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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1321  
Old 07-05-2012, 9:32 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

SB 249 contacts: http://stopsb249.org/contacts/

Email petition to Assembly Appropriations: http://stopsb249.org/sendemail

Send a letter to Assembly Appropriations (on our dime): http://stopsb249.org/send-a-letter/

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1322  
Old 07-05-2012, 9:58 PM
JSolie's Avatar
JSolie JSolie is offline
Snoot lickin' good!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

If I'm planning on sending letters to the Appropriations Committee, would it be a good idea or bad idea to FAX them as well?
  #1323  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:05 PM
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: da sloo
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSolie View Post
If I'm planning on sending letters to the Appropriations Committee, would it be a good idea or bad idea to FAX them as well?
FAX, email, snail mail, call.... do everything you can!
__________________
Live between Santa Cruz and SLO? Want to get involved?
Check out the Central Coast Calguns Community Chapter
And join the Central Coast Region Social Group!
NRA Life Member - CRPA Life & Board Member - SAF Life Member - Monterey County Carry Initiative Sponsor
Statements posted here are the sole opinions of the author and not those
of CGN, CGF, CRPA, or any other institution or agency unless otherwise noted.
  #1324  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:13 PM
RaceDay's Avatar
RaceDay RaceDay is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 1,023
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XD40SUBBIE View Post
We need to get Adam to admit that with Yee on a letter. IF this is only for magnets, then done - I think CGF is pretty soild on what they think about those magnets anyway. If they can write coherently, perhaps they need to hire someone that can, but if that's what SB249 is, specifically, then it may not be such a bad idea...however, my Liberal-Up-To-No-Good-BS-Meter is going off the chart, along with my blood pressure.

Here's a few followup questions for Adam or anyone that has the answer. How many of these darn magnets have been sold in CA? Is it so numerous that we need another law on top of what we already have to enforce it? Does he know the difference between the Magnets and the Bullet Button?
The fact that the law is so poorly/unclearly written makes my BS detector go crazy. If it was only magnets, then it would say that. Instead we get paragraphs of unclear text.

These guys are politicians and spin doctors. This is like a "Term Limits Proposition" that, when you read the copious amount of text, actually loosens the existing term limits. These guys go out of their way to obfuscate and confuse. I'll keep donating to CGF until SB249 goes down.
  #1325  
Old 07-05-2012, 10:25 PM
adampolo13 adampolo13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here's an email I just sent to fox news.....Perhaps we can try to get some National coverage on this thing.


Good evening,

I would like to call to the attention of Fox News disturbing legislation that is being quietly pushed through the CA legislative process. The bill is aimed at taking away the 2nd Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of law obeying citizens. The bill’s author, senator Leland Yee, has made public statements as to the bills target being “mag-magnet” type tools. When in reality the bill is so vaguely written that if passed it will essentially make every semi-automatic rifle in CA illegal. Not only will this bill create criminals out of a vast majority of legal gun owners in California, it will essentially shut down may gun shops, gunsmiths, and shooting ranges. The sad fact is that the firearms industry is one of very few industries that has weathered the economic storm in California and the legislative body is about to shut it down. If the state was hurting for tax revenue before, it most certainly will now. I think a great story could be run by Fox News that somehow combines Fast & Furious, the UN Arms Treaty, and the CA SB 249 together that will help shine the light on what current government administrations are trying to do to “infringe” on our right to bear arms.

Cordially yours,

Adam J. XXXXXXXX
  #1326  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:01 PM
peewhy peewhy is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: cerritos / La mirada
Posts: 39
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Signed and now sending
  #1327  
Old 07-05-2012, 11:31 PM
JSolie's Avatar
JSolie JSolie is offline
Snoot lickin' good!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
FAX, email, snail mail, call.... do everything you can!
Good grief... this laptop I'm using has Vista and faxing is a pain in the neck! The last of them should finish up in the next few minutes.
  #1328  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:44 AM
Flipdude Flipdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't believe that when these law makers where sworn in, they forget the part where they swore to uphold and defend the U.S. constitution.

