View Single Post
  #123  
Old 11-04-2012, 7:37 PM
GettoPhilosopher's Avatar
GettoPhilosopher GettoPhilosopher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,812
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Long, Appropriations Committee Analysis of SB249
4) Opposition. Numerous g un-related organizations oppose this bill, generally on the basis that
it will effectively ban a weapon owned by tens of thousands of Californians, and that it will
prove to be an ineffective measure, as gun owners interested in bullet-button weapons will simply move to semi-automatic rifles that lack the Penal Code-referenced features that qualify the guns as assault weapons, and therefore can use a detachable magazine.
(...)
b) The California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees calls SB 249 "possibly the
largest and most costly unconstitutional government taking of private property in
Califomia history" and states that "If SB 249 passes in any form, Cal-FFL and its
members will, without fail, immediately file a federal civil rights lawsuit -likely in
cooperation with The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and
others-seeking injunctive and declaratory relief."
Geoff Long cited StopSB249/Cal-FFL/CGF letters, arguments, and threats of lawsuits for the Appropriations Committee Analysis. Why? Because we're losing? No, because we won this fight and have continued to take more ground every year. The fact that the threat of a potential CGF/Cal-FFL/SAF is something the Appropriations Committee considered while discussing a potential gun control bill is downright amazing.
Reply With Quote