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 01-24-2014, 5:25 AM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default CA AB 1545 Gray 2014 - firearms; ownership

AB 1545

Confused as hell on this one.

Last edited by peterabbits; 01-24-2014 at 5:27 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-24-2014, 5:34 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,842
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

An attempt to make permanent information provided to FFL and with the forwarding of a copy to a new registry at State?

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-24-2014, 5:38 AM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

I can't be reading it correctly because to me it basically is granting amnesty to anyone who registers a firearm that didn't go through a dealer.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-24-2014, 5:55 AM
madsend81 madsend81 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Lakewood
Posts: 911
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To me, it appears to make it possible to do PPT w/o an FFL so long as you report the transaction to the DOJ w/in a specified period of time.

I don't know how the 10 Day wait period fits into this one. Interesting...
__________________
Disclaimer: For all you know, I am just some dude on the internet. The advice I give is worth what you have paid for it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, 2014
“People who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from people who don’t follow the rules. The Second Amendment should never be an afterthought. It should reside at the forefronts of our minds.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-24-2014, 6:23 AM
OniKoroshi's Avatar
OniKoroshi OniKoroshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Capitol of PRK
Posts: 1,268
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Sounds like they want to correct and update FFL paperwork and the shoddy job DOJ did to keep records back on the day.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-24-2014, 6:58 AM
stitchnicklas stitchnicklas is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: riverside,ca
Posts: 6,929
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

probably a gut and amend bill for later in session,they do a bunch of these
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:50 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,155
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
This bill would create an exemption from this requirement to complete a firearms transaction through a licensed dealer for a person who reports his or her ownership of a firearm to the department. The bill would require the department to register the firearm within 30 days of the receipt of the report, subject to specified restrictions. The bill would also apply those restrictions to a person who is exempt under existing law from the requirement to complete a firearms transaction through a licensed firearms dealer or who moves out of state with the firearm.
Read that this morning, and can't figure out what they're doing here.

Looks like a parallel to the VolReg, but requires handgun/firearm safety certificate.

Anybody in Modesto? Ask Gray's office; nothing in his press releases to explain, no bill analysis or comments from the author.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-24-2014, 12:39 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 562
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterabbits View Post
I can't be reading it correctly because to me it basically is granting amnesty to anyone who registers a firearm that didn't go through a dealer.
Yep, that appears to be the direct intent. Note that because it only excuses 27545 violations, which only apply when both parties do not have an FFL, so it only applies to PPTs. If a dealer sells you a gun "under the table" you can't get amnesty, though the dealer is already going to be in a world of hurt with the ATF anyway. It does appear to grant amnesty to both buyer an seller of a PPT, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by madsend81 View Post
To me, it appears to make it possible to do PPT w/o an FFL so long as you report the transaction to the DOJ w/in a specified period of time.

I don't know how the 10 Day wait period fits into this one. Interesting...
Yep, you are legally required to still do a PPT, but if you don't, and then you notify DOJ of the acquisition, you can't be prosecuted for not doing a PPT. (So you truly get amnesty, because you have still committed a crime) Note that the bill specifies they won't register the gun in your name if you are not legally able to own it, or if the gun is one of the banned types (Assault Weapons, 50BMG, etc). Also note that if they discover you didn't do a PPT via some other means, registering it won't help you. That means that undercover agents could still participate in off-record PPTs and nail you, so I sure as heck would still do my PPTs at a dealer.

As written, it also seems as though DOJ/Law Enforcement could back-walk their way into other evidence you didn't do a PPT and convict you anyway, even after registering. I'm assuming that was an oversight by the author.

This is an interesting framework because it will result in DOJ doing post-facto background checks on all of these reported transactions. That means hiring a lot more door-knockers to investigate already completed purchases. I'm not sure I like that expansion, even if it means I have to live with an at-dealer PPT.

Here's the relevant part of the bill:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill itself
SEC. 2. Section 27570 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
27570.
(a) It is the intent of the Legislature that a violation of Section 27560 or 27565 shall not constitute a “continuing offense” and the statute of limitations for commencing a prosecution for a violation of Section 27560 or 27565 commences on the date that the applicable grace period specified in Section 27560 or 27565 expires.

(b) Sections 27560 and 27565 shall not apply to a person who reports ownership of a handgun firearm after the applicable grace period specified in Section 27560 or 27565 expires if evidence of that violation arises only as the result of the person submitting the report described in Section 27560 or 27565.

