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 02-14-2021, 8:52 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default AB-667 Firearms: Armed Prohibited Persons System.(2021-2022)

Changes the name of "Prohibited Armed Persons File" to "Armed Prohibited Persons System". I thought it was already called APPS , but I guess not.

The bill appears to require local law enforcement to confiscate firearms from prohibited people.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202120220AB667
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-17-2021, 1:29 PM
Lanejsl Lanejsl is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 67
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default AB 667 Armed Prohibited Persons System

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...202120220AB667

Allows for enhanced information sharing between federal, state and local law enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-17-2021, 2:08 PM
lastinline lastinline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This may be a precursor to greatly expanding the class of citizens who are going to be prohibited from lawfully owning firearms or ammunition.
Stand by for all sorts of “offenses” to become prohibiting. “Red Flag” laws are another avenue. The Nanny State is becoming tougher every day.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-17-2021, 8:13 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is scheduled for the Assembly Public Safety Committee for April 6th.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2021, 6:33 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This bill was amended yesterday to include notifying a local sheriff when someone who is prohibited attempts to buy "precursor parts" and I think we still don't know what those parts are.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2021, 7:39 AM
cre8nhavoc's Avatar
cre8nhavoc cre8nhavoc is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
This bill was amended yesterday to include notifying a local sheriff when someone who is prohibited attempts to buy "precursor parts" and I think we still don't know what those parts are.
My gut tells me that with the amount of knowledge lawmakers have on what precursor parts are, they'll most likely call all functioning parts of a firearm precursor parts.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2021, 7:47 AM
Milsurp1's Avatar
Milsurp1 Milsurp1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Not in California
Posts: 2,749
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

I’m sure that is part of the strategy to eliminate private gun ownership. Speeding ticket? Jaywalking citation? Lifetime prohibition. Owe back taxes? No possession of guns or ammunition until you pay them off. Would the US Supreme Court grant cert and even hear the case?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-08-2021, 12:59 AM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
This bill was amended yesterday to include notifying a local sheriff when someone who is prohibited attempts to buy "precursor parts" and I think we still don't know what those parts are.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=16531.

Quote:
(a) As used in this part, “firearm precursor part” means a component of a firearm that is necessary to build or assemble a firearm and is described in either of the following categories:

(1) An unfinished receiver, including both a single part receiver and a multiple part receiver, such as a receiver in an AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm. An unfinished receiver includes a receiver tube, a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver, a metallic casting, a metallic forging, and a receiver flat, such as a Kalashnikov-style weapons system, Kalashnikov-style receiver channel, or a Browning-style receiver side plate.

(2) An unfinished handgun frame.

(b) The Department of Justice, consistent with this section, shall provide written guidance and pictorial diagrams demonstrating each category of firearm precursor part specified in subdivision (a).

(c) Firearm parts that can only be used on antique firearms, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 16170, are not firearm precursor parts.

(d) A firearm precursor part is not a firearm or the frame or receiver thereof. A firearm precursor part that is attached or affixed to a firearm is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 30400) of Division 10 of Title 4 of Part 6 or Section 18010.
Short answer: 80% receivers/frames. Notification will probably go into effect when the Precursor Part Background Check goes into effect, which is in 7/1/2022.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-08-2021, 6:38 AM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,644
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeAuMaN View Post
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...ctionNum=16531.



Short answer: 80% receivers/frames. Notification will probably go into effect when the Precursor Part Background Check goes into effect, which is in 7/1/2022.
It's possible that the (b) section allows the CADOJ to define the list, even if it doesn't the legislature won't complain if they do that even without authority.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2021, 3:40 PM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 8,649
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The author is throwing DOJ's APPS enforcement program under the bus, and subcontracting the work to local law enforcement. The bill forces DOJ to make all of their information on APPS individuals available electronically so the locals can snatch folks up.

