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
  #121  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:44 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,484
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post

This is an Assault Weapon.


This is also an Assault Weapon
Why hasn't a 2A group in California bought airtime and had a commercial showing that the new law is going to make nearly every firearm into an AW? I bet these bills would have been dead months ago if this had been the case.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:46 PM
JDay's Avatar
JDay JDay is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: El Dorado County
Posts: 18,484
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd4ever View Post
SB 53 was re-read and amended: If you are a registered AW owner, you are on the PAP list and may not purchase ammo.
Thus, if you own a BB equipped Semi auto firearm, as of the enactment of SB-53 and registration of your firearm you are put on the list.
In addition, the possibility of an Internet purchase of ammo through an FFL is taken out.
If this is true it will be easy to destroy in court.
__________________
Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. -- James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. -- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87 (Pearce and Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:55 PM
readysetgo's Avatar
readysetgo readysetgo is offline
CGSSA Associate
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 4,148
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

WTH is 2nd4ever babbling about?!

If you're drunk, step away from the keyboard. If you're not, step away from the keyboard and grab a drink.

Seriously, slow down man.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-05-2013, 9:58 PM
DFF's Avatar
DFF DFF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDay View Post
Why hasn't a 2A group in California bought airtime and had a commercial showing that the new law is going to make nearly every firearm into an AW? I bet these bills would have been dead months ago if this had been the case.
Here you go..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiNiK6NBQCI
__________________
If I ever refer to BCM as BMC, its a slip as I often think of BMC when I'm thinking BCM lol. BMC, as in Bicycle Manufacturing Company.

"...Remember your Oath."

Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:00 PM
umd's Avatar
umd umd is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 1,636
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DFF View Post
If I ever refer to BCM as BMC, its a slip as I often think of BMC when I'm thinking BCM lol. BMC, as in Bicycle Manufacturing Company
Sorry to go OT... are you a cyclist?
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:04 PM
DFF's Avatar
DFF DFF is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 148
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by umd View Post
Sorry to go OT... are you a cyclist?
Yup. Road and mtn.
__________________
If I ever refer to BCM as BMC, its a slip as I often think of BMC when I'm thinking BCM lol. BMC, as in Bicycle Manufacturing Company.

"...Remember your Oath."

Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:17 PM
lawspud lawspud is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default AW Owners on the Prohibited Persons List...? Not So Much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd4ever View Post
SB 53 was re-read and amended: If you are a registered AW owner, you are on the PAP list and may not purchase ammo.
Thus, if you own a BB equipped Semi auto firearm, as of the enactment of SB-53 and registration of your firearm you are put on the list.
In addition, the possibility of an Internet purchase of ammo through an FFL is taken out.

Furthermore, in order to purchase ammo, fingerprinting, ID check, physical characteristics and any other data about you are recorded. Every purchase is recorded.

It's over folks. Buying ammo is going to get very very painful. And if you have a registered AW, destroy it, unregister it or sell it otherwise you can't buy ammo for any of your other firearms.

[edit to remove SB374 stuff]

Maybe we should get into Airsoft.
Um, yes and no. You seem to be misreading the following section:
__________________________________________________ __________

30005. The Prohibited Armed Persons File database shall function as follows:
(a) Upon entry into the Automated Criminal History System Department of Justice’s records of a disposition for a conviction of any felony, a conviction for any firearms-prohibiting charge specified in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800), a conviction for an offense described in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 29900), a firearms prohibition pursuant to Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or any firearms possession prohibition identified by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Department of Justice shall determine if the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating possession or ownership of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration, or commencing January 1, July 1, 2015, acquisition of ammunition.
(b) Upon an entry into any department automated information system that is used for the identification of persons who are prohibited by state or federal law from acquiring, owning, or possessing firearms, the department shall determine if the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration.
(c) If the department determines that, pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b), the subject has an entry in the Consolidated Firearms Information System indicating possession or ownership of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration, the following information shall be entered into the Prohibited Armed Persons File:
(1) The subject’s name.
(2) The subject’s date of birth.
(3) The subject’s physical description.
(4) Any other identifying information regarding the subject that is deemed necessary by the Attorney General.
(5) The basis of the firearms possession and ammunition prohibition.
(6) A description of all firearms owned or possessed by the subject, as reflected by the Consolidated Firearms Information System.
__________________________________________________ __________