(c) Section 27545 shall not apply to a person who reports ownership of a firearm pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 28000 if evidence of that violation arises only as the result of the person submitting the report described in that subdivision.
Section 27545 says:
Quote:
27545. Where neither party to the transaction holds a dealer's
license issued pursuant to Sections 26700 to 26915, inclusive, the
parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer
of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to
Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050).
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.

Last edited by prometa; 01-24-2014 at 12:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-24-2014, 6:40 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,535
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

This bill reads like it was written by two 7th Graders high on Nyquil.
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
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
CalGuns Foundation https://www.calgunsfoundation.org
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-24-2014, 6:51 PM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Hooligan
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 6,314
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Maybe this is a set up for total registration of all firearms one owns.
__________________
"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
  #11  
Old 01-24-2014, 9:03 PM
SLO1911Fan SLO1911Fan is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seal Beach
Posts: 1,456
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

It actually appears to set things up so that you could do PPT transfers, then notify the DOJ that the transfer had been done and remain within the law. I can't quite figure out what they're trying to accomplish with this. They may get people to register guns that they had previously been afraid to register. But more likely you'll get people transferring guns between friends in PPTs and just notifying the DOJ. If that actually is their intention it will be nice to get a whiff of the freedom enjoyed in unoccupied America.
__________________
I'm a big old, bourbon-soaked cigar-huffing ***, as God in his infinite wisdom meant me to be. - Charlie Sheen.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-28-2014, 1:26 PM
Emdawg's Avatar
Emdawg Emdawg is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Santa Maria (sad I know)
Posts: 4,106
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO1911Fan View Post
It actually appears to set things up so that you could do PPT transfers, then notify the DOJ that the transfer had been done and remain within the law. I can't quite figure out what they're trying to accomplish with this. They may get people to register guns that they had previously been afraid to register. But more likely you'll get people transferring guns between friends in PPTs and just notifying the DOJ. If that actually is their intention it will be nice to get a whiff of the freedom enjoyed in unoccupied America.

Or it could be the cheese for their long-term plans for a confiscation rat-trap.


Get everyone to register their firearms like its no big deal and then nail them later.
__________________
*sniff* *sniff* Commies...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-28-2014, 1:48 PM
Ford8N's Avatar
Ford8N Ford8N is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Northern Rhovanion
Posts: 5,489
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Like they did in the past with SKS sporters.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-28-2014, 2:58 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,069
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Needlessly excess verbiage!!! Look im doing somethinghing at the capitol!
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 01-28-2014, 5:16 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 18,181
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
This bill reads like it was written by two 7th Graders high on Nyquil.
that's not Nyquil they were high on. this is utterly confusing just looking at it.
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 01-28-2014, 9:24 PM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 922
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This would be my guess. They need total registration for confiscation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdtx2001 View Post
Maybe this is a set up for total registration of all firearms one owns.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-28-2014, 9:46 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,614
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sounds to me like it makes "ghost guns" legal!!!
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-28-2014, 9:53 PM
Jason95357 Jason95357 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,120
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Read that this morning, and can't figure out what they're doing here.

Looks like a parallel to the VolReg, but requires handgun/firearm safety certificate.

Anybody in Modesto? Ask Gray's office; nothing in his press releases to explain, no bill analysis or comments from the author.
My home address isn't in his district, but my work one is (hah). I asked him if he'd explain the intent of the bill. I'll post if/when he responds.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-30-2014, 9:23 PM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Referred to public safety committee.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-30-2014, 10:11 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,155
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterabbits View Post
Referred to public safety committee.
Well, at some point there should be a 'Bill Analysis' posted from or for the PS Committee, so perhaps some clarification will appear.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-06-2014, 9:57 AM
67goat 67goat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 898
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
This would be my guess. They need total registration for confiscation.
Total registration has never been needed in the past for confiscation in the past. Even less so now with people posting on the web, leaving credit card receipts, and the various types of detection equipment available to them.

