![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not sure if this is the proper forum for these questions but it does involve CA laws and how they affect us.
When Section 27585 was added to the CA PC it apparently shut the door on shipment of C&R long guns into CA to resident FFL3s as had previously been lawful. Section 27585 was added by AB 1609. On or about 23 May 2014, the proposed wording of 27585(a)(6) was amended to strike out Quote:
Quote:
If this specific original wording has remained in the bill when it was written into law, it would have continued the practice of FFL3s directly purchasing long arms from out of state and having them shipped to their licensed address. According to the stated intent of the Legislature in adding PC 27585, they did not intend to affect "Persons who import or bring firearms into California under existing regulatory statutes who comply with those statutes" (see below). The above amendment had the effect of doing just that. Quote:
Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If Trump's EO for the travel ban can be enjoined for his comments and tweets, I don't see why you couldn't seek out a challenge. Bad faith laws are subject to scrutiny. You should hope to find a sympathetic judge.
Good luck if you choose to pursue. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Answer: The Legislature was well aware of the intent as stated in the legislation when they authored and passed the statute...The "Intent" statement was included in the text during their deliberations. It isn't likely that one could make a persuasive case that the statute as a whole contradicts itself and the statute as enacted did not meet the intent stated in that enacted statute. 2. Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this? Answer: Leginfo provides full information on recent legislation, including committee reports and all amendments: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01320140AB1609 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
2) I see nothing in Leginfo* that explains the reasoning for the amendment and the fact that the statement of the intent of the Legislature was not similarly amended to keep it in line with the change effected by the amendment makes me question how well aware the legislature could have been. * admittedly, this may be because I am not intimately familiar with the way that the California Legislature conducts and reports on its business. Nonetheless, the Bill Analysis, where I would expect such details to reside, is lacking. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Reading through the Bill Analyses it is clear that the arguments were consistent with the stated intent. See for example
Quote:
It seems clear that the bill was intended to affect the trafficking of unreported long guns from out of state and NOT to interfere with FFL3 activity but somewhere along the line the bill was modified to do just that. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |