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 02-23-2013, 12:16 AM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 558
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2013 SB 567 - Jackson - Firearms: shotguns

Redefines a shotgun to remove that it be primarily used from the shoulder, and allow for either a smooth or rifled bore.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

Quote:
SB 567, as introduced, Jackson. Firearms: shotguns.


Existing law, for purposes of specified provisions, defines shotgun as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

This bill would revise the definition of a shotgun to delete the requirement that it be intended to be fired from the shoulder, and would clarify that the projectile may be fired through either a rifled bore or a smooth bore.

By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:21 AM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,208
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Removes the requirement that it is intended to be fired from the shoulder? Hmmm...wonder what we can do with that.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:27 AM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 12,653
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Who can Judge?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:35 AM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,208
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
Who can Judge?
That still won't be an option unfortunately - revolving cylinder. But perhaps certain other AOWs would be reclassified as shotguns in CA though. Don't think it would change the process to get them as their status federally won't have changed, but still...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:32 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains (Santa Clara County)
Posts: 2,702
iTrader: 65 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
Who can Judge?
Maybe The Governor can weigh in?
__________________
WTB: Ruger 22/45
WTS: Lead free 300 Win Mag Ammo http://goo.gl/5Hs4Lw
WTS: NIB Bosch 18V Lithium Ion Drill / Driver Set http://goo.gl/lYGzvM




"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:11 AM
wolfwood's Avatar
wolfwood wolfwood is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 617
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Let's just say Young wins in a happy world and the Ninth delineates between a shotgun and rifle. Let's say they give a definition of both which is different than this proposed definition. Would this affect this law?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-23-2013, 5:26 AM
IncVoid IncVoid is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 391
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

sounds like they broaded...broadened?widened, the definition of shotgun, so a circuit judge turns into a shotgun, and not a "rifle" anymore. Because a shotgun can have a rifled bore now? and still be the definition of a shotgun in california.
The fired from the shoulder bit sounds like they get scared of franklin armory csw. Or nipping arguments that pistol grip shotguns, are not "shotguns" in california because they were not designed to be fired from the shoulder?

I don't know... can't be good right?

putting my tinfoil hat on here: Maybe they are one step closer to making everything to be considered a shotgun, and need an 18inch barrel...or linking the "snakeshot" ammo to shotgun shell ammo....dun dun

You think the brady campaign, would manufacture a .223 shotgun and shell. Then they could prove 16 inch .223s are sbs? blahhh..then again most .223's are not designed to fire whatever shotgun shell they want to "make up"...but if it chambers...it is right?

Tracer ammo for use in a shotgun?
__________________
__________
Now happy with my muzzelite ruger 10/22 bullpup stock.

Last edited by IncVoid; 02-23-2013 at 5:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:11 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is offline
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 10,896
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"...By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program..."

Its not changing the definition of an existing crime, its changing the definition of an existing definition. There is no mention of a crime in 17190.
__________________
Whatever the question, Cilantro is the answer.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:35 AM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

No.... I read it differently.

It would turn any gun into a shotgun. Including handguns and rimfires.

Not meant to be fired from the shoulder, smooth or rifled bore...... with one or multiple projectiles...

Everything under the sun would be classified as a shot gun.

Though I cant figure out the *reason* for this at all.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:40 AM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Think "judge"
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:41 AM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Rebel Scum
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 5,906
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by postal View Post
No.... I read it differently.

It would turn any gun into a shotgun. Including handguns and rimfires.

Not meant to be fired from the shoulder, smooth or rifled bore...... with one or multiple projectiles...

Everything under the sun would be classified as a shot gun.

Though I cant figure out the *reason* for this at all.
By that logic any handgun would now be a SBS and illegal. Maybe that's the intent.
__________________
WTB- A2 Flash Suppressors And Front Sight Towers
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=906994

"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
  #12  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:48 AM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yes... perhaps my judgement is off today.... I did get that reference right from the start though....

I'm just reading the wording of the summary, and it's my interpretation of....

Does 17190 specify barrel length/OAL?

If not, ANY gun would then be classified as a shotgun.

And I still just dont understand the point, unless its to actually try to allow newly introduced models we cant currently obtain here.... If it does give barrel/oal minimums, I dont see a point still... however, I'm really not a 'shotgun kind of guy'....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:55 AM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,174
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Wonder if this would put an end to AOWs?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-23-2013, 11:58 AM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I'd be interested in a 12 shot handgun though... perhaps some company needs to make one and call it "Jury"???

Logical step....