That being said, I don't see how this relates to this bill any way. There is no additional registration requirement in this bill. If anything, it appears to reduce the red tape one must go through for a PPT.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-06-2014, 11:44 AM
Thordo's Avatar
Thordo Thordo is offline
Vendor/Retailer
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South San Francisco
Posts: 3,596
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stitchnicklas View Post
probably a gut and amend bill for later in session,they do a bunch of these
Exactly my thought.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-06-2014, 3:31 PM
buildingdoc buildingdoc is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Orange County
Posts: 141
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
Needlessly excess verbiage!!! Look im doing somethinghing at the capitol!
+1...
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-06-2014, 7:14 PM
VegasND's Avatar
VegasND VegasND is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Clark County
Posts: 8,640
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I want to see the clarification on this one; I don't get it either.
__________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
--River Tam
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-07-2014, 5:46 AM
Beelzy's Avatar
Beelzy Beelzy is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central,Ca
Posts: 8,187
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

This is a no brainer......the Gov. wants Ma and Pa Kettle to register all those old guns they have.
You know, the used guns one used to be able to buy with no paper, many years ago.

So, yes it's a trap.
__________________
. If you don't like what I say, it obviously means you're listening.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-07-2014, 6:33 AM
cdtx2001's Avatar
cdtx2001 cdtx2001 is offline
Hooligan
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Over Here
Posts: 6,314
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzy View Post
This is a no brainer......the Gov. wants Ma and Pa Kettle to register all those old guns they have.
You know, the used guns one used to be able to buy with no paper, many years ago.

So, yes it's a trap.
That's the way I see it as well. Couple this with DeLeon's crap and the average gun owner will not be able to possess an unregistered firearm.
__________________
"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
  #27  
Old 02-07-2014, 7:10 AM
camvoncrosshair's Avatar
camvoncrosshair camvoncrosshair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 411
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I fear this could be used to create more prohibited persons. yes, you are granted immunity from the "crime" of a PPT (you know, the same thing that is totally not a crime in so many other states). but there is still a record of it happening. in a later session, somebody can create a bill that declares those who committed this supposed crime as prohibited persons, even though they were granted amnesty. amnesty from prosecution does not mean there cannot be other consequences. a few years go by, and they enact the new law about creating this new type of prohibited person. this would include both the seller and the buyer. in those few years, just imagine how many people might take advantage of being able to freely do PPT transfers. the CADOJ will have a massive and instant database of those who did the post-PPT amnesty. those who did the transfers are now not able to purchase via FFL. the CADOJ can now easily visit them with their APPS program, and remove any and all firearms they have. with fewer people eligible to own firearms, that is less of fight for 2A rights in our state. less of a fight, the easier it is to enact more restrictions, to the point of the only weapons we can have are sticks and stones. of course, that would be prohibited via other measures, due to the environmental impact.

sure, I might be paranoid. but just because you are paranoid, that does not mean they are not out to get you. in this instance, never admit to doing something wrong.

say nothing.
deny everything.
make counter accusations.
__________________
"Fight like you're the third monkey trying to get on Noah's Ark...".

The only thing that matters is rallying our cause to fight the enemy relentlessly, indifferent to the outcome of any particular battle
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-07-2014, 7:11 AM
Rail's Avatar
Rail Rail is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 263
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wouldn't this just be a way for people to transfer guns between family members and friends without going through the ppt process?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-07-2014, 7:34 AM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 562
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camvoncrosshair View Post
I fear this could be used to create more prohibited persons. yes, you are granted immunity from the "crime" of a PPT (you know, the same thing that is totally not a crime in so many other states). but there is still a record of it happening. in a later session, somebody can create a bill that declares those who committed this supposed crime as prohibited persons, even though they were granted amnesty. amnesty from prosecution does not mean there cannot be other consequences. a few years go by, and they enact the new law about creating this new type of prohibited person. this would include both the seller and the buyer. in those few years, just imagine how many people might take advantage of being able to freely do PPT transfers. the CADOJ will have a massive and instant database of those who did the post-PPT amnesty. those who did the transfers are now not able to purchase via FFL. the CADOJ can now easily visit them with their APPS program, and remove any and all firearms they have. with fewer people eligible to own firearms, that is less of fight for 2A rights in our state. less of a fight, the easier it is to enact more restrictions, to the point of the only weapons we can have are sticks and stones. of course, that would be prohibited via other measures, due to the environmental impact.

sure, I might be paranoid. but just because you are paranoid, that does not mean they are not out to get you. in this instance, never admit to doing something wrong.

