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 02-14-2018, 10:04 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default 2018 SB-1092 - Legalize 'silencer' possession, and use on guns over 16" OAL.

This is a very well-thought out bill. It would retain the ban on 'silencers' (sound suppressors) use on pistols, but would otherwise allow possession of them, and their use on any firearm that is 16" or longer in overall length. This stands a much better chance of passing, in my opinion, than previous attempts to legalize unrestricted suppressor use.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01720180SB1092

Introduced by: Senator Anderson (R)
Coauthors: Senators Berryhill (R) and Stone (R), and Assembly Members Bigelow (R), Gallagher (R), and Lackey (R)

Quote:
Existing law makes it a felony to possess a silencer, as defined, for a firearm.

This bill would instead make it a felony to possess a silencer that is attached to a firearm with a barrel that measures less than 16 inches in length.

Existing law restricts the use of firearms in certain areas while hunting, prohibits hunting with a firearm while intoxicated, and requires the use of certain ammunition.

This bill would authorize hunting while using a lawfully possessed silencer that is attached to a firearm with a barrel measuring 16 inches or more in length.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-27-2018 at 3:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-14-2018, 10:06 AM
lower lover lower lover is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Stockton
Posts: 255
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Whoot! Whoot!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-14-2018, 10:29 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

For those who are wondering "why do they want to keep the ban on using suppressors on under-16" barrels?", refer to last year's SB-710, written by the same authors.

SB-710 did not include the barrel length restriction and died in the Senate Public Safety committee - but ALMOST was passed by that committee, in an unprecedented 3-yes to 2-no vote (out of 7 members, with 2 abstaining from voting).

That's right, SB-710 actually received a Democrat Yes vote, if you can believe that. AND, 2 other democrats did not vote No, which is equally unprecedented! Only 2 committee members, out of 7, voted No. This one actually DOES stand some chance of going somewhere, so let's show our support!
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 11:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:25 AM
onelonehorseman's Avatar
onelonehorseman onelonehorseman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Southern Liberalandia
Posts: 4,418
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hopeful but reserved.

I would be much more than shocked if the dems allowed this to get to the governor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:41 AM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,402
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
This is a very well-thought out bill. It would retain the ban on suppressor use on pistols, but would otherwise allow possession of them, and their use on any barrel that is over 16". This stands a much better chance of passing, in my opinion, than previous attempts to legalize unrestricted suppressor use.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...01720180SB1092

Introduced by: Senator Anderson (R)
Coauthors: Senators Berryhill (R) and Stone (R), and Assembly Members Bigelow (R), Gallagher (R), and Lackey (R)
Agree. Anything is better than what we have now
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-14-2018, 11:54 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Hopeful but reserved.

I would be much more than shocked if the dems allowed this to get to the governor.
Me too, but one thing I've noticed is that a lot of these pro-2a bills just get swept under the rug every year, we all forget they exist until after the legislature makes their decisions about them. We forget, because the results are often the same: 100% of dems vote No, 100% of Republicans vote Yes. But, we need to be aware that this may not be the case with this bill. SB-710 had some Dem support last year, and with this revised version, might even get enough Dem support. So, those of you who live in districts with a Senator who resides in the Senate Public Safety Committee, write or call to show your support for this bill!

The Senate Public Safety Committee members are:
Senator Nancy Skinner (D-East Bay) (Committee Chair)
Senator Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) (Committee Vice Chair & author of this bill)
Senator Steven Bradford (D-Los Angeles)
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara/Ventura)
Senator Holly J. Mitchell (D-Culver City)
Senator Jeff Stone (R-Riverside)
Senator Scott D. Wiener (D-San Francisco) don't bother calling Wiener unless you enjoy being laughed at by a guy who thinks it should be legal to give people AIDS.