Last edited by Flipdude; 07-06-2012 at 1:47 AM..
  #1329  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:40 AM
Wherryj's Avatar
Wherryj Wherryj is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Livermore
Posts: 8,671
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Welcome to CalGun MaestroPrep!

Unconstitutional Laws have to be taken to court and judged to be unconstitutional. This generally takes a long time, including various appeals to higher courts. Like a couple of years, maybe more.

Legislators do not suffer the slightest consequence for writing and passing unconstitutional laws.

Eliminating unconstitutional laws is a huge part of what CalGuns is all about. It takes support and money from members donations. See the Donate to CalGuns Foundation button at the top of the page?


Info on current court cases to end unconstitutional laws.

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Li...st_and_Present

http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
THIS is the problem. ANY legislator who writes/sponsors legislation that turns out to be unconstitutional should be permanently barred from politics.

It should be a mandatory prerequisite to understand the Constitution. There are plenty more DBs around to replace those who fall to stupidity.
  #1330  
Old 07-06-2012, 7:50 AM
Crowesnest's Avatar
Crowesnest Crowesnest is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Irwin, CA
Posts: 476
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adampolo13 View Post
Here's an email I just sent to fox news.....Perhaps we can try to get some National coverage on this thing.


Good evening,

I would like to call to the attention of Fox News disturbing legislation that is being quietly pushed through the CA legislative process. The bill is aimed at taking away the 2nd Amendment rights of hundreds of thousands of law obeying citizens. The bill’s author, senator Leland Yee, has made public statements as to the bills target being “mag-magnet” type tools. When in reality the bill is so vaguely written that if passed it will essentially make every semi-automatic rifle in CA illegal. Not only will this bill create criminals out of a vast majority of legal gun owners in California, it will essentially shut down may gun shops, gunsmiths, and shooting ranges. The sad fact is that the firearms industry is one of very few industries that has weathered the economic storm in California and the legislative body is about to shut it down. If the state was hurting for tax revenue before, it most certainly will now. I think a great story could be run by Fox News that somehow combines Fast & Furious, the UN Arms Treaty, and the CA SB 249 together that will help shine the light on what current government administrations are trying to do to “infringe” on our right to bear arms.

Cordially yours,

Adam J. XXXXXXXX

Adam, I, too, have sent a letter to Fox News. Of all the media outlets, they seem like they would be the ones to grab this story and at least research it. My feeling is that if our legislators can attack the 2nd Amendment, what's to stop them from attacking other parts of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Thanks for sending this email, and hopefully, if more people can do the same, we can get the word out.
__________________
  #1331  
Old 07-06-2012, 8:26 AM
jmdove's Avatar
jmdove jmdove is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peewhy View Post
Signed and now sending
Keep us posted brother!
  #1332  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:13 AM
Tarn_Helm's Avatar
Tarn_Helm Tarn_Helm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,112
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Cool Fire at will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
FAX, email, snail mail, call.... do everything you can!
That's my strategy.

Blast with every caliber in the arsenal.

"Spray and pray" is and effective grassroots participation strategy.

__________________
"The Religion of Peace": Islam: What the West Needs to Know.
". . . all [historical] experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
[of governmental abuses and usurpations] to which they are accustomed."
Decl. of Indep., July 4, 1776

NRA Benefactor/Life Member; Lifer: CRPA, GOA, SAF & JPFO


  #1333  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:23 AM
adampolo13 adampolo13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks Crowesnest, I'm glad to know we are trying to get the word out. I also sent an email to Windham Weaponary. I just purchased a CA Legal SRC from them, and even registered it with them to get the the full lifetime warranty. I asked them to do everything they can to help fight SB 249. I just DROS-ed a Remi 700 on the 4th. I am also sending a letter to Remi stating the same thing. WE NEED THEIR HELP! I am stressing that if CA passes this bill it will severly affect every mfg of firearms. So what if we send corespondance to all our representatives, news organizations, and mfg's of the weapons we own? IMHO we will stand a bigger chance to win this fight is if we have big business on our side!
  #1334  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:27 AM
JSolie's Avatar
JSolie JSolie is offline
Snoot lickin' good!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarn_Helm View Post
That's my strategy.