say nothing.
deny everything.
make counter accusations.
This would such a blatant example of ex post facto that a judge wouldn't even have to be briefed before granting an injunction against the law.
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-07-2014, 7:56 AM
camvoncrosshair's Avatar
camvoncrosshair camvoncrosshair is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 411
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
This would such a blatant example of ex post facto that a judge wouldn't even have to be briefed before granting an injunction against the law.
very possible. def not a lawyer, so not sure how things work. does ex post facto only apply in terms of prosecuting for a crime? is it possible that ex post facto would not apply to creating a prohibited person even for not committing a crime? there are ways to be prohibited that do not involve convictions; ROs, being deemed unsafe to yourself/others, etc.

there might be a good chance of injunction, but that does not mean the antis will not attempt it. even then, how long would it be before an injunction hearing would even happen? the mythical two weeks? I truly have no idea, but it has never been good for us before.

if this bill is something that can be used to help give us some freedom, I am all for it. but until we know that there will not be consequences down the road, we need to be wary.
__________________
"Fight like you're the third monkey trying to get on Noah's Ark...".

The only thing that matters is rallying our cause to fight the enemy relentlessly, indifferent to the outcome of any particular battle
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-07-2014, 8:34 AM
bruss01's Avatar
bruss01 bruss01 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,364
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Could this be a "fall back" plan in case there is a verdict in Pena that they don't like? Pena potentially opens up a whole can of worms with regard to the roster and may have knock-on effects that aren't entirely anticipated yet. Maybe they want to get a generic bill in the works, and be able to tinker it to suit the ruling later? Just thinking outside the box here. Maybe the bill doesn't mean anything to anyone at this point, intentionally. Sort of a Trojan Horse.
__________________
The one thing worse than defeat is surrender.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-07-2014, 9:27 AM
model63's Avatar
model63 model63 is offline
We are the gun lobby
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: North Texas, V-town escapee
Posts: 300
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So assuming this type of bill passed... and tomorrow for example is a gunshow in Vallejo and there are some small party transfers of Rifles between folks and there aren't many FFL01's, if any to handle paperwork, would this help? Tomorrow will be my first gunshow of 2014 and most of previous C&R purchases (I haven't gotten a COE yet) would be a pain. Is the intent at all for my crowd (I would consider us generally law abiding, compliant, even though we hate the idea of registration). Maybe we just go armed with a HSC/FSC in the future and that may given sellers confidence enough that the person was checked out (although I don't know if a registry of HSC/FSC exist?).

Are HSC/FSC revocable lets say after 1-2 years you get a felony, etc. ? I assume they are? If there was a look up if HSC/FSC as being good/bad on a website for a quick cursory check people would make the sale. I would think having a 'legal' process we can follow to accomplish essentially the same thing an in person FFL visit would be seen as a lesser limitation of a right being exercised and undercut any reasons to say registration was not viable. I think this follows the DMV model for cars for private sales where you have 'x' days to report a sale or if I shoot a deer I have 'x' days to report to DFG. Just my ramblings....in end we are all boiled into registration.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-07-2014, 3:38 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 562
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camvoncrosshair View Post
very possible. def not a lawyer, so not sure how things work. does ex post facto only apply in terms of prosecuting for a crime? is it possible that ex post facto would not apply to creating a prohibited person even for not committing a crime? there are ways to be prohibited that do not involve convictions; ROs, being deemed unsafe to yourself/others, etc.

there might be a good chance of injunction, but that does not mean the antis will not attempt it. even then, how long would it be before an injunction hearing would even happen? the mythical two weeks? I truly have no idea, but it has never been good for us before.

if this bill is something that can be used to help give us some freedom, I am all for it. but until we know that there will not be consequences down the road, we need to be wary.
I get the essence of your more subtle argument now. Originally I thought you were saying they would pass a law that would make all the people who had amnesty under this bill criminals for the offense they had received amnesty for. That would definitely be ex post facto. But, you are saying the state may instead label those who did PPTs under this proposed law, and who had amnesty, prohibited persons. In other words, do not attempt to convict them of crimes, but instead remove rights.

