Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:00 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 564
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2013 CA AB 169 Dickinson - Unsafe Handguns // to Senate 5/2

This one closes the PPT option of an "unsafe handgun" from someone who can buy them to someone who cannot.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140AB169

Quote:
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 169, as introduced, Dickinson. Unsafe handguns.
(1) Existing law requires parties to a firearms transaction to complete the sale, loan, or transfer of the firearm through a licensed firearms dealer where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer license. Existing law provides for several exceptions from this requirement, including sales made to authorized law enforcement representatives, delivery of a firearm to a gunsmith for repair, transactions involving a firearm that is a curio or relic, or the loaning of a firearm for use solely as a prop in a motion picture, among others.
Existing law provides for the testing of handguns and requires the Department of Justice to maintain a roster listing all handguns that are determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, to manufacture, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law provides that the provisions defining and governing unsafe handguns do not apply to certain transactions, including the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm in a transaction that requires the use of a licensed dealer, or where the sale, loan, or transfer is exempt from the provisions of law requiring the transfer to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer, among others.
This bill would repeal these exemptions, and would instead make the prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun inapplicable to the sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm that is exempt from the requirement that a firearms transaction to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law exempts the purchase of a handgun from the above prohibition on manufacturing, importing, selling, giving, or lending an unsafe handgun if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties.
This bill would prohibit a person exempted under the above provision from selling or otherwise transferring the ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under the same provision unless the transaction is exempt from the requirement to complete the transaction through a licensed dealer. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(3) The bill would also make nonsubstantive, technical corrections.
(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.
Digest KeyVote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill TextThe people of the State of California do enact as follows:


SECTION 1. Section 32000 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

32000. (a) Commencing January 1, 2001, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year.
(b) This section shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) The manufacture in this state, or importation into this state, of any prototype pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person a prototype handgun when the manufacture or importation is for the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 32010 to conduct an independent test to determine whether that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person handgun is prohibited by Sections 31900 to 32110, inclusive, and, if not, allowing the department to add the firearm to the roster of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person handguns that may be sold in this state pursuant to Section 32015.
(2) The importation or lending of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person handgun by employees or authorized agents of entities determining whether the weapon is prohibited by this section.
(3) Firearms listed as curios or relics, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(4) The sale or purchase of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, if the pistol, revolver, or other firearm a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the Department of Justice, any a police department, any a sheriff’s official, any a marshal’s office, the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. Nor shall anything in this This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. a handgun. Except as provided inparagraph (5) , a person who, under this paragraph, acquires a handgun that is not on the roster required by Section 23015, shall not sell or otherwise transfer ownership of the handgun to a person who is not exempted under this paragraph.
(5) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm that is exempt from the provisions of Section 27545 pursuant to any applicable exemption contained in Article 2 (commencing with Section 27600) or Article 6 (commencing with Section 27850) of Chapter 4 of Division 6, if the sale, loan, or transfer complies with the requirements of that applicable exemption to Section 27545.
(c) Violations of subdivision (a) are cumulative with respect to each handgun and shall not be construed as restricting the application of any other law. However, an act or omission punishable in different ways by this section and other provisions of law shall not be punished under more than one provision, but the penalty to be imposed shall be determined as set forth in Section 654.

SEC. 2. Section 32110 of the Penal Code is repealed.
32110.Article 4 (commencing with Section 31900) and Article 5 (commencing with Section 32000) shall not apply to any of the following:

(a)The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) of Division 6 in order to comply with Section 27545.

(b)The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm that is exempt from the provisions of Section 27545 pursuant to any applicable exemption contained in Article 2 (commencing with Section 27600) or Article 6 (commencing with Section 27850) of Chapter 4 of Division 6, if the sale, loan, or transfer complies with the requirements of that applicable exemption to Section 27545.

(c)The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm as described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 32000.

(d)The delivery of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, for the purposes of the service or repair of that firearm.

(e)The return of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, to its owner where that firearm was initially delivered in the circumstances set forth in subdivision (a), (d), (f), or (i).

(f)The delivery of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, for the purpose of a consignment sale or as collateral for a pawnbroker loan.

