that only those with a CCW may carry a functional (in my meaning, loaded) weapon in an incorporated area of a non-rural county, except for some obscure exemptions. PC 12031 is an obscure, not-generally-helpful exemption, with very narrow applicability. Why are you attacking me on this? I'm writing in plain and clear English and I suddenly get the PC pedants saying that I'm trying to deny them their rights under some narrowly-applicable parts of the PC, like 12031 and the ability to openly carry what I consider to be a non-functional firearm.

What is your motivation to deny a citizens right to carry when they most need it?

You are talking crazy here. Whose rights am I denying? To put it more simply, you generally can't carry a functional firearm in California without a CCW. You can dig up some narrow exemptions to that statement, but that's why I put the word "generally" in there, and that's an accurate enough statement that it conveys the reality of the situation here. You're seeing sinister motivations in what I'm saying here?

Oh, that's right... Issuance of a limited membership card (CCW) is your industry, isnt it? And telling them that they dont really need one to assert their rights cuts into your bottom line. Sorry about that. Really... :rofl2:

This is crazy. My industry? My bottom line? I'm sorry, I've never made a dime from anything related to CCW or guns or anything. I do occasionally teach new shooters how to shoot. I don't charge for this, and I often provide the ammo free of charge. So yeah, I guess it does cut my bottom line.

And yes, people do really need a CCW to carry in this state, outside of some narrow exemptions, like open carry in shooting-allowed areas in unincorporated areas, or open loaded carry when there is an immediate and grave threat, or open carry of an unloaded (non-functional in my opinion) gun in incorporated areas that are not school zones (which excludes most major cities), and then various LE exemptions for people who have that, on and on. None of that stuff helps normal people who just want to carry a gun for personal protection on a regular basis without carrying around legal summaries, maps of school locations and city borders, a voice recorder to record interactions with LEOs, a lawyer's biz card to deal with the aftermath of "man with a gun" calls, and having incident reports being filed on them for open carrying, having a legal retainer ready to go, weird looks from neighbors who see this stuff, etc.

Going back to how I brought this up... I was wondering if this "Katrina bill" may have done something to create statutory good cause, which, if it did, would be wonderful because it would give people another argument to use in suits for CCWs. And somehow I'm out there running around denying people their rights. Me and Sheriff Baca.

CitaDeL
10-16-2007, 4:43 PM
Chill out.

You are talking crazy here.

This is crazy.

My apologies. I may have confused you with another detractor of mine. I'm content to agree to disagree. We simply view these issues differently.

You say one must be licensed to carry and I contend that licensing is voluntary 'gun control' and carry exposed.

As for the AB1645, I dont believe it brings anything new to the table. Should a disaster occur, I would anticipate that governing authorities would take the opportunity to confiscate anything they may percieve as a threat to the public. Trying to use this legislation to bolster 'good cause' in issuance of a license to carry concealed is pointless because no matter how good your cause is, it will not liberate the issuance of a license to carry when anti-gun and anti-rights Sheriff's cannot be compelled by the courts or other means to exercize their descretion.

The solution to liberating issuance of LTC is for 2A proponents to lawfully carry exposed when-ever and where-ever they can.

CCWFacts
10-16-2007, 5:22 PM
Right, CA law does indeed provide a whole bunch of ways to carry sans CCW, including open carry (with all its restrictions) and a bunch others narrow legal exemptions. Many of these, such as 12031, are not "permission to carry", but rather a defense against a charge, which means that the person may beat the rap but won't beat the ride. The ride is more than most people can take all by itself. Legal fees can result in people losing their homes, losing their marriages, losing their families, even if the case is eventually "won". Yes I know, sometimes you can get compensation for this... the point is, once something is in the legal system, it can go a whole lot of different ways and most of these ways are extremely expensive and painful.

For those who are willing to go through the hardships that may come with open carry, and some of these other narrow exemptions, go for it. These things are not suitable for people who, for whatever reason, don't have the money, time, and drive to go through these things. Imagine a dad who has a family to support and a mortgage to pay, and not a lot of savings. Imagine a college student who wants to finish his degree. Could I advise him to open carry an unloaded gun, even in a situation where that is legal? I would advise such a person not to do it. The "life costs" could be way too high. Someone who has money and time, and is willing to fight if necessary? Sure.

Anyone who trivializes the potential consequences (legal, financial and other) of open carrying is not being responsible. I'm not saying you're trivializing it, but I'm aware of these factors and limitations, so that's why I say, a CCW is generally needed to carry a gun in California and I leave it at that.

And you still have to put up with an unloaded gun (better than nothing), and in any case it is not an option in urban areas because there are school zones all over the place.

