Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   2013 CA SB 47 - Yee, Assault weapons ** VERY LIMITED DISCUSSION!** (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=659112)

Librarian 12-19-2012 9:05 AM

2013 CA SB 47 - Yee, Assault weapons ** VERY LIMITED DISCUSSION!**
 
New-style legislative link - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...=201320140SB47

OLD-style legislative link http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/po...e=B&author=yee

as introduced:
Quote:

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 and How a bill becomes law.

Librarian 12-19-2012 9:07 AM

Sticky, for today, so the number of threads is lower ...

wildhawker 12-19-2012 9:15 AM

Parking for FPC intel.

-Brandon

Moonshine 12-19-2012 9:48 AM

So basically this is a placeholder for the bill to be introduced while specific language is being developed correct?

Librarian 12-19-2012 9:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonshine (Post 9958787)
So basically this is a placeholder for the bill to be introduced while specific language is being developed correct?

Yes.

Librarian 12-19-2012 2:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stalin321 (Post 9959622)
Wait so I can no longer shoot "assault type weapons" on BLM this weekend?

Sigh. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/sit...ic-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 and How a bill becomes law.

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

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

See this?
Quote:

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

profbri 12-19-2012 5:49 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 7:39 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 4:29 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 4:33 PM

Thats some rather interesting language...
We shall see.

FoxTrot87 01-02-2013 6:27 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 8:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 10090606)
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 11:42 AM

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 9:54 AM

Bill text has disappeared, looks like status change to

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

GrizzlyGuy 01-11-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacoJockey (Post 10179326)
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 since it is a senate bill:

Quote:

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 1:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TacoJockey (Post 10179326)
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 3:15 PM

Am I confused? SB47 is the topic here, but what's this? http://stopsb249.org

stix213 01-11-2013 3:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seabee1 (Post 10182277)
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 4:02 PM

Got it thanks

Johnnyfres 01-11-2013 5:44 PM

Basically a back up plan if for CA if the federal ban does not go through.

jimezdoesit 01-14-2013 8:38 AM

Language has been submitted for SB 47

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-...button-loophol

RobGR 01-14-2013 8:43 AM

And a petition for CA voters to sign is now circulating

https://act.credoaction.com/campaign...&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 8:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimezdoesit (Post 10206167)
Language has been submitted for SB 47

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/news/2013-...button-loophol

Hasn't hit the official site yet, but probably we can take this as good.
Quote:

(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!
Quote:

(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.)
Quote:

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 9:14 AM

And the link that had the bill's langauge is now broken - joy.

stix213 01-14-2013 9:23 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 10:55 AM

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...tsClient.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 11:16 AM

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 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigb0886 (Post 10207550)
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 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigb0886 (Post 10207550)
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 1:19 PM

The pro-dictatorship monkeys in Yee's office have been hard at work.

http://sd08.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd08...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 1:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 10206563)
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 1:28 PM

This really needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.

dmyhra 01-14-2013 1:33 PM

Can it be stopped? The Democrats own the state government.

Surf Hunter 01-14-2013 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmyhra (Post 10208741)
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 1:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega13device (Post 10208678)
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 1:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf Hunter (Post 10208764)
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 1:46 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 1:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmyhra (Post 10208741)
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 2:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stix213 (Post 10206563)
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 2:23 PM

Looks tight as a drum to me. Damn... Yee really did his homework.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.