All this is telling me is that the PAP will have information about ALL registrations in the CFIS system (except for non-AW, non-.50cal registrations from pre-1/1/91). If a person pops up on the PAP due to a qualifying conviction or other event (5250WIC commit, Restraining Order issued, etc), the PAP will immediately highlight known firearms potentially in that person's possession. This section clearly does not make registrations in CFIS a prohibiting event. Rather, it is intended to streamline the process of identifying PAPs that are also registered gun owners.

Existing law already makes it a crime for prohibited persons from owning/possessing ammo, pretty much just like firearms. (Cal. Penal Code 30305 / former section 12316(b)) This has been the law for years. SB53 doesn't seem to expand the PAP list, at least insofar as it does not create new classes of prohibited persons.


You are correct that ammo purchases will require fingerprinting and collection of personal information and information about the sale.

__________________________________________________ ___________
30352. (a) A vendor shall not sell any ammunition without, at the time of delivery, legibly recording the following information:
(1) The date of the sale.
(2) The purchaser’s driver’s license or other identification number and the state in which it was issued.
(3) The brand, type, and amount of ammunition sold.
(4) The purchaser’s signature.
(5) The name of the salesperson who processed the sale or other transaction.
(6) The right thumbprint of the purchaser on the above form.
(7) The purchaser’s full residential address and telephone number.
(8) The purchaser’s date of birth.
__________________________________________________ ___________

This info is to be provided to DOJ for purchases made after June 30, 2015. DOJ is responsible for inputting the data and cross-referencing with the PAP. (subdivision (b))

After June 30, 2016, only persons with ammo licenses (per PC 30370), or other authorized persons (cow holders, LE, etc.) can buy ammo, but it looks like the same information is collected at the point of sale, even with a license.

This is as of the 9/3/13 amendment, which is the latest version currently carried on the leginfo site.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-05-2013, 10:44 PM
lawspud lawspud is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dwightlooi View Post
[snip]

And if you bring a 11 round magazine it is technically a Class E Felony punishable by 1 year in prison.

[snip]
California does not have "Classes" of felonies. If you import a "large capacity" magazine into California, it is a crime unless some exemption applies. A "large capacity magazine" is virtually any mag that takes more than 10 rounds. The crime can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the prosecutor and (to a lesser extent) the judge. If prosecuted as a misdemeanor, the crime is punishable by up to one year in county jail. If prosecuted as a felony, the crime is punishable by up to 3yrs in prison (the prison sentencing options are 16mo's, 2yrs, or 3yrs). (Cal Penal Code 32310 (crime), 16740 (definition)
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-05-2013, 11:55 PM
asm_'s Avatar
asm_ asm_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 744
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
All this is telling me is that the PAP will have information about ALL registrations in the CFIS system (except for non-AW, non-.50cal registrations from pre-1/1/91). If a person pops up on the PAP due to a qualifying conviction or other event (5250WIC commit, Restraining Order issued, etc), the PAP will immediately highlight known firearms potentially in that person's possession. This section clearly does not make registrations in CFIS a prohibiting event. Rather, it is intended to streamline the process of identifying PAPs that are also registered gun owners.
I had to read your quote twice to see your point.

However, it still doesn't make me feel better that comparing to a person not owning a AW, I'm one step closer to be classified as criminal.