Though I really dont have an interest in a single shot... unless its a BMG or bigger.... Executioner... naturally....
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:21 PM
JohnCCW's Avatar
JohnCCW JohnCCW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Madera County
Posts: 1,046
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is VERY bad legislation, literally in the way it is written, and in the un-intended(?) concequences- if it becomes law.

It has massive negative implications to numerous existing CA gun laws. Virtually all guns that can fire a "shotgun" shell would/could be considered shotguns, by definition. Originally designed to outlaw one weapon, it could do much more in the courts.



From the Sen's website:

SACRAMENTO – State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) is introducing a bill that would ban certain assault shotguns in California.

The bill, which will be introduced in upcoming weeks, would ensure shotguns with revolving cylinders, known for their killing power, continue to be banned under California’s assault weapons ban. The bill was unveiled today at the State Capitol in Sacramento as part of a multi-bill package by Senate Democrats designed to address gun violence in the wake of the Newtown tragedy and other mass shootings.

“As gun technology evolves, our laws need to keep pace with them,” Jackson said. “Shotguns with a rifled barrel and revolving cylinder are relatively new, and can fire a large number of cartridges in a short period of time. The danger of these guns far outweighs any recreational use they may have.”

It is already illegal to use or possess to “smooth bore” shotguns with revolving cylinders in California. This bill would ban “rifled bore” shotguns with a revolving cylinder such as the Circuit Judge .410/.45. It is unknown how many such guns are sold in California.

“No bill will singlehandedly solve the problem of gun violence,” Jackson said. “But a bill like this keeps our assault weapons ban up-to-date and relevant, so we can keep exceptionally deadly weapons out of the hands of the wrong people.”

According to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, two in three Californians support a nationwide ban on assault weapons.

Jackson added, “I hope that President Obama and Congress, as they work to renew the federal assault weapons ban, will follow our lead in banning these type of guns as well.”
__________________
Don't ask how many guns I own, I lost count.
Rick Perry? Ted Cruz for President 2016
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:31 PM
FrankDux's Avatar
FrankDux FrankDux is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 833
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Circuit Judge an Assault Weapon haha!
__________________
Im not the real Dux.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-23-2013, 1:41 PM
Kingofthehill's Avatar
Kingofthehill Kingofthehill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GW View Post
Who can Judge?
Mine is still with a friend in Nevada.

How freaking stupid i had to leave that behind.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-23-2013, 2:45 PM
postal postal is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 4,592
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
By that logic any handgun would now be a SBS and illegal. Maybe that's the intent.
Has anyone on this thread heard of 'snake shot'?

John? just how bad do you interpret it now??????

Last edited by postal; 02-23-2013 at 2:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-23-2013, 3:04 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,068
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Those .410 shotguns...so many deadly killing sprees there.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:25 PM
MalikCarr MalikCarr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

...guys, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't short-barreled shotguns illegal in CA even if you have your NFA paperwork and it's all well and clean federally?

If I'm reading this correctly, any weapon with a barrel less than 18.5" long would thus be considered an NFA short-barreled shotgun and therefore illegal. This would include just about every handgun...
__________________

On the back window of a Prius; causes mental anguish to those who live in a world of stereotypes.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:31 PM
1911su16b870's Avatar
1911su16b870 1911su16b870 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,962
iTrader: 122 / 100%
Default

Sounds like it would make AOWs into CA SBSs. Bad legislation.
__________________
"The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed." Fontana PD Chief Rodney Jones on the FUSD decision to have AR-15s on school campuses.

CGF Contributor
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Beretta, GLOCK, SA-Colt AR15/M16, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-23-2013, 6:42 PM
0nTarg3t's Avatar
0nTarg3t 0nTarg3t is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 121
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

so what about a 22 pistol or rifle that you can fire 22 cal snake shot out of?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-24-2013, 8:09 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,501
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

So will it be legal to use 38 or 44 special snake shot shells in a standard revolver under this stupid law?
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:03 AM
IncVoid IncVoid is offline
Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 391
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As long as 22 pistols aren't using the energy of the explosive in the "shotgun shell", which translates to not being able to use "shotgun shells", sounds like to me.

My rough interpretation of that Californio would be yes it is still legal.
it is not illegal to fire "shot" out of a pistol. but...

But that shotgun shell inside a firearm designed/made to use that shotgun shell, not conforming to shotgun lengths.


I dislike the way it is written. 38 snake shot shells are not "shotgun" shells.
But it makes shotguns, as anything that fires "shotgun shells".
Gun manufacturers should ...stop designing shotgun shells now, multiprojectile rifle rounds. Not the solution.

It could be interpreted as shotguns are the catch-all of definitions, and rifles are a specific type of shotgun...after their next step.