(g)The sale, loan, or transfer of any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person listed as a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(h)The sale, loan, or transfer of any semiautomatic pistol that is to be used solely as a prop during the course of a motion picture, television, or video production by an authorized participant therein in the course of making that production or event or by an authorized employee or agent of the entity producing that production or event.

(i)The delivery of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, where the firearm is being loaned by the licensee to a consultant-evaluator.

(j)The delivery of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, where the firearm is being loaned by the licensee to a consultant-evaluator.

(k)The return of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person to a person licensed pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, where it was initially delivered pursuant to subdivision (j).

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.

Last edited by Librarian; 01-25-2013 at 12:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:02 PM
bigcalidave's Avatar
bigcalidave bigcalidave is offline
Pre-Banned
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: St. George, UT
Posts: 4,734
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

What a ... Well the bills authors name says it all...

Not only stuck with our RAWs, now we would be stuck with all of our handguns. Neat.
__________________
Contact me about Advertising on Calguns.net
Marketing Director, Calguns.net
Dave Shore
NRA Life Member



Last edited by bigcalidave; 01-24-2013 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:11 PM
Obviously a Plant's Avatar
Obviously a Plant Obviously a Plant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 778
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Why has the roster not already run afoul of the interstate commerce clause? Does any other implement require yearly registration? The pretext of safety is so thin, why is that not vulnerable as pure B.S. in its own right? CGF? or is this something already in process that we only need to wait another 10 years for?
Oh yeah, this proposal is B.S. too, if it is unsafe for citizens, how can we let our sworn officers be so imperiled- we don't make cops drive Corvairs or Yugos? Conversely, if a cop can use it in the line of duty, what makes it unsafe, save that it is being held by an untrustworthy citizen?
...If you're not a cop, you're little people.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:17 PM
rrr70's Avatar
rrr70 rrr70 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Franfricko, PRK
Posts: 1,737
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Did anybody ever ask those morons one question, WHY?
__________________
"The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory" Jeff Cooper

كافر
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:20 PM
frankm's Avatar
frankm frankm is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Occupied Vespuchia
Posts: 9,433
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrr70 View Post
Did anybody ever ask those morons one question, WHY?
They're commies man, if you think of it that way, it's easy to understand what they do. They can't call themselves commies, they'd never get elected, so they join the DNC.
__________________
RKBA Clock: soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box (expanded right 4/16/14)
"Socialism can be a useful servant, but is a cruel master"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:21 PM
lazyworm's Avatar
lazyworm lazyworm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 1,434
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrr70 View Post
Did anybody ever ask those morons one question, WHY?
You have to ask why? The default answer is -- It's for the children!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:21 PM
Sakiri's Avatar
Sakiri Sakiri is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Arcata
Posts: 1,397
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There are TWO effing states that essentiall force gun manufacturers to develop "special products" in this extortion scheme, Massachusetts and California. Imo that right there screws with interstate commerce because there arent any other cases that Im aware of where two states, each with separate requirements, requires special products that affect availability. Thats why we're behind in getting some guns like the Shield. The rest of the US outside MA maybe has had it for awhile.

Its stupid. Isnt there a court case on it already?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:47 PM
JeremyKX JeremyKX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,526
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Didn't Jerry brown veto this last time?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2013, 10:59 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

jerry vetoed the one that kept LEO's from selling off roster guns. by this same douchebag. I keep writing him "no new gun bills" but he doesnt listen!
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:14 PM
FrankDux's Avatar
FrankDux FrankDux is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 879
iTrader: 89 / 100%
Default

Wow these idiots are all jumping on the Ban wagon....One introduces a AWB then they all try to throw in their own bills. Cant stand these people.
__________________
Im not the real Dux.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-25-2013, 5:31 AM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 16,954
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrr70 View Post
Did anybody ever ask those morons one question, WHY?
They do it because they can.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-25-2013, 5:41 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyKX View Post
Didn't Jerry brown veto this last time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
jerry vetoed the one that kept LEO's from selling off roster guns. by this same douchebag. I keep writing him "no new gun bills" but he doesnt listen!
The way this bill is written, i think something else is going on based on this same type of stuff was vetoed. I think it is a jockeying type move between the politicos. There has to be more to this than meets the eye.

