2013 CA SB 374 - VETOED OCT 11 -Steinberg - Firearms: assault weapons

[smittty]

The papoose, marlin 60, ruger 10/22 are excempt.

Just join the NRA! They are the men & women who read and understand the full meaning of all these bills and fight them on a daily basis so you can continue to live your normal life. If you are already a member upgrade to a life member! They are the most powerful force keeping us free!

[CalNRA]

Originally Posted by smittty

The papoose, marlin 60, ruger 10/22 are excempt.

can you provide a cite for that assertion?

[pMcW]

Originally Posted by smittty

The papoose, marlin 60, ruger 10/22 are excempt.

How? How are these exempt? We don't have to just take your word for it. Please explain. I was born in Missouri, so you'll have to show me.

I am already an NRA member, so that is covered...

[Tiberius]

From my reading of the bill - which could be wrong - only certain Olympic pistols are exempt. Pretty much everything with a detachable mag and semi-auto becomes an "assault weapon."

It seems that an arms race of ridiculousness has settled onto Sacramento. All these bills are aimed at problems that don't exits. Register 10/22s? Why?

[marklbucla]

Same reason they banned the 50 cal here.

Any rifle is an "Assault Rifle" to them. Next thing you know, they'll be going after the Cricket.

[smittty]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

From my reading of the bill - which could be wrong - only certain Olympic pistols are exempt. Pretty much everything with a detachable mag and semi-auto becomes an "assault weapon."

It seems that an arms race of ridiculousness has settled onto Sacramento. All these bills are aimed at problems that don't exits. Register 10/22s? Why?

I cannot find the full long version that I read previously. It contained a list of excempt long guns which listed the 10/22. I cannot be the only person who seen it so if someone has a link please post it.

[javalos]

The legislators in California, Steinberg, Hancock, Yee, DeLeon, Leno, Skinner, Bonta, Ammiano represent self-serving left wing extremism in their war against the Second Amendment and law-abiding Californians. The fact that they will stand up there and intentionally lie in order to push their bill through tells us that our only hope is that the Governor will veto the bills (yeah right) or we will have to fight this trash in court. Meanwhile only law abiding Californian's get it up the Ying-Yang.

[hardlyworking]

Originally Posted by smittty

I cannot find the full long version that I read previously. It contained a list of excempt long guns which listed the 10/22. I cannot be the only person who seen it so if someone has a link please post it.

You would be wrong, according to this:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...fa7bc2c67f3bde

You are probably confusing this AW bill with Feinstein's AW ammendement to federal legislation which did in fact list a long list of guns marked as exempt including the Sturm & Ruger 10/22.

[hardlyworking]

Not a lawyer, so this may be completely wrong headed: but hear me out

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SB-374 says:

This bill would require, on and after July 1, 2014, a Firearm Ownership Record to be submitted, as specified, to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns, with prescribed exceptions, including firearms purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale transaction and assault weapons registered with the department. The bill would authorize the department to charge a fee of up to $19 per transaction for the submission of the Firearm Ownership Record.

Ok, with the above two elements in place, highlighted for clarity, I ask the following questions:

• If the point of a "Search" is to arrive at knowledge/information regarding a subject...
• If the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches...
• If we are law abiding citizens who have given no reason for The People to be concerned...
• If possession of a newly re-defined "assault weapon" is not itself a crime...

Is SB-374's forced registration an unreasonable search?

[Ford8N]

Originally Posted by hardlyworking

Not a lawyer, so this may be completely wrong headed: but hear me out

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution says:


SB-374 says:


Ok, with the above two elements in place, highlighted for clarity, I ask the following questions:

• If the point of a "Search" is to arrive at knowledge/information regarding a subject...
• If the 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches...
• If we are law abiding citizens who have given no reason for The People to be concerned...
• If possession of a newly re-defined "assault weapon" is not itself a crime...

Is SB-374's forced registration an unreasonable search?

Unfortunately, the US Constitution is meaningless in the state of California and nothing will change that until it reaches the Supreme Court. And then only if we get a favorable judgment. It takes decades and decades to fight this stuff. So if you want the same rights as most of the United State, be prepared to wait a LONG TIME.

[darthsideous]

Originally Posted by smittty

I know I read the same idiotic reply. Bolt actions are not affected.

The only affect that this bill would have on bolt action rifles is that they will have to be registered if they have a detachable magazine. They won't be AWs though.

Originally Posted by SB 374

SECTION 1. Section 27566 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
27566. (a) On and after July 1, 2014, a Firearm Ownership Record shall be submitted by prepaid mail or delivered in person to the Department of Justice for every firearm an individual owns or possesses.
(b) The following firearms are exempt from subdivision (a):
(1) Handguns purchased from a licensed firearms dealer and documented by a Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) transaction on and after January 1, 1991.
(2) Rifles without detachable magazines and shotguns purchased prior to January 1, 2014.
(3) Assault weapons registered with the department pursuant to Section 30900.
(4) Firearms for which a Firearm Ownership Record has been previously filed by the current owner.

Originally Posted by smittty

The papoose, marlin 60, ruger 10/22 are excempt.

Also I can't find anything in the bill text that excludes 10/22s and such.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...201320140SB374

[dls]

Originally Posted by smittty

I cannot find the full long version that I read previously. It contained a list of excempt long guns which listed the 10/22. I cannot be the only person who seen it so if someone has a link please post it.

"This bill would, instead, classify a semiautomatic, rimfire or centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept 10 rounds or fewer as an assault weapon."


10/22 has a removable mag,it seems it's an Assault Weapon. the way I read it?

[bwolcott]

Originally Posted by smittty

The papoose, marlin 60, ruger 10/22 are excempt.

no they arent, did you listen to the hearings? one of the things people were bringing up is how their 1022 would now be an assault weapon.

[jwkincal]

Originally Posted by ZNinerFan

One thing I don't understand about this is will it ban future dealer sales of rifles like the 10/22 or will we all run around with "assault rifles" every time we decide to get our kids an iconic American rifle as their first firearm?

It will ban future sales. And you can't give it to your kid because it is a felony to allow minors to possess an assault weapon. I'm hoping that the rimfire language is struck based on that ridiculousness, but not holding my breath...

[hikingwithguns]

Originally Posted by smittty

I know I read the same idiotic reply. Bolt actions are not affected.

As has been pointed out by darthsidious, my reply was actually spot on. You will have to register (Firearm Ownership Record) any bolt action (any rifle really) with detachable magazine. That does not mean it is an AW.

You are confusing the Fed bill with the state bill.

GunOwner, if you own a remington 700 before Jan 1 2014 with detachable magazine, you will have to register it with the FOR. If it does not have a detachable magazine then you will not have to. Assuming this bill passes as is.

[oldyeller]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

It will ban future sales. And you can't give it to your kid because it is a felony to allow minors to possess an assault weapon. I'm hoping that the rimfire language is struck based on that ridiculousness, but not holding my breath...

Leave it as it is, the more over reaching it is the easier it is to strike down. We need all those 10/22 guys in this fight.


The whole bill is ridiculous, We need to stop fixing it for them.

[ngiotta]

How sad that we are going to have to fight such ridiculousness in court. I mean, one of the bill bans all firearms unless they are of the "Judge Dredd" type that doesn't exist currently. Another bill bans the a shotgun that doesn't exist currently.

Gov. Brown can't veto this if he wanted-- you cannot veto a bill passed with a super-majority. You have to face the fact that we live in a Liberal-majority state and this is a Liberal issue and only a fraction of Liberals are 2A advocates, so there's zero chance we'll get a fair shake. Period.

The fact of the matter is, we only have a (slim) chance of fighting and winning at a superseding federal level. That's the best option anyhow, as it will protect all of the other states if we win. On the flip side, if we lose, it can be used as a precedent against other states. I'm fairly sure the Heller case will overturn at least 1 or 2 of these new laws, but only if the court agrees to hear the case-- which is not guaranteed.

[Hoooper]

Originally Posted by ngiotta

Gov. Brown can't veto this if he wanted-- you cannot veto a bill passed with a super-majority.

Yes you can. The number of votes it passes with doesnt matter. If they want to override a veto then your super majority comes into play, but it has to be passed, then vetoed, then overridden. With a bill this overreaching, if Brown vetoes it he will also be talking to those voting on the override to make sure he isnt shown up like that. All hypothetical of course based on Brown actually vetoing it

[jwkincal]

Originally Posted by Hoooper

Yes you can. The number of votes it passes with doesnt matter. If they want to override a veto then your super majority comes into play, but it has to be passed, then vetoed, then overridden. With a bill this overreaching, if Brown vetoes it he will also be talking to those in play to override the veto to make sure he isnt shown up like that. All hypothetical of course based on Brown actually vetoing it

This is correct. The bill could pass unanimously, if the governor vetoes a SECOND vote would be required to override. When the chief executive makes a statement like that, there are likely to be members of his party whom will rethink their position.

It is all contingent on Jerry issuing that veto, but he did veto the ammo bill last year; it is thought that he did so based on its inability to hold up to lawsuit.

He also owns a rimfire rifle (though I'm not sure of the type)...

[Jyruiz]

This really sucks and I am in the fight, I contribute, but if this passes, I am moving my safe and all but my HD handgun to my AZ place. I will never shoot in CA again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rock6.3]

Originally Posted by Jyruiz

This really sucks and I am in the fight, I contribute, but if this passes, I am moving my safe and all but my HD handgun to my AZ place. I will never shoot in CA again.

The anti's thank you for helping achieve their dream of a gun free California.

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by jwkincal

It will ban future sales. And you can't give it to your kid because it is a felony to allow minors to possess an assault weapon. I'm hoping that the rimfire language is struck based on that ridiculousness, but not holding my breath...

Yeah, this ban is soooooo beyond stupid. Instead of starting my daughter on a 10/22, I'm supposed to start her with my .45 ACP hand gun? I'm not into bolt action.

[Invectivus]

Originally Posted by rodeoflyer

How does Yee find the time to write all this garbage and still have time to *allegedly* troll for prostitutes at night? Does he ever sleep?

the 'ladies' write the bills for him.