.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 09-06-2013, 6:12 AM
lawspud lawspud is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 59
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well, SB53 doesn't do much in the way of (further) marginalizing AW owners, but I certainly get what you're saying.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 09-06-2013, 7:04 AM
2nd4ever 2nd4ever is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 124
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Readysetgo: typing while drunk may be a felony in this state :-)
Seriously, this package of bills is too hard to understand. We may see lawful gun owners suddenly become unwitting criminals without them knowing how or why.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 09-07-2013, 12:51 AM
SamsDX's Avatar
SamsDX SamsDX is offline
Signal Out of Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Unincorporated South Orange County
Posts: 970
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

9/6 Updates:
AB-180 passed, ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
SB-363 passed, ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

Minor amendments to:
AB-48
SB-53
SB-374
SB-396
SB-567
SB-755
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 09-07-2013, 1:11 AM
Bustercat's Avatar
Bustercat Bustercat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 90
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

the BOTTOM LINE in every call I'll be making next week:

Crime has been dropping like crazy in Cali and nationwide. It's at it's lowest point since 1963 and still dropping. With CURRENT LAWS.

In light of that, how can this state, with our budget concerns, seriously consider new, expensive laws, that don't even target law breakers but focus on the law abiding, to fix something that isn't effectively broken? All for the purpose of stopping future mass shootings, when short of searching every home in California, there is no reason to expect anybody planning something illegal will honor these laws?

2013 gun control = pure pork barrel. Cali doesn't need it.
__________________

Grabborrhoids: a chronic tendency to repeatedly call for bills that won't work, to fix laws that don't make sense, to regulate objects one doesn't understand.
Help "stop the madness."
Next step? >>> We need more pro 2nd a Legislators — HELP Elect Pro-2A Susan Shelley!
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 09-07-2013, 10:35 AM
robertkjjj robertkjjj is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 188
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Unenforceable Drivel

They have a super-majority and they ignore my protest calls and letters and emails. They keep voting for every anti-gun and anti-ammo bill they see.

These laws are unenforceable. Millions of people will ignore them, or they will find legal or semi-legal workarounds.

These news laws are simply insane, and are written by insane people.
I will either leave the state, or hunker down and wait them out.

Unconstitutional laws should be ignored.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd4ever View Post
SB 53 was re-read and amended: If you are a registered AW owner, you are on the PAP list and may not purchase ammo.
Thus, if you own a BB equipped Semi auto firearm, as of the enactment of SB-53 and registration of your firearm you are put on the list.
In addition, the possibility of an Internet purchase of ammo through an FFL is taken out.

Furthermore, in order to purchase ammo, fingerprinting, ID check, physical characteristics and any other data about you are recorded. Every purchase is recorded.

It's over folks. Buying ammo is going to get very very painful. And if you have a registered AW, destroy it, unregister it or sell it otherwise you can't buy ammo for any of your other firearms.

SB 374 was re-read and tightened up some more. The language around folding stock etc., etc is gone.
The description includes every type of centerfire semi auto now.

Maybe we should get into Airsoft.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 09-07-2013, 11:31 AM
Frozenguy's Avatar
Frozenguy Frozenguy is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: East Bay
Posts: 6,027
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

You guys think representatives actually will respond to phone calls?

Their mind was made up by a check weeks, if not months ago.

You need $$ to make a difference in politics.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 09-07-2013, 12:04 PM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenguy View Post
You guys think representatives actually will respond to phone calls?

Their mind was made up by a check weeks, if not months ago.

You need $$ to make a difference in politics.
here's from diane feinstein a couple days ago on national tv regarding voters calls to her office:

"ca voters don't know what i know, and haven't seen what i've seen...."

so just stfu, and keep voting for me....
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

"I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!!!" A Few Good Men
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 09-07-2013, 3:20 PM
HDG HDG is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

~ I posted the following in another thread but will re-post it here as this seems to be a more appropriate place:


- After a brief review of Monday's (9/9/13) "Assembly Daily File", here's a list of what they will be voting on: SB374, SB 396, SB 567, SB 299 and SB 53.

There may be more gun related bills on the agenda, but this is all I was able to track down after skimming through the schedule.