An off roster firearm does not mean it was NEVER on the roster.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-25-2013, 5:45 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

we need a law to ban morons like this "Legisalator"...good grief!
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-25-2013, 6:06 AM
zonzin's Avatar
zonzin zonzin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Free state of Idaho!!
Posts: 792
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazyworm View Post
You have to ask why? The default answer is -- It's for the children!
Yep,, and the chosen one knows it.


“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.“- Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler




.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ - Second Amendment T-Shirts


ΜΟΛΩΝ-ΛΑΒΕ - Go Greek. Lifetime member Kappa Kappa Bang (KKB) Fraternity
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-25-2013, 9:09 AM
WWHD116's Avatar
WWHD116 WWHD116 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,241
iTrader: 172 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zonzin View Post
Yep,, and the chosen one knows it.


“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.“- Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler

.
Previously Roger Dickinson was on the Sac County Board of Supervisors. He was also the frontman for the Sacramento Kings owners (Maloof's) attempt to get the county taxpayers to fund a new arena for their own benefit. It would have raised the county sales tax % to fund. It failed, and now In retrospect, we now see how bad that idea would have been.

He is a shill and parasite. He will endorse, promote, or introduce any idea that will benefit his political career or his campaign donors. He is a Fraud, and the poster child for what is wrong with America.

Last edited by WWHD116; 01-26-2013 at 11:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-26-2013, 10:35 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,494
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

CGF is directly challenging the Roster in Peña v. Cid.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:03 AM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
There are TWO effing states that essentiall force gun manufacturers to develop "special products" in this extortion scheme, Massachusetts and California. Imo that right there screws with interstate commerce because there arent any other cases that Im aware of where two states, each with separate requirements, requires special products that affect availability. Thats why we're behind in getting some guns like the Shield. The rest of the US outside MA maybe has had it for awhile.

Its stupid. Isnt there a court case on it already?
The commerce clause (dormant) could provide grounds for attack against this statute, but there are a few problems. First, laws are subjected to the highest scrutiny where they facially discriminate against out-of-state actors or have the effect of favoring in-state economic interests over out-of-state interests. That isn't the case here as all guns, including those manufactured in state, are subject to the law.

Where the statute is "directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental" then the commerce clause does not apply. Such laws "will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." So this is not an impossible standard to meet, but it is a challenge. Personally, I think the laws serve no purpose.

The other problem is that the conservative justices don't like the dormant commerce clause, or rather they don't really believe in it, and of course the liberal justices don't like guns.

The CGF case challenges the law on Second Amendment and equal protection grounds. I'd say, let's see how that plays out before making a challenge under the commerce clause.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:21 AM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,093
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
CGF is directly challenging the Roster in Peña v. Cid.

-Gene
Thank you. There are so many cases it's hard to keep track. Is this moving again?
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-26-2013, 11:35 AM
aalvidrez's Avatar
aalvidrez aalvidrez is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Whittier
Posts: 449
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris View Post
They do it because they can.
Hate quote movies but, in the movie V... The government attempted to stir up support by creating a need, a fear, a panic... These people are classice 1984, Animal Farm... Etc...
__________________
R.I.P. Cpt Valdez, MSG Elizarraras, Sgt Mora, SSG States
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-26-2013, 12:02 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
Thank you. There are so many cases it's hard to keep track. Is this moving again?
Per PACER:

Quote:
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/18/12: Designation of expert witnesses is due by 3/8/2012, supplemental list of expert witnesses is due by 3/29/2013, all expert discovery shall be completed by 5/3/2013, all dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than 6/28/2013. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-26-2013, 12:22 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 831
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakiri View Post
There are TWO effing states that essentiall force gun manufacturers to develop "special products" in this extortion scheme, Massachusetts and California. Imo that right there screws with interstate commerce because there arent any other cases that Im aware of where two states, each with separate requirements, requires special products that affect availability. Thats why we're behind in getting some guns like the Shield. The rest of the US outside MA maybe has had it for awhile.

Its stupid. Isnt there a court case on it already?
California emissions standards require different auto engine and exhaust systems. Other states can choose whether or not to follow CA's standard, and if they do them manufacturers need to supply that state with the CA version.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA member, FBI San Francisco CA AA board member. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-26-2013, 1:25 PM
Obviously a Plant's Avatar
Obviously a Plant Obviously a Plant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 778
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Thank you, Gene & Tincon, I sometimes get the feeling that the law advances like mathematics-- always waiting for the proponents of the current theory to die-off before taking up an new theory.