[Diablohtr]

Originally Posted by Edwood

Yeah, this ban is soooooo beyond stupid. Instead of starting my daughter on a 10/22, I'm supposed to start her with my .45 ACP hand gun? I'm not into bolt action.

No no no! You're never supposed to let her see let alone TOUCH a firearm!

[advocatusdiaboli]

Originally Posted by gobler

I could go for that. Over on a prop forum I'm on they have a "Members Only" section that you have to pay to gain access and you must have been a member on the board for at least two years. I think it was like $50 to become a member. All matter of things are discussed there that is normally a no no in the public sections.

Bloomberg has the $50 x 100 and there are moles here that post trying to entice gun owners to look like angry, mean, heartless, murderous anarchists. I am stopping posting opinions on 2A in section unless it's to ask about laws. The NRA, CPR, SAF speak for me in a voice far louder than I cna on this board. Our fight will not be won on a forum—if anything we hurt ourselves. Loose lips sink ships—we need more OpSec and exclusivity will not ensure it.

[courtc2911]

Considering this thread seems to have the most action related to this subject, I'll ask here...

Do SB47 and/or SB374 have a high possibility of passing? 25%, 50% 75%...???

What are you predictions?

[curtisfong]

100% passing

95% brown signs

100% it is challenged in court
100% all of the challenges are defeated up to the 9th.
10% chance SCOTUS certs any of the challenges
1% chance one of the challenges will succeed at the SCOTUS level
100% chance courts and legislators will ignore any such wins up to the 9th

rinse, repeat

[Outta Control]

Originally Posted by MalikCarr

I was going to make some chuckle about the M1 Carbine being an assault weapon, but then I found an even better victim.

If I've read Steinberg's bill correctly, the MARLIN MODEL 60 would be an assault weapon...

Don't think so since the 60 does not have a detachable magazine.

[glocksmith]

Originally Posted by courtc2911

Considering this thread seems to have the most action related to this subject, I'll ask here...

Do SB47 and/or SB374 have a high possibility of passing? 25%, 50% 75%...???

What are you predictions?

Of passing? I say 99.9% It's all about defeating it in court and being granted a stay.

[oldyeller]

Originally Posted by Outta Control

Don't think so since the 60 does not have a detachable magazine.

Does it have a fixed that holds over 10?

[JoshuaS]

Originally Posted by Outta Control

Don't think so since the 60 does not have a detachable magazine.

But it is more than 10+, hence an "assault weapon"

[JoshuaS]

The bill has a better chance of veto than losing on the floor.

[Suvhater]

Yes my model 60 holds 16 in the tube

[dls]

Originally Posted by JoshuaS

But it is more than 10+, hence an "assault weapon"

And according to the DOJ guy at the hearing yesterday,the .22s we grew up with are just another deadly assault weapon in his opinion.

[courtc2911]

Originally Posted by courtc2911

Considering this thread seems to have the most action related to this subject, I'll ask here...

Do SB47 and/or SB374 have a high possibility of passing? 25%, 50% 75%...???

What are you predictions?

I guess I should have also asked, what are the chances Gov. Brown will sign into law?

[Apocalypsenerd]

So the new Ruger Gunsite Scout will be on the list? Any chance we can get Ruger to throw some money behind a recall of some borderline antis or a ballot initiative to overturn some of these laws?

[luckystrike]

Originally Posted by Hammertime

Or you could always wake up and realize that any such ruling would be unconstitutional, and is null in void.

prettymuch. this bill is lulz nulls and void.

[jrr]

No, the Gunsite will not be an AW per this law. However the law contains a separate registration provision for all long guns with detachable magazines that is retro-active. So, the Gunsite Scout, the Howa 1500, Remington 700 tactical and DM models, Lee Enfield rifles, and I'm sure a ton more that I am forgetting will all be required to be registered.

I am sure that failure to register them is going to be similar to what happens if you don't register a handgun; increased penalties for getting caught with it, plus confiscation. And the registration appears to be retroactive to ANY D/M rifle in the state, unlike the 2014 long gun registration that passed a couple years ago which will only cover newly purchased guns.

This ones a big deal. Unfortunately, it looks like they are just passing anything they can think of while the corpses are still fresh and they have a large majority. That will make it hard to fight, because our resources will be spread so thin. Nothing to do but keep fighting though.

[dmckean44]

I refuse to register any firearms and both my bolts have detachable mags. My tube fed .22 will hold 12 rounds. So if this becomes law I'll be left with my Marlin lever action and that's it. Anyone know if there's any gun ranges in Yuma with long term storage lockers?

[Phil Ossiferz Stone]

Originally Posted by tenpercentfirearms

Man I like this article even more now. Scalia is ready to decide this issue for us and I think I am going to like the result.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/antoni...rticle/2521413

One or two Supreme Court Justices are going to die beforehand in car wrecks, resign, or change their minds when they see the dossier of dirt that Obama's people dug up on them. Even odds.

It's the Chicago way. No tin foil involved. How the hell do you think Obamacare got passed?