Bardford is the Democrat who voted Yes on SB-710 last year. Mitchell and Skinner are the two who abstained from voting. Let's contact all three, to kindly express our support for SB-1092!
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 12:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:18 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,793
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

i'm surprised that they would allow it on firearms with +16in barrels.

isn't that the scary "assassin sniper" territory for the anti-gun dems that don't want snipers to kill people from far away and not be found?

i wonder what the anti-gunners are saying about this if they even know about it.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:22 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch705 View Post
i wonder what the anti-gunners are saying about this if they even know about it.
There's nothing in the news yet, I only found it because I stalk the legislative update websites every day. The press was pretty quiet about SB-710 last year, too. Honestly, I'm fine with that - it lets us contact our legislators in peace, without John Q Public muddying the waters.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 12:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:30 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Make sure when you contact them to say you always vote Democrat. NEVER say you are a republican when contacting a democrat rep.
__________________
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
  #10  
Old 02-14-2018, 12:34 PM
Scratch705's Avatar
Scratch705 Scratch705 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 10,793
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
There's nothing in the news yet, I only found it because I stalk the legislative update websites every day. The press was pretty quiet about SB-710 last year, too. Honestly, I'm fine with that - it lets us contact our legislators in peace, without John Q Public muddying the waters.
that is true.

thankfully they are probably all distracted by the DACA thing and the olympics.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by leelaw View Post
Because -ohmigosh- they can add their opinions, too?
Proof we can all comment on whatever we want if it's at all related to the topic at hand!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-14-2018, 1:50 PM
tocino tocino is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 129
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

SO how would this work if it were passed? We’d still havet to apply for the tax stamp like most of the rest of free America?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-14-2018, 1:54 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tocino View Post
SO how would this work if it were passed? We’d still havet to apply for the tax stamp like most of the rest of free America?
If it were to pass as currently written, that's correct, we'd still have the NFA hoops to jump through like in any other state (because NFA is a federal law) - the only difference is it would still be a felony in CA to attach the suppressor to anything with a barrel less than 16". The intent with this bill appears to be allowing suppressor usage on long guns (frequently used for hunting and target practice, rarely used in crimes) whilst not allowing them on concealable firearms (frequently used in crimes).

Unfortunately, a suppressed 16" barrel would be less than ideal for a home defense firearm, but if it's all we can get then I'll take it.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 2:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-14-2018, 2:16 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Since many of our leaders love to cite Europe as their examples for gun control, it's worth noting when talking to your representatives about this bill that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
In Norway, suppressors are not regulated and can be purchased by anyone for any firearm. No licence or permits are necessary.

In Denmark, the Danish Weapons And Explosives Law makes the unlicensed possession of a suppressor illegal. As of 7 May 2014 it is legal to own and use suppressors for hunting.

In Finland, a firearm suppressor is classified as a firearm part by law. Purchasing a suppressor requires a firearm ownership permit, which is to be shown to the vendor at the moment of purchase.

Suppressors for rimfire pistols are sold without government oversight in France.

In Sweden, suppressors for specified calibers are legal for hunting purposes and a license is required.

In the United Kingdom, firearm certificate (FAC) will need to show permission for the purchase of a "sound moderator" and also the firearm for which it is intended. All firearms certificates have the firearm and caliber approved by the police and annotated to the document before a suppressor may be purchased. Applicants must show a "good reason" for needing the accessory.

In Germany, a suppressor is treated the same in the eyes of the law as the weapon it is designed for. Accordingly, suppressors for air guns, which can be purchased by anyone over 18 years of age, can as well be purchased by anyone over said age. Since, amongst other things "good cause" must be shown to be issued a license to own a firearm in Germany, the same "good cause" requirement exists for suppressors for these firearms. This requirement is handled very varyingly across the States of Germany. The State of Bavaria accepts the possession of a valid hunter's license as "good cause" to own an unlimited number of suppressors, while North Rhine-Westphalia does not accept hunting as a "good cause" at all. Baden-Württemberg accepts "active exercise of hunting" as "good cause", but only allows the purchase of one suppressor.
So, even in Europe, many of the countries (that our Democrats love to cite as great gun control examples for us to follow) understand that suppressors have very legitimate value for sporting, and no cause for concern when legalized for those purposes.

America is actually one of only a few countries (that allow civilian gun ownership) who believe suppressors would be used for nefarious purposes to any substantial extent - a belief which is based on absolutely nothing. No studies support it, no crime stats support it - nothing supports that belief whatsoever.

Additionally, be sure to point out that 42 out of 50 states already private suppressor ownership, and still, zero suppressors have ever been used in violent crimes.

It's also worth noting that the original Federal suppressor ban, which was the basis of the CA version we have now, was originally designed just to keep them out of the hands of minorities who largely couldn't afford the tax stamps, while allowing wealthy (mostly white) citizens to keep getting them - and that to continue to support a law rooted in such racism is despicable.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 2:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-14-2018, 2:22 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,152
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

do suppressor fall under the flash hider definition? would suck for all those featureless firearms if it does
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-14-2018, 2:45 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

This post from Librarian in 2015 is worth re-posting here, as well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
[The original suppressor ban Penal Code] used to be 12520. I'd need access to the hardcopy West's or Lexis/Nexis to see where it came from.

Or, you could buy the research from http://www.legintent.com/california-...utory-history/

There is a bit of research available on silencer laws. One such notes

Quote:
A more telling criticism of laws against silencers is
the ease with which they are avoided. Since one can effectively
muffle a firearm by doing nothing more than
wrapping it in a towel it is unlikely that laws banning
professionally manufactured (or home-made) silencers
are likely to have any real effect on crime. In one case,
for example, the murderer used a towel as “a make-shift
silencer” and yet because it was only a towel this was
not an additional crime (People v. Garcia, 2006 WL
3307392, *7 (Cal. Ct. App.)). True professionals, who
know what the penalties are and who know how to muffle
a firearm with improvised devices, can avoid the penalty
quite easily. The laws are more likely to ensnare kids
and hobbyists (or just common, dumb criminals) rather
than professional killers. This suggests that laws banning
silencers or even draconian sentencing enhancements are
unlikely to have any effect on crime. Either the criminal
will not know about it, or if he does he will simply use a
pillow to avoid the risk of punishment.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-14-2018, 2:46 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
do suppressor fall under the flash hider definition? would suck for all those featureless firearms if it does
No, they are treated as two different things. Only sound suppressors are relevant to this bill. In fact, this bill and the Penal Code do not even call them suppressors, they call them "silencers", which is why I am also calling them "silencers" in this thread even though I know it's the wrong terminology.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 2:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-14-2018, 3:12 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,152
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
No, they are treated as two different things. Only sound suppressors are relevant to this bill. In fact, this bill and the Penal Code do not even call them suppressors, they call them "silencers", which is why I am also calling them "silencers" in this thread even though I know it's the wrong terminology.
So even tho “silencers” has flash suppressing capabilities, you think of this were to ever pass, a featureless semi auto would be able To have one?

Seems like a stretch to me
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-14-2018, 3:20 PM
tankton tankton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 514
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
So even tho “silencers” has flash suppressing capabilities, you think of this were to ever pass, a featureless semi auto would be able To have one?

Seems like a stretch to me
Many things have flash suppressing technology. A longer barrel, different powder/loads, different temperature, etc. Even a bright enough light may be scientifically construed to “suppress flash.” If this is the best we can do, I’ll take it. Just like Washington’s SBR laws, one step at a time. Biting off too much is what gets bills killed (this is true of both pro and anti gun bills).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-14-2018, 3:39 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
So even tho “silencers” has flash suppressing capabilities, you think of this were to ever pass, a featureless semi auto would be able To have one?