From the bill's analysis:
Quote:
1) Author's Statement: According to the author, "In recent years, more subjects were removed from the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) due to death or their prohibition expiring than have been removed by the DOJ. Despite receiving millions of dollars in additional funding in recent years, high rates of vacancies and turnover among special agents have prevented the Department from keeping pace with the growing number of prohibited possessors resulting from increased firearm sales.
If one recalls, the Legislature gave DOJ a stack of cash from the DROS account to hire limited term agents for APPs enforcement. At the time, it was noted that limited term employment let's folks in the door where they can compete for permanent positions throughout the state. Looks like the temporary agents are moving right along in their careers and leaving this stupid program without staff.

Quote:
“This downward trend over the last several years underlines the need for a new approach the plan didn't work and is why, in the 2019-2020 Budget Act, the state appropriated $3 million to fund pilot programs that enable local law enforcement agencies to conduct APPS investigations in four jurisdictions. Through frequent contact with members of the community, local peace officers possess valuable, on-the-ground knowledge that will aid in the investigation of APPS subjects and are already showing promising results in their ability to confiscate guns from dangerous individuals.
I suspect the additional monies previously given to the DOJ for this will be redirected to local efforts. That will create a nifty revenue stream for them.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-08-2021, 4:20 PM
p7m8jg's Avatar
p7m8jg p7m8jg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 1,679
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

DOJ has been audited before and told to fix the APPS system. It is NOT always accurate - sometimes it says someone is prohibited when they are not.

Does DOJ care? Nah...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-08-2021, 4:59 PM
M1NM M1NM is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 7,770
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
This bill was amended yesterday to include notifying a local sheriff when someone who is prohibited attempts to buy "precursor parts" and I think we still don't know what those parts are.
That will grow to add shopping for anything at a store that sells guns or buying anything with a tactical look.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-08-2021, 7:40 PM
BeAuMaN's Avatar
BeAuMaN BeAuMaN is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 1,042
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It's possible that the (b) section allows the CADOJ to define the list, even if it doesn't the legislature won't complain if they do that even without authority.
With the list as it is now basically CA DoJ will be (or should be; CA DoJ often finds a way to overreach) relegated to defining where the line is on what we colloquially call an "80%" receiver/frame. It will be interesting to see what the guidance and diagrams look like.

Give it time though; more legislators will expand that list once the system is in place.

Last edited by BeAuMaN; 04-08-2021 at 7:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-09-2021, 6:48 AM
Dvrjon Dvrjon is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 8,649
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
It's possible that the (b) section allows the CADOJ to define the list, even if it doesn't the legislature won't complain if they do that even without authority.
Let's remember that this piece of discussion has nothing to do with AB 667. CA PEN 16531 established "precursor parts" effective 1/1/2020.
Quote:
16531. (a) As used in this part, “firearm precursor part” means a component of a firearm that is necessary to build or assemble a firearm and is described in either of the following categories:

(1) An unfinished receiver, including both a single part receiver and a multiple part receiver, such as a receiver in an AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm. An unfinished receiver includes a receiver tube, a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver, a metallic casting, a metallic forging, and a receiver flat, such as a Kalashnikov-style weapons system, Kalashnikov-style receiver channel, or a Browning-style receiver side plate.

(2) An unfinished handgun frame.

(b) The Department of Justice, consistent with this section, shall provide written guidance and pictorial diagrams demonstrating each category of firearm precursor part specified in subdivision (a).
This is a requirement to issue a document similar to the Assault Weapons Guide (2001 version -- Under Revision).

DOJ gets to demonstrate and describe (pictures and text):
-a single part receiver
-a multiple part receiver, (AR-10- or AR-15-style firearm)
-an unfinished receiver
--a receiver tube
--a molded or shaped polymer frame or receiver
--a metallic casting
--a metallic forging
--a receiver flat, (Kalashnikov-style weapons system)
--a receiver channel (Kalashnikov-style) receiver channel
--a receiver plate (Browning-style receiver side plate)

That's it.

However, since some of these are identified as "styles", DOJ may be able to extrapolate to include other items or to later add into the manual, newer types of products which parallel these styles.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."

Last edited by Dvrjon; 04-09-2021 at 6:52 AM..
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 7:46 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.