There are a whole bunch of other exemptions, most of which can be used as a defense against a charge:

1. Open loaded carry while in grave and immediate danger
2. While making a lawful arrest (something which is extremely rare for non-LEOs to do, and which is legally and physically problematic all by itself)
3. I think ROs may allow it?
4. A bunch of law enforcement status exemptions exist, and they are excellent ways to carry, but aren't available to most people
5. The legal defense of necessity can always be raised, but again, that's after an arrest and indictment
6. Some kind of hunting and fishing exemption I seem to remember?
7. Some types of guard or security permits? Not sure of the details, because it doesn't apply to me
8. Open carry permits in rural counties, which are never issued in practice
9. 90-day temporary permits which are almost never issued in practice
10. Diplomatic status? Anyone know?
11. Probably some other obscure ones

None of these are generally helpful. These are all narrow in their application

Here's an example from another state:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=560194

In this case, this guy saved his own life. That's what matters. But he did get charged with illegal CCWing. He fought the charges and won. Now, what happens to a pizza delivery man, who probably earns $10 to $15 per hour, when he suddenly has to hire lawyers who cost $400 per hour so he can stay out of jail? I don't know but it isn't pretty. Unless the NRA stepped in to defend him, this guy will lose all his assets (including his house), his credit, and be in financial misery for years and years to come. That's what it means when they say, "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." But he beat the charges!

bones138
10-16-2007, 8:21 PM
Wasn't this already settled by Federal legislation (HR 5441) that as passed in July? This is just a stunt to appease the gun-rights group. Arnie is a joke.

fairfaxjim
10-16-2007, 9:01 PM
The truth of the matter is that when the SHTF, it HITS THE FAN! All of the cozy comfy laws and legslation be damned, we are on our own. In that event, when someone comes trying to take what I have and need to survive at that point in time, the only authority I am going to be submitting to will be superior firepower and more expert application of same. All this writing legislation in the comfort of Sacto's hallowed halls is just feel good itis. It won't really matter when it is intended to matter.

MedSpec65
10-16-2007, 9:12 PM
:D http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/7713/ :D

at least he had was thinking strait on this one. I am still pissed about the other two though.Our lovable movie star Governator had little to politically risk on this one. A federal law prohibiting confiscation was enacted this year in the wake of the Katrina outrage.

Paladin
10-16-2007, 9:31 PM
Wasn't this already settled by Federal legislation (HR 5441) that as passed in July? This is just a stunt to appease the gun-rights group. Arnie is a joke.IIRC, that federal legislation applied only to the federal gov't. What Arnie signed was state legislation which applies to all state (and local?) govt(s).

Remember, there are different levels of the SHTF: local (Katrina, Rodney King riots, major earthquake), statewide (huge earthquake along major fault, SF and LA getting nuked, the 4+ million illegal aliens in CA taking up arms to make CA part of Mexico), national (>half-dozen nukes going off in cities around the nation, EMP, Russia/China nuking us) and even worldwide (nuclear war). If it's a local or even statewide SHTF and you start shooting at LE, you'd better save one bullet to use on yourself.

Text of the law below, emphasis (bold) added with key words underlined.

*****

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1645_bill_20070910_enrolled.html

BILL NUMBER: AB 1645 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT

PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 17, 2007

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member La Malfa

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to add Section 8571.5 to the Government Code, relating to
emergency powers.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1645, La Malfa. Emergency powers: firearms.
Existing law authorizes the Governor to invoke various powers in
the event of an emergency, as specified.
This bill would provide that these powers do not authorize the
seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any
individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or
ammunition, as specified.


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

SECTION 1. Section 8571.5 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
8571.5. Nothing in this article shall authorize the seizure or
confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is
lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition, or
authorize any order to that effect, provided however, that a peace
officer who is acting in his or her official capacity may disarm an
individual if the officer reasonably believes it is immediately
necessary for the protection of the officer or another individual.
The officer shall return the firearm to the individual before
discharging the individual, unless the officer arrests that
individual or seizes the firearm as evidence pursuant to an
investigation for the commission of a crime.

N6ATF
10-17-2007, 12:41 AM
Security guard firearm permit regs distributed to LE are here (scroll rightward on the page)
http://www.bsis.ca.gov/forms_pubs/pocket_guide.pdf

igsr96
10-17-2007, 11:05 AM
Wasn't this already settled by Federal legislation (HR 5441) that as passed in July? This is just a stunt to appease the gun-rights group. Arnie is a joke.