Next step in their plan is to make all ammo fit the definition of "shotgun shell."
Let us not let them get to that.

Does anybody recall any cases where they say exactly what a shotgun shell is? the shell case? needing to have a wad? it appears shotgun shells have two cases...the brass head and case? If the brass head isn't brass is it still a shotgun shell? could that lil plastic on the end of the .38 or 44 or even the .22lr be considered a shell case?
Because it doesn't matter if it has a single or multi-projectile by this definition.
ball shot.. it sounds like as long as it doesn't have ballshot inside of it, it can't be considered a "shot"gun shell...
non-necked case...oohhhh??

They just don't like the little lead balls (or the bullet ones). The little "sphericals." that can spread out...
s12s?
__________________
__________
Now happy with my muzzelite ruger 10/22 bullpup stock.

Last edited by IncVoid; 02-25-2013 at 5:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-25-2013, 5:56 AM
killmime1234's Avatar
killmime1234 killmime1234 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,537
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

It looks like the intent is to go after the serbu and similar shotguns. Unfortunately it's so poorly written it would effect basically every other gun in the state.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-25-2013, 12:04 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 8,883
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MalikCarr View Post
...guys, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't short-barreled shotguns illegal in CA even if you have your NFA paperwork and it's all well and clean federally?

If I'm reading this correctly, any weapon with a barrel less than 18.5" long would thus be considered an NFA short-barreled shotgun and therefore illegal. This would include just about every handgun...
You WILL NOT have any NFA paperwork, let alone the tax stamp, if you are a California resident.
__________________
"Tactical" is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

I never once felt out of place or that people were intolerant...but then again, I didn't ask any dumbass questions ...saxman

“Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in.”
Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-14-2013, 3:42 PM
Gun_Owner_901's Avatar
Gun_Owner_901 Gun_Owner_901 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 156
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I am Confused on this bill, would it ban all semi auto handguns or all handguns that accept shotshell type ammo, what are the chances of this getting through is it possible that Governor will veto this.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-14-2013, 4:00 PM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 22,721
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MP301 View Post
Wonder if this would put an end to AOWs?
not in my initial reading of the proposed law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MalikCarr View Post
...guys, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't short-barreled shotguns illegal in CA even if you have your NFA paperwork and it's all well and clean federally?
CA SBS laws are separate from federal SBS laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911su16b870 View Post
Sounds like it would make AOWs into CA SBSs. Bad legislation.
they are already CA SBS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
It looks like the intent is to go after the serbu and similar shotguns. Unfortunately it's so poorly written it would effect basically every other gun in the state.
Serbus are already CA SBS.
__________________
Jack
Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA?

FrontSight Training Course certificates available $25, PM for details on them and other options.
No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-14-2013, 4:37 PM
compulsivegunbuyer compulsivegunbuyer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,782
iTrader: 55 / 100%
Default

Unusualy deadly? Really?

Circuit Judge holds 5 rounds of 410, 00 buck in 410 holds 4 pellets, for a total of 20. Thing is basicly a double action revolver. It's rifled, so pellets sling quickly outward. Would be good for slugs and 45, that's about it.

12 gauge 2 3/4 00 buck shell hold 9 pellets. Take a average semi home defence gun, 6 in the tube, one in the pipe, that's 63 pellets, 3 times as many, in less time than the Judge can fire 5, smooth bore, pellets hold on target.

Makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-14-2013, 5:06 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncVoid View Post
As long as 22 pistols aren't using the energy of the explosive in the "shotgun shell", which translates to not being able to use "shotgun shells", sounds like to me.

My rough interpretation of that Californio would be yes it is still legal.
it is not illegal to fire "shot" out of a pistol. but...

But that shotgun shell inside a firearm designed/made to use that shotgun shell, not conforming to shotgun lengths.


I dislike the way it is written. 38 snake shot shells are not "shotgun" shells.
But it makes shotguns, as anything that fires "shotgun shells".
Gun manufacturers should ...stop designing shotgun shells now, multiprojectile rifle rounds. Not the solution.

It could be interpreted as shotguns are the catch-all of definitions, and rifles are a specific type of shotgun...after their next step.

Next step in their plan is to make all ammo fit the definition of "shotgun shell."
Let us not let them get to that.

Does anybody recall any cases where they say exactly what a shotgun shell is? the shell case? needing to have a wad? it appears shotgun shells have two cases...the brass head and case? If the brass head isn't brass is it still a shotgun shell? could that lil plastic on the end of the .38 or 44 or even the .22lr be considered a shell case?
Because it doesn't matter if it has a single or multi-projectile by this definition.
ball shot.. it sounds like as long as it doesn't have ballshot inside of it, it can't be considered a "shot"gun shell...
non-necked case...oohhhh??