Blast with every caliber in the arsenal.

"Spray and pray" is and effective grassroots participation strategy.

Shall I re-fax tonight?
  #1335  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:36 AM
chead's Avatar
chead chead is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,004
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

It's 2012 and we have to FAX our reps to get the point across. Jeez.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalK9.com View Post
Hecka funny all my friends with AR's call them "clips" but I call them bullet holder things lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeR View Post
So suck it HK, If I wanted an $800 pistol with a crap trigger I would just go buy 2 Glocks.
  #1336  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:39 AM
adampolo13 adampolo13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh yeah, I sent emails and letters to all the Approp Comm. last night. Canned email were sent back stating not to expect a response if I'm not from their district. Basically, if I can't get YOUR vote, I don't care....

We have to get more attention than just the Appropriations cmte, we have to get EVERYONE's attention!!!
  #1337  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:40 AM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
THIS is the problem. ANY legislator who writes/sponsors legislation that turns out to be unconstitutional should be permanently barred from politics.

It should be a mandatory prerequisite to understand the Constitution. There are plenty more DBs around to replace those who fall to stupidity.
^^^ this
I've been saying this for years. I also think they should be fined if they wrote it and possibly thrown in jail if the investigators can prove this was there intent.
  #1338  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:43 AM
XD40SUBBIE's Avatar
XD40SUBBIE XD40SUBBIE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wherryj View Post
THIS is the problem. ANY legislator who writes/sponsors legislation that turns out to be unconstitutional should be permanently barred from politics.

It should be a mandatory prerequisite to understand the Constitution. There are plenty more DBs around to replace those who fall to stupidity.
the problem with tossing senators out because they wrote a law, later interpreted as unconstitutional is that sometimes, the constitutionality of a bill or law is vague. For instance, take California gun laws that are given accolades by the left as the "model" for the nation- we obviously see these laws as violations of the 2A and non-infringement. So why are they still here? That's because states are given rights under 10A. CA can argue, they are not infringing on 2A, per se, but limiting and restricting 2A to serve the best interest and safety of the people of CA. Which will uphold. They are not restricting the right to bare arms, since the xn never stated what types of arms, how many rounds, cyclic rate, which model or even a defintion on what these arms are.

The point is, with a vaguely written xn, it is hard to know initially what the constitutionality of a law is; this is why we have the SCOTUS.
  #1339  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:48 AM
adampolo13 adampolo13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Response from Windham...

That was fast!

Info Info Info@windhamweaponry.com
10:15 AM (31 minutes ago)

to me


Mr. XXXXXXX,
Thank you for your support of our company. Also, thank you for your email concerning SB 249, I will forward this to our legal council for review to find out what kind of action we could take.

Matt Hasty
Retail Sales Manager
Office: 207-893-2223
  #1340  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:53 AM
adampolo13 adampolo13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Adam Keigwin þ@akeigwin
Latest voicemail from @StopSB249 supporter says he needs his gun to protect self from Oakland Nword(s). Why so many #racist gun owners?

Should someone tell Adam that racist have rights too?