Seems like a stretch to me
I see what you mean now. Ya, that's a grey area I guess. For what it's worth (not that it really answers your question), DOJ defines a flash suppressor as:

Quote:
any device attached to the end of the barrel, that is designed, intended, or functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision. A hybrid device that has either advertised flash suppressing properties or functionally has flash suppressing properties would be deemed a flash suppressor. A device labeled or identified by its manufacturer as a flash hider would be deemed a flash suppressor.
Basically, any device on the end of your barrel that suppresses the flash, or even if it doesn't but is advertised or designed to suppress the flash. So you're possibly right, it might remain illegal on semi-autos with detachable mags, but IANAL and it still sound like it's better than nothing.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 02-14-2018 at 3:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-14-2018, 4:26 PM
caliguy93's Avatar
caliguy93 caliguy93 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: North Koreafornia
Posts: 1,152
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Yea figured... so if this passes, all of those that spent money going featureless will face the decision of spending money to convert to fixed mag in order to have a “silencer”

May get Alot of people to rethink the featureless movement
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-14-2018, 4:45 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,889
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Unfortunately, a suppressed 16" barrel would be less than ideal for a home defense firearm, but if it's all we can get then I'll take it.
Unless it is on a bullpup. But then again, I registered my Tavor and a BB'd RAW is not my first choice for home defense, even with a "silencer" on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliguy93 View Post
Yea figured... so if this passes, all of those that spent money going featureless will face the decision of spending money to convert to fixed mag in order to have a “silencer”

May get Alot of people to rethink the featureless movement
If it is an AR, fixed magazine rocks with the BF-10 (or Mean Arms) ejection port loaders.
__________________
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
  #22  
Old 02-14-2018, 5:00 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post

If it is an AR, fixed magazine rocks with the BF-10 (or Mean Arms) ejection port loaders.


Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-18-2018, 10:45 PM
hillgoat's Avatar
hillgoat hillgoat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well CA legalized federally illegal weed. They may legalize silencers just for hate of Trump not doing so.

Last edited by hillgoat; 02-18-2018 at 10:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-18-2018, 10:58 PM
mossy's Avatar
mossy mossy is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: equestria
Posts: 6,314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

yeah, no i am not going to get excited over this. no chance it gets anywhere near the governor's desk.
__________________
best troll thread in calguns history
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=406739



Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Not at all. Trump is a loser and will lose amazingly on Tuesday. It's going to be so big, we are all going to be sick and tired of how much he loses on Tuesday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doheny View Post
Nah, no sense in replying to the personal attacks/baiting.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-18-2018, 10:59 PM
GW's Avatar
GW GW is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 15,086
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by onelonehorseman View Post
Hopeful but reserved.

I would be much more than shocked if the dems allowed this to get to the governor.
Agreed, but like you said--Hopeful.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-24-2018, 11:06 AM
CALI-gula's Avatar
CALI-gula CALI-gula is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,024
iTrader: 27 / 100%
Default

Seeing a lot of asinine "in favor of gun control" threads. Damned shills.

In the meantime, let's not forget there are favorable bills being pitched in CA, even if there is no faith they have legs. Showing support for them is still important to those legislators that are standing by us and took the time, work, effort, and their credibility to submit these bills in the first place.

.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-27-2018, 12:36 AM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,682
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK, the "march for our lies" propaganda force got their 15 minutes. We've got real work to do.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
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
  #28  
Old 03-27-2018, 1:27 AM
seainc's Avatar
seainc seainc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,111
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Both AAC & Surefire makes muzzle breaks that are compatible with their suppressors.

Sent from my SM-P580 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-27-2018, 9:33 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 12,574
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Wasted exercize. No republican party sponsored bill will ever make it to the floor in the one party super majority lead California legislature.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-27-2018, 1:36 PM
vandal vandal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 2,368
iTrader: 166 / 100%
Default

Guys, trust me -- you don't want this. A friend just moved to Washington State where suppressors are legal. First the decision on what suppressor to buy for your application is really hard. Then you have to pay ATF and wait for your tax stamp to come back -- no instant gratification. Then apparently you arrive at Adapter Hell where you have to find the right thread/pitch to adapt all your muzzles to the suppressor, and each of those adapters cost a ridiculous amount. Once the gun shop has your paperwork on file, you'll quickly go bankrupt buying suppressors. So Vote NO, and save yourself the hassle.



Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-27-2018, 2:14 PM
My375hp302 My375hp302 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 460
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

I can't think of a single pro-2a bill that's been passed in recent memory. To think this, or any other pro 2a bill will ever be passed in this state is an exercise in absurdity.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffM View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Bad decisions by soldiers, officers, and politicians have lost wars, despite having "the same end result in mind" as the people who know better...