They just don't like the little lead balls (or the bullet ones). The little "sphericals." that can spread out...
s12s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by killmime1234 View Post
It looks like the intent is to go after the serbu and similar shotguns. Unfortunately it's so poorly written it would effect basically every other gun in the state.
Can anyone else offer ideas on how to improve this bill? Your legislators in Sacramento have more important things to do then finding ways to keep guns out of civil hands.




OPSEC!
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06-03-2013, 11:37 AM
Just.a.guy Just.a.guy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Jose area
Posts: 410
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Bump for discussion...

This is one that passed the Senate last week. If I'm reading it properly (and other here indicate that I am), it redefines almost all handguns (in popular calibers, that have shotshell ammo available) many rifles as shotguns. Since they have barrels less than 18", they're now SBS's.

What happens to SBS's in CA? I know they're illegal, but are the subject to confiscation? I would assume possession is a felony. Does that mean cops can round up anyone at a handgun range, toss them in a squad car, and slap them with felony charges?

This seems likely to pass, along with the rest of them. Are there any indications otherwise? I presume CGF will sue, and file an injunction. Can an injunction be denied? ie, until the lawsuit is settled, possession of a handgun is illegal in CA?

I guess I'm just looking for someone to give me a hug and tell me it'll be alright, and that my fears are unfounded.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-03-2013, 12:42 PM
Hogstir Hogstir is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 327
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Existing law, for purposes of specified provisions, defines shotgun as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger."

All firearms propel projectiles due to expanding gasses not by the " energy of the explosive".
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-03-2013, 12:54 PM
kaligaran's Avatar
kaligaran kaligaran is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 4,730
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Seeing that long guns make up less than 500 deaths per year. I wonder how many of those are from shotguns and then how many of those happened with these 'killing machines' in California.

God, I swear... every day when i come to read up the latest on calguns, my blood pressure through the roof.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-03-2013, 2:04 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,302
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hogstir View Post
All firearms propel projectiles due to expanding gasses not by the " energy of the explosive".
expanding gases contain the energy of the explosive, thats why theyre expanding
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-03-2013, 2:55 PM
GutPunch's Avatar
GutPunch GutPunch is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 2,229
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

STOP HELPING THEM. They are literally turning to the people who KNOW the questions to be asked to help them fix the problems with their bills.

Loose lips sink ships. STFU.
__________________
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Thomas Jefferson
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." - John Adams
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." - Alexis de Tocqueville

Proud Contributing Member:
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-03-2013, 4:57 PM
Capybara's Avatar
Capybara Capybara is offline
CGSSA Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 9,700
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Why do California firearms owners insist on helping the idiots who want to take away our rights? Nobody understands what opsec is obviously. This thread isn't the only one in this forum doing so...amazing.
__________________
NRA Certified Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor, Shotgun Instructor and Range Safety Officer



Sign up now for the next Ventura County Reloading Workshop!
VC Reloading Club on Facebook
VC Reloading Club on Twitter @VCReloading
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-03-2013, 9:42 PM
ddestruel ddestruel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 739
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

if the NFA exists federally as the mechanism of choice to define dangerous and unusual weapons for purposes of commercial sale and owner ship and CA is intent on creating their own list and banning more weapons that are not by federal law or definition dangerous and unusual but actually in common use............ it seems that they inviting a serious debate to determine if the NFA overrules state determinations or if arbitrary lists and laws that are not rooted in facts but in emotion should stand. The debate is bound to happen some day guess they weren't willing to wait. Now if this passes odds are We'll actually see a debate of which has more authority in regulating constitutionally protected commerce?

States can choose to allow or not allow NFA stamp weapons within their borders, which seems to be a reasonable level of discretion granted to the states by the NFA that they can administer, venturing beyond that will be the debate. Is it infringing for states to further redefine, restrict or ban or is it a states right to clamp down extensively beyond the NFA when something is in common use. i fear the consequences of this passing and the inconveniences it will bring to us but i also see the coming debate as inevitable as their trajectory is beyond a collision course with law abiding firearms owners and court challenges
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc
Quote:
....."there can be no irreparable harm to a municipality when it is prevented from enforcing an unconstitutional statute,” and the public interest always weighs in favor of protecting constitutional rights. See Joelner v. Wash. Park, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir. 2004).
I VOTE and contribute to organizations who share my pursuit of freedom
1991

Last edited by ddestruel; 06-03-2013 at 10:32 PM..
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 5:47 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.