  #1341  
Old 07-06-2012, 10:59 AM
JSolie's Avatar
JSolie JSolie is offline
Snoot lickin' good!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Murrieta, CA
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chead View Post
It's 2012 and we have to FAX our reps to get the point across. Jeez.
Postage stamps still work, too. They're even more old school that Facsimile transmitting machines.
  #1342  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:02 AM
Dantedamean's Avatar
Dantedamean Dantedamean is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,257
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XD40SUBBIE View Post
the problem with tossing senators out because they wrote a law, later interpreted as unconstitutional is that sometimes, the constitutionality of a bill or law is vague. For instance, take California gun laws that are given accolades by the left as the "model" for the nation- we obviously see these laws as violations of the 2A and non-infringement. So why are they still here? That's because states are given rights under 10A. CA can argue, they are not infringing on 2A, per se, but limiting and restricting 2A to serve the best interest and safety of the people of CA. Which will uphold. They are not restricting the right to bare arms, since the xn never stated what types of arms, how many rounds, cyclic rate, which model or even a defintion on what these arms are.

The point is, with a vaguely written xn, it is hard to know initially what the constitutionality of a law is; this is why we have the SCOTUS.
Ya but if they knew they could get thrown out of politics for writing an unconstitutional law they would definitely do there homework before submitting it. I hate the way they keep just throwing these laws out there to see what happens.

As far as the vagueness of "arms" in the constitution, they didn't have a difference in firearms back then. A musket was a musket, there was no military grade firearm and civilian firearm. The founding fathers were smart in predicting firearms would advance but most likely didn't predict such a large gap in civilian and government weapons.
What makes me happy is the founding fathers saw the right to bare arms was second only to freedom of speech.
  #1343  
Old 07-06-2012, 11:06 AM
DarkSoul's Avatar
DarkSoul DarkSoul is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 748
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Don't buy into Keigwins comments, I am sure more than half are BS, it's just a shady tactic from a shady senators aid, I guarantee they are both sitting back laughing at the stress it's causing CalGunners.

As for getting the attention of the senators, a hand written/typed and signed letter makes a much larger statement than any email. It shows that you are concerned enough total ethe time, so I encourage you all to ALSO type up a letter, sign and mail to allnthe reps/senators. I know I will be busy with this over the next few days.
  #1344  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:08 PM
DGoodale DGoodale is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 261
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Assembly Members for the Committee on Appropriations FAX numbers

Felipe Fuentes - Chair (916) 319-2139
Diane L. Harkey - Vice Chair (916) 319-2173
Bob Blumenfield (916) 319-2140
Steven Bradford (916) 319-2151
Charles M. Calderon (916) 319-2158
Nora Campos (916) 319-2123
Mike Davis (916) 319-2148
Tim Donnelly (916) 319-2159
Mike Gatto (916) 319-2143
Isadore Hall III (916) 319-2152
Jerry Hill (916) 319-2119
Ricardo Lara (916) 319-2150
Holly J. Mitchell (916) 319-2147
Jim Nielsen 916-319-2102
Chris Norby (916) 319-2172
Jose Solorio (916) 319-2169
Donald P. Wagner (916) 319-2170

Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.2081 phone
916.319.2181 fax
  #1345  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:24 PM
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: da sloo
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DGoodale View Post
Assembly Members for the Committee on Appropriations FAX numbers

Felipe Fuentes - Chair (916) 319-2139
Diane L. Harkey - Vice Chair (916) 319-2173
Bob Blumenfield (916) 319-2140
Steven Bradford (916) 319-2151
Charles M. Calderon (916) 319-2158
Nora Campos (916) 319-2123
Mike Davis (916) 319-2148
Tim Donnelly (916) 319-2159
Mike Gatto (916) 319-2143
Isadore Hall III (916) 319-2152
Jerry Hill (916) 319-2119
Ricardo Lara (916) 319-2150
Holly J. Mitchell (916) 319-2147
Jim Nielsen 916-319-2102
Chris Norby (916) 319-2172
Jose Solorio (916) 319-2169
Donald P. Wagner (916) 319-2170