100 idiots are still idiots despite being on "my side"

Some people just don't understand that good ideas sometimes aren't.

Guns don't kill criminals, would have been victims do.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:09 PM
big red's Avatar
big red big red is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I am for any bill that gives us back some of our freedom of choice we lost under these panic driven anti-gun bills but why legalize silencers for hunting? i am missing something here aren't I? Besides a chance to get the right of choice back in this particular area of gun control what does this accomplish to what benefit. I would rather see DOJ lose the right to to impound every sale for ten days when cops are doing sales and buys on a daily basis that the average citizen can't. Someone educate me please and be nice about it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:36 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by big red View Post
I am for any bill that gives us back some of our freedom of choice we lost under these panic driven anti-gun bills but why legalize silencers for hunting? i am missing something here aren't I? Besides a chance to get the right of choice back in this particular area of gun control what does this accomplish to what benefit. I would rather see DOJ lose the right to to impound every sale for ten days when cops are doing sales and buys on a daily basis that the average citizen can't. Someone educate me please and be nice about it.
I think you're misinterpreting the bill, it wouldn't only legalize suppressors for hunting.

It would effectively do three different things.
  1. Legalizes suppressor ownership (NFA would still apply obviously).
  2. Legalizes suppressor use, for any legal purpose, as long as it's never attached to a firearm that has an overall length under 16".
  3. Specifically spells out hunting as being one of the legal uses for suppressors.

Point #3 was included because, otherwise, the Fish and Game code might (currently, or in the future) prohibit suppressor use while hunting.
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:



Last edited by cockedandglocked; 03-27-2018 at 3:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:40 PM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 15,099
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

It should be noted that this bill was amended a couple days ago.

Previously, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any BARREL over 16".

Now, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any gun with an OVERALL LENGTH over 16".
__________________
2019 CA Legislation Quick-Reference & Statuses

Don't panic. As of 11/21/2018, only around 40% of BBRAW applicants have received their letter. DOJ is still actively processing them... slowly. In the meantime:


Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-27-2018, 3:51 PM
godofgamblers godofgamblers is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 65
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Holy cow, I am actually impressed with some of the bills coming out. I don't think they'll pass, but kudos for at least trying (participation trophy!!)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-27-2018, 4:43 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,674
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

I think the only way to even have a remote chance of getting something like this passed is to start off by allowing suppressors on bolt action rifles, pump/lever shotguns, or semi auto shotguns that cannot accept more than 3+1. Tailor this specifically towards the hunting crowd and then work from there.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-27-2018, 6:12 PM
Rusty_Shackleferd's Avatar
Rusty_Shackleferd Rusty_Shackleferd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,065
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It should be noted that this bill was amended a couple days ago.

Previously, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any BARREL over 16".

Now, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any gun with an OVERALL LENGTH over 16".
That's an important change. Nice catch.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-27-2018, 6:26 PM
swift swift is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 884
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Hope that change does not kill the bill. I really want to save my hearing when shooting at the range. (I do double up.)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-28-2018, 7:10 PM
RANGER295's Avatar
RANGER295 RANGER295 is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rural California
Posts: 3,284
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
It should be noted that this bill was amended a couple days ago.

Previously, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any BARREL over 16".

Now, it would allow a suppressor to be used on any gun with an OVERALL LENGTH over 16".
Interesting, this means I could use one on my full size Uzi pistol.
__________________
WTB : A cheap beater .44 mag lever action rifle or carbine. Cosmetics do not matter, function and price are more important.

159

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

- Mark Twain

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-28-2018, 7:30 PM
Deedle Deedle is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: America
Posts: 1,033
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Unfortunately, a suppressed 16" barrel would be less than ideal for a home defense firearm, but if it's all we can get then I'll take it.
If the can was permanently attached (thus preventing an SBR violation) I don't see any reasonable carbine being under 16" overall, right?
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 5:22 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.