Ex post factor would still apply in that case, though. SCOTUS has ruled you can create new laws that remove more rights for crimes committed prior to the law's enacting without it being ex post facto. For example, a person convicted long ago of a sex crime can be forced to register under a newly created sex offender registry. However, under your proposal, the prohibited person would be a person for whom a right was removed without criminal prosecution. Even if the state has 100% clear cut evidence that you did a PPT without an FFL, the 5th amendment and due process requires that the state prosecute you in front of a judge and convict you of the crime before removing your 2nd amendment rights. The state couldn't convict anyone without running afoul of ex post facto restrictions.
__________________
---
As of 10/10 the Governor has 121 bills left on his desk to sign or veto by 10/13.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-03-2014, 9:34 PM
peterabbits's Avatar
peterabbits peterabbits is offline
CGSSA Rimfire Coordinator
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,226
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Gutted and Amended, but still doesn't make any sense to me. Then again, I'm tired so I could be missing something obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-03-2014, 10:34 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,155
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Part 1 - 27560 is
Quote:

(a) Within 60 days of bringing a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm, into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the following:
27565 is
Quote:
(a) This section applies in the following circumstances:

(1) A person is licensed as a collector pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

(2) The licensed premises of that person are within this state.

(3) The licensed collector acquires, outside of this state, a handgun, and commencing January 1, 2014, any firearm.

(4) The licensed collector takes actual possession of that firearm outside of this state pursuant to the provisions of subsection (j) of Section 923 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as amended by Public Law 104-208, and transports the firearm into this state.

(5) The firearm is a curio or relic, as defined in Section 478.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(b) Within five days of transporting a firearm into this state under the circumstances described in subdivision (a), the licensed collector shall report the acquisition of that firearm to the department in a format prescribed by the department.
The bill adds
Quote:
(c) Section 27545 shall not apply to a person who reports ownership of a firearm pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 28000 if evidence of that violation arises only as the result of the person submitting the report described in that subdivision.
-- that is, the new regs on C&R reporting are not supposed to be treated as a crime if done late, but actually done, and that is how the lateness is discovered.

27545 is 'must use an FFL for transfer'; this bill says that does not apply to C&R as reported.

28000 keeps its old text as (a) and adds (b) and (c).

It looks like, I think, that the bill unwinds all C&R gun purchases from using an FFL, but instead moves even handguns to 'file a form' for C&R purchases.
Quote:
27965.
Section 27545 does not apply to the receipt, purchase, or other acquisition of ownership of a firearm by a person who reports his or her ownership of that firearm to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 28000 and who is listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 11106 as the registered owner of the firearm.
If I'm right, it rolls things back to pre-1991, except for the 'file a form' requirement, for C&R guns purchases.
__________________
JB now has until mid-October to act (or not) on bills sent to him. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 03-03-2014 at 10:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-03-2014, 11:10 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,535
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
... it rolls things back to pre-1991, except for the 'file a form' requirement, for C&R guns purchases.
And that's a Good thing, right?
__________________
A Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
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
CalGuns Foundation https://www.calgunsfoundation.org
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-03-2014, 11:22 PM
2nd Mass 2nd Mass is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,258
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
And that's a Good thing, right?
So far this is looking like a good thing. Except that you're registering however, you're registering what you're supposed to under the law anyway. Can't remember Gray's stance on 2A but, this looks like it can be a good thing. Maybe they're trying to keep it off the anti radar?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-04-2014, 2:49 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,990
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

So what problem is being solved here? Unwinding C&R ppt back to 1991 doesn't fit into our current legislatures political platform.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-04-2014, 4:53 PM
barracudamuscle barracudamuscle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 383
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Its a setup...registration for unpapered guns so its easier for confiscation.

Almost like..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-04-2014, 10:44 PM
AreWeFree's Avatar
AreWeFree AreWeFree is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,805
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Mass View Post
So far this is looking like a good thing. Except that you're registering however, you're registering what you're supposed to under the law anyway. Can't remember Gray's stance on 2A but, this looks like it can be a good thing. Maybe they're trying to keep it off the anti radar?
Gray is a new assembly member and I don't know what his beliefs are. I recently received a letter from Adam Gray stating he opposed several of the bills last year, including AB 48 (Mag rebuild kits), AB 711 (Lead ammo ban), SB 374 ("Assault" rifle ban), SB 396 (Standard cap. mag ban), and SB 567 (Shotgun definition expansion.)

He is a democrat serving a rural population, so I believe he is let off the hook by the ring leaders for voting on these civil rights restrictions. Edit: I don't believe he is genuinely pro-2a

I have a hard time finding voting records, but the site below has been great and I hope more people will be keeping track of their representatives.

https://votesmart.org/
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 7:18 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.