Summary of HR 5441 by David Kopel (http://volokh.com/posts/1159809369.shtml)

Summary: (a). The bill applies to all law enforcement, including state and local. (Formally, it applies to federal law enforcement, plus anyone receiving federal funds or assisting federal law enforcement. In a disaster, this means almost everyone.) It bans gun confiscation, gun registration, and restrictions on where a firearm may be possessed; confisction, registration, and restrictions pursuant to existing laws are still allowed. People who are assisting federal disaster relief, and who are allowed to carry firearms under existing law, may not be forbidden to do so.
(b) When mass transit is being used for evacuation (e.g., busses out of New Orleans), passengers can be required to surrender their firearms for the duration of the trip, and then reclaim the firearms when the trip is over.
(c) A person victimized by a violation of this law can sue in federal district court; a prevailing plaintiff will be awarded attorney fees.

pnkssbtz
10-17-2007, 12:42 PM
So yes, AB 1614 was a bone thrown to us.

Thanks igsr96 for linking the info.

grywlfbg
10-17-2007, 7:34 PM
The truth of the matter is that when the SHTF, it HITS THE FAN! All of the cozy comfy laws and legslation be damned, we are on our own. In that event, when someone comes trying to take what I have and need to survive at that point in time, the only authority I am going to be submitting to will be superior firepower and more expert application of same. All this writing legislation in the comfort of Sacto's hallowed halls is just feel good itis. It won't really matter when it is intended to matter.

Well, I already owned a number of guns prior to the various registration statutes so the number of guns that BoF thinks I own and the actual number are quite different. If the cops do show up at my door Katrina-style, I'll happily give them the same number of guns that the computer says I have (just none of the good ones). This is assuming they can even pull this kind of data up during a quake or other disaster - "No sir, I don't have any firearms - they're scary! You'll be here to protect me right?" (mental note to not be wearing LaRue Tactical or JP Rifles hat). I can easily lie with a straight face - I'm in Sales :D

hoffmang
10-17-2007, 10:40 PM
In the grand scheme, removing the only power left to confiscate firearms in an "emergency" is more valuable to the health of the republic than whether our semiautomatic new model handguns are more limited.

Let me put it this way. Now, the executive has to break the law to try to take firearms away and that makes the indicators for the time for armed resistance a whole lot more obvious.

-Gene

CCWFacts
10-17-2007, 11:16 PM
In the grand scheme, removing the only power left to confiscate firearms in an "emergency" is more valuable to the health of the republic than whether our semiautomatic new model handguns are more limited.

My logic is, anything which contributes to public safety, like AB 1645 does, is more important than things which merely piss us off (microstamping). If they flat-out banned semi-auto handguns, and at the same time made CCW shall-issue (but revolvers only) I would support that (yes it's a contrived hypothetical). My reason: it would start saving lives immediately, and that's always where I will put my priority.

N6ATF
10-18-2007, 12:13 AM
I sure don't want to use a .45 ACP revolver with the moon clip nonsense...

Maybe I'll have to look into .45 LC?

Hypothetically, of course.

M. Sage
10-18-2007, 2:57 PM
♦ AB 1645 (Doug La Malfa, R-Redding) 'Katrina' Firearms Protection Would prohibit the Governor from authorizing the seizure or confiscation of any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully carrying or possessing the firearm or ammunition in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency.

Wonderful.

Question is, what happens when my mayor or police chief takes that step upon him/herself? I have a pretty good idea...

CCWFacts
10-18-2007, 3:02 PM
I sure don't want to use a .45 ACP revolver with the moon clip nonsense...

The S&W 625 looks like a really cool revolver, IMHO. I would love to have one. Note, the 625 headspaces on the mouth, not the rim (this sounds funny) so it can operate fine without moon clips. They are only needed to ease ejection.

Hypothetically, of course.

Yes. We don't get to make bargains like that, so it's only a thought experiment.

Which makes me wonder... why don't our lobbyists put some effort into amending these bills as they go through? Microstamping was a bad thing, but in reality, the effects will be minimal. Attaching a statutory good cause to this bill would make it a big win for us. Why can't this be done?

(I personally would love to see statutory GC amended on to every gun bill in the leg.)

N6ATF
10-19-2007, 12:19 AM
I'll have to try it to believe it... not exactly a fan of stainless either.

mikehaas
10-19-2007, 5:55 AM
...he screwed us on the other two laws...
Other TWO laws? AB 821, ok, but what is the 3rd?

Two bad laws were signed:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab821
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1471

Two good bills were signed:
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab854
http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1645

chris, what is the 3rd bad bill you are referring to?

Mike

mikehaas
10-19-2007, 6:01 AM
Wasn't this already settled by Federal legislation (HR 5441) that as passed in July?
Not if you mean AB 1645 - H.R. 4551 says nothing about gun confiscations during disasters. It's a Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061004-10.html

This is just a stunt to appease the gun-rights group. Arnie is a joke.
Don't understand your first comment and I sure can't argue with the second.

Mike