Source: ftp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/dailyfi...ar_Session.pdf


  • SB-374 (Steinberg): Bans all centerfire, semiautomatic rifles with magazines that are removable without disassembly of the firearm (this includes "bullet buttoned" rifles), forced registration of rifles already owned.
  • SB-396 (Hancock): Ban and confiscation of magazines that are or was at one time capable of holding more than ten rounds (including 10/30 magazines).
  • SB-567 (Jackson): Redefines what a "shotgun" is.
  • SB-299 (DeSaulnier): Mandatory loss reporting of firearms within 7 days.
  • SB-53 (de Leon): Requires ammo purchase "authorizations" recorded in a separate state database, requires all ammunition transactions to go through state-licensed ammunition vendors (including Internet purchases), records details of all ammunition purchases.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:55 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,904
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi1775 View Post
here's from diane feinstein a couple days ago on national tv regarding voters calls to her office:

"ca voters don't know what i know, and haven't seen what i've seen...."

so just stfu, and keep voting for me....
She thinks she's the only one thats seen violence and therefore has some authority over the whole world. Arrogant, arrogant *****
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 09-08-2013, 1:19 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,068
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
She thinks she's the only one thats seen violence and therefore has some authority over the whole world. Arrogant, arrogant *****

She's talking about finding SF Supervisor Harvey Milk shot up and dying on his office floor, and putting her finger in a bullet wound on his wrist when she tried to check his pulse.

I think she felt pretty bad about that and it's what drives her to get rid of all guns except for police and armed security working for the wealthy elite and corporations. It's her life's work.

It's been about 35 years ago now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone...assassinations
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:17 AM
SaltyDogUSMC SaltyDogUSMC is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Well, pardon me if I don't give a **** about Feinstein's "bad experiences".

I've seen bullet rounds on my fellow Marines who paid for our Constitutional rights with their blood. As a disabled veteran, I find that argument specious and offensive.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:30 AM
pterrell's Avatar
pterrell pterrell is offline
Professional Beer Drinker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,300
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the OP updates correctly. Has anything been signed into law by the Gov? I saw the two that are sitting on his desk waiting for him to sign/veto but have there been any others that made it through?
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:32 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,068
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDogUSMC View Post
Well, pardon me if I don't give a **** about Feinstein's "bad experiences".

I've seen bullet rounds on my fellow Marines who paid for our Constitutional rights with their blood. As a disabled veteran, I find that argument specious and offensive.


I would never want you to give a **** about Diane Feinstein's "Bad Experiences."

I wasn't suggesting that you be sympathetic, or that she had a good argument. I was just filling in the blank of her "Seen what I've seen..." statement.

SHE thinks that her experience is a good reason to disarm all US Citizens.

I think Diane Feinstein is specious and offensive and should retire and get some help for her nightmares.

It can sometimes be useful to know your enemy and understand what drives them to do the crazy stuff that they do, year after year for a lifetime.
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:50 AM
SaltyDogUSMC SaltyDogUSMC is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

True. I see your point. Adding your post and screen name together painted a distorted picture for me. Be well!
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 09-08-2013, 10:58 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,068
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pterrell View Post
I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the OP updates correctly. Has anything been signed into law by the Gov? I saw the two that are sitting on his desk waiting for him to sign/veto but have there been any others that made it through?

The first post of this thread is a the most updated source for Bill information that I've found. OP is doing a great job keeping current.

Haven't seen any Bills signed by Gov yet.

Here's Gov Brown's press office with announcements of bill signings.

http://gov.ca.gov/s_pressreleases.php

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18192

Keep checking back every day or two. Final deadline to sign is Oct 13.
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 09-08-2013, 11:04 AM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is online now
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,068
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaltyDogUSMC View Post
True. I see your point. Adding your post and screen name together painted a distorted picture for me. Be well!

Thanks.

You're a Gentleman and a Scholar.