Anyway, to my idealistic mind, Peña v. Cid should be a slam dunk. I am trying burn that childish hope from my heart. I think I will mark my calendar and go donate to CGF now-- wish I had more, but I blew it on parts!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-26-2013, 2:21 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,093
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
California emissions standards require different auto engine and exhaust systems. Other states can choose whether or not to follow CA's standard, and if they do them manufacturers need to supply that state with the CA version.
California had some extreme problems with smog and like them or not, the emissions laws did help a lot with the air quality. I hate the way they are implemented and don't agree with some of the regulations, but they do decrease emissions.

The roster doesn't do anything to help with any safety. Banning a gun because of it's color and not paying an extortion fee is not the same as telling someone they can't pollute the air everyone has to breath.

There is also no enumerated right to polluting, and there is no constitutional ammendment that says your right to pollute shall not be infringed.

There are actual examples in the Roster case about people with disabilities not being able to buy the only gun that works for them. Imagine if California told GM that they had to recertify a car to be sold here if someone who is disabled wanted it with hand controls. Or a blue prius was legal but a white one was illegal or they had to destroy some in insurance testing and pay an extra fee every year to sell different colors of the same car.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-26-2013, 3:04 PM
camsoup camsoup is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Red Bluff
Posts: 274
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyca View Post
California had some extreme problems with smog and like them or not, the emissions laws did help a lot with the air quality. I hate the way they are implemented and don't agree with some of the regulations, but they do decrease emissions.

The roster doesn't do anything to help with any safety. Banning a gun because of it's color and not paying an extortion fee is not the same as telling someone they can't pollute the air everyone has to breath.

There is also no enumerated right to polluting, and there is no constitutional ammendment that says your right to pollute shall not be infringed.

There are actual examples in the Roster case about people with disabilities not being able to buy the only gun that works for them. Imagine if California told GM that they had to recertify a car to be sold here if someone who is disabled wanted it with hand controls. Or a blue prius was legal but a white one was illegal or they had to destroy some in insurance testing and pay an extra fee every year to sell different colors of the same car.
Most of the "off road" only parts sold in CA are only considered "off road use" because the company didn't want to, or did not have the money to pay to get the part "approved" for CA use. Look at a 3" down-pipe for a turbo car as an example. If it fits the car, and the car still passes the CA sniffer test you would assume it would be legal to use, but it is illegal to have on your car simply because it doesn't have a CARB exempt sticker. CA wants to make money under the guise of providing cleaner air. A car can pass the sniffer here in CA but if it fails the visual test (ie the test the used to ensure all the parts have an exempt sticker) it still fails the "smog" test. Submitting a product for third party testing and CARB exempt status is not cheap, and brings in plenty of extra money for the state.

That is not any different than the handgun roster....no one truly believes the requirements for a pistol to make it on the list make those pistols " a CA approved safe handgun", it is simply about revenue and controlling or limiting what we can and cannot purchase.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-26-2013, 3:22 PM
anthonyca anthonyca is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,093
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
Most of the "off road" only parts sold in CA are only considered "off road use" because the company didn't want to, or did not have the money to pay to get the part "approved" for CA use. Look at a 3" down-pipe for a turbo car as an example. If it fits the car, and the car still passes the CA sniffer test you would assume it would be legal to use, but it is illegal to have on your car simply because it doesn't have a CARB exempt sticker. CA wants to make money under the guise of providing cleaner air. A car can pass the sniffer here in CA but if it fails the visual test (ie the test the used to ensure all the parts have an exempt sticker) it still fails the "smog" test. Submitting a product for third party testing and CARB exempt status is not cheap, and brings in plenty of extra money for the state.

That is not any different than the handgun roster....no one truly believes the requirements for a pistol to make it on the list make those pistols " a CA approved safe handgun", it is simply about revenue and controlling or limiting what we can and cannot purchase.
You are making the same argument as me. I didn't go into detail about what I didn't like about California emissions law but you hit it on the head. I don't care all that much about the Sniffer test, I can pass that, its the other crap you mentioned that I don't like.