I'm fond of saying that life and politics is far more complicated than simple "Conservative"/"Liberal" labels.
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CalGuns Foundation FAQ - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/FAQ
Main Page CalGuns Wiki - http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
CA Legislature Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, lots of reporting on current CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 09-09-2013, 7:47 PM
big ron's Avatar
big ron big ron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: rancho cucamonga, ca.
Posts: 755
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

update please.
__________________
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 09-09-2013, 9:06 PM
SaltyDogUSMC SaltyDogUSMC is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Just a thought: the gay marriage issue was in the SCOTUS within 18 months from being filed. Yet a Constitutionally relevant issue like the 2A never gets its day in court. Do you need any more proof of a massive liberal agenda and timetable?
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:25 PM
Can'thavenuthingood's Avatar
Can'thavenuthingood Can'thavenuthingood is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Lemoore
Posts: 4,848
iTrader: 119 / 100%
Default

These people are not liberals, they are socialists.

Vick
__________________


"Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more." (George Patton)

Calguns T-shirts, hats and stickers
New eCommerce site is up, if you have any problems with it, let me know.

The Gulag Archipelago - Online read .pdf
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 09-09-2013, 10:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,529
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

No. Not socialists either, although that ridiculous misnomer has gained popularity lately. The term you are looking for is authoritarians.

Unfortunately, law and order types are terrified of using it.
__________________


The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:10 PM
SamsDX's Avatar
SamsDX SamsDX is offline
Signal Out of Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Unincorporated South Orange County
Posts: 970
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I can't make the updates until the Leginfo site is updated. The alerts for the changes are starting to trickle in, so please be patient for just a few more.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:12 PM
SteveH SteveH is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,378
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Looks like he signed one firearms bill already.
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:36 PM
RRangel RRangel is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,974
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
Looks like he signed one firearms bill already.
Which one?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:36 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
Looks like he signed one firearms bill already.
Which one? AB 703?

http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18196

Seems to apply for CCW for police officers, since they should naturally get more rights than your average law-abiding citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:36 PM
SamsDX's Avatar
SamsDX SamsDX is offline
Signal Out of Banned
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Unincorporated South Orange County
Posts: 970
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

9/9 Updates:
AB-169 passed by Senate floor, on to Assembly for concurrence on amendments.
AB-231 passed by Senate floor, on to Assembly for concurrence on amendments.
AB-500 passed by Senate floor, on to Assembly for concurrence on amendments.
AB-711 passed by Senate floor, on to Assembly for concurrence on amendments.
SB-53 re-referred to public safety committee. (Unclear whether this means the bill is dead for the session)
SB-299 passed by Assembly floor, on to Senate for concurrence on amendments.
SB-693 passed by Assembly floor, on to Senate for concurrence on amendments.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, SAF Life Member, CCRKBA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 09-09-2013, 11:40 PM
Syntax Error's Avatar
Syntax Error Syntax Error is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: West LA
Posts: 2,174
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

They sure love rubber-stamping their laws, don't they? I have to wonder if they actually read the laws they're forcing on everyone, or if this is some ideological crusade. Probably the latter.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:12 AM
Marquand's Avatar
Marquand Marquand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beautiful downtown Burbank
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Tuesday's agenda

Hi fellow Calgunners,

I've got both computers up and have the Senate and Assembly sessions streaming live. As I learn anything, I'll pass it on.

So far, the Senate expects to address SB 299 and SB 683 today.

Nothing relevant so far from the Assembly.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:17 AM
Marquand's Avatar
Marquand Marquand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beautiful downtown Burbank
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Assembly just sent AB 539 back to the Senate...didn't catch the reason.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:28 AM
Marquand's Avatar
Marquand Marquand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beautiful downtown Burbank
Posts: 1,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Assembly concurrence on AB 169 passed 42-28.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:32 AM
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: 4,318
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marquand View Post
The Assembly concurrence on AB 169 passed 42-28.
AB169 Dickinson - Unsafe Handguns
__________________
NRA Life Member

Sh-Sh-Sha Pocket Sand!
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 09-10-2013, 11:32 AM
SaltyDogUSMC SaltyDogUSMC is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Can you also state which bills these are (ammunition, aw ban...)? Thanks! I'm tuning in remotely on my cell
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 4:10 PM.




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.