I was comparing the new gun industry and new car industry, not the aftermarket. There is no denying that stricter emissions limits for new cars have some benefit. The aftermarket argument is a seperate one.

No one can show that the roster does anything but infringe on rights and act as a tax on a right.
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union...70812799700206

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
I am a physician. I am held to being "the expert" in medicine. I can't fall back on feigned ignorance and the statement that the patient should have known better than I. When an officer "can't be expected to know the entire penal code", but a citizen is held to "ignorance is no excuse", this is equivalent to ME being able to sue my patient for my own malpractice-after all, the patient should have known better, right?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-26-2013, 3:23 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

im trying to get a meeting with him to see this snake face to face and hear from his mouth the answer to "why".
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-26-2013, 3:26 PM
big red big red is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 482
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

How about a simple proposition that states no gun law shall be passed in the state of california that does not have a statewide public vote on it of 2/3 or more in favor. No gun shall be barred from sale if it is not barred by the federal government for sale in other states. That should resolve this issue. Quick, clean and the cost of a lawsuit.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-26-2013, 5:51 PM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
You're a daisy if you do!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 4,480
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

The bad thing is all of these bills will pass. We are doomed.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-26-2013, 7:55 PM
O'Brien O'Brien is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I read it and I don't understand what it is saying
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-26-2013, 7:59 PM
O'Brien O'Brien is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 36
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Also it seems that they crossed out a lot of stuff... But I still don't understand it
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 01-26-2013, 8:07 PM
Kid Stanislaus Kid Stanislaus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oakdale, CA
Posts: 4,421
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
CGF is directly challenging the Roster in Peña v. Cid. -Gene
What's the status of that case?
__________________
Things usually turn out best for those who make the best of how things turn out.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-26-2013, 8:32 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,478
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Stanislaus View Post
What's the status of that case?
What were you wondering that tincons post up a few lines didn't answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
Per PACER:
STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/18/12: Designation of expert witnesses is due by 3/8/2012, supplemental list of expert witnesses is due by 3/29/2013, all expert discovery shall be completed by 5/3/2013, all dispositive motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining orders or other emergency applications, shall be heard no later than 6/28/2013. (Kastilahn, A) (Entered: 09/19/2012)
Quote:
Originally Posted by camsoup View Post
it is simply about revenue and controlling or limiting what we can and cannot purchase.
^^^This but in reverse order! It's the slippery slope technique for the grabbers. How to eat a cow? One bite at a time. I doubt it's a meaningful revenue stream though.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-04-2013, 9:20 PM
TheBest's Avatar
TheBest TheBest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 977
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

This bill has been amended today: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140AB169
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-04-2013, 9:35 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What's a bolt action pistol?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-04-2013, 9:47 PM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,798
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

So, you buy a gun, a year later it falls off the roster, and now you can't sell it because it's unsafe, even though it was safe a year ago, yea, that makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:03 PM
DannyInSoCal's Avatar
DannyInSoCal DannyInSoCal is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mission Viejo
Posts: 8,006
iTrader: 105 / 100%
Default

We need to form a "union of gun owners" -

Then we can buy our own politicians......
__________________
.
$500 Donation to any Veterans Charity - Plus $500 Gift Card to any gun store: Visit 2nd Amendment Mortgage / www.2AMortgage.com
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:09 PM
Gutz's Avatar
Gutz Gutz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Home is where I make it.
Posts: 4,172
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

I think this is his FB page...

https://www.facebook.com/dickinsonroger
__________________
I like big guns and I cannot lie.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:48 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

well time to start making a really funky slide with a bolt action on it. Damn this moron.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-05-2013, 4:10 AM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Rebel Scum
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 6,055
iTrader: 68 / 100%
Default

Holy smokes that verbiage is confusing. Hope it passes. Hope they all pass.
__________________
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid" -Han Solo

"A dull knife is as useless as the man who would dare carry it"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-05-2013, 4:57 AM
arrix's Avatar
arrix arrix is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 1,200
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
Holy smokes that verbiage is confusing. Hope it passes. Hope they all pass.
Yes I'm afraid the only way we will win this fight is through the court system. Our legislators have all given in to madness.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:43 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.