Assembly Appropriations Committee
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
916.319.2081 phone
916.319.2181 fax
yep. and keep in mind that all their phone numbers follow the format:
(916) 319-2xdd
where x = 0 for voice, and 1 for FAX
and dd = their district number
__________________
Live between Santa Cruz and SLO? Want to get involved?
Check out the Central Coast Calguns Community Chapter
And join the Central Coast Region Social Group!
NRA Life Member - CRPA Life & Board Member - SAF Life Member - Monterey County Carry Initiative Sponsor
Statements posted here are the sole opinions of the author and not those
of CGN, CGF, CRPA, or any other institution or agency unless otherwise noted.
  #1346  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:29 PM
Lone_Gunman Lone_Gunman is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Posts: 8,205
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default We need to hammer Keigwin and Yee.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adampolo13 View Post
Adam Keigwin þ@akeigwin
Latest voicemail from @StopSB249 supporter says he needs his gun to protect self from Oakland Nword(s). Why so many #racist gun owners?

Should someone tell Adam that racist have rights too?


Those of us on Twitter need to be hammering Keigwin and Yee every time they tweet something. If its cries of "racist" we need to be calling for proof. We need to hammer them to comment on Yee's letter to the CA DOJ where he explicitly lays out that he wants to ban Bullet Buttons, not just Mag Magnets.

Every time they speak we need to hammer them with it. Yee made a grave tactical mistake writing that letter, and we need to put it in their faces every second. The Yee DOJ letter can be found here : tinyurl.com/yee-doj

My tweets on the matter since yesterday. Let's keep it in their faces.

@akeigwin @StopSB249 Re: racist comments- proof or it didnt happen. You cant argue substance, youre reduced to cries of "racist" #StopSB249


@akeigwin @StopSB249 are you going to comment on Yee's letter to the DOJ Re: banning the bullet button entirely? tinyurl.com/yee-doj


@akeigwin @LelandYee @CalgunsFdn Still waiting for a response on Yee's CA DOJ letter RE: ban the Bullet Button entirely tinyurl.com/yee-doj


@LelandYee Comment on your 6/4 letter to CA DOJ Re: ban the bullet button entirely? tinyurl.com/yee-doj
#SB249 #BulletButton @CalgunsFdn


@akeigwin Comment on the 6/4 letter sent by Yee to CA DOJ Re: ban the bullet button entirely? tinyurl.com/yee-doj
#StopSB249 @CalgunsFdn
__________________


If this latest (2016) assault weapon (semi auto) ban passes... I will simply install hydraulically actuated rotating bolts, and jimmy slap triggers. They can't regulate what they don't understand.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s....php?t=1153858
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  #1347  
Old 07-06-2012, 12:55 PM
safaridave safaridave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 174
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Letter sent. Can't believe SF politics is becoming mainstream these days.
  #1348  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:55 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSolie View Post
Postage stamps still work, too. They're even more old school that Facsimile transmitting machines.
Or you can do it the 2012 way and we'll submit a hard copy letter on our dime via http://stopsb249.org/send-a-letter.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1349  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:57 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
yep. and keep in mind that all their phone numbers follow the format:
(916) 319-2xdd
where x = 0 for voice, and 1 for FAX
and dd = their district number
All relevant contact information for Yee's office and Approps is here: http://stopsb249.org/contacts.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1350  
Old 07-06-2012, 1:59 PM
goober's Avatar
goober goober is offline
Veteran Member
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: da sloo
Posts: 4,939
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
All relevant contact information for Yee's office and Approps is here: http://stopsb249.org/contacts.

-Brandon
Nice!
Been hoping for that, well done
__________________
Live between Santa Cruz and SLO? Want to get involved?
Check out the Central Coast Calguns Community Chapter
And join the Central Coast Region Social Group!
NRA Life Member - CRPA Life & Board Member - SAF Life Member - Monterey County Carry Initiative Sponsor
Statements posted here are the sole opinions of the author and not those
of CGN, CGF, CRPA, or any other institution or agency unless otherwise noted.
  #1351  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:07 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default SB-249

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I still don't understand what the realistic threat is from this bill.

I just don't see any mechanism for them to use to:

1. Ban Bullet button either by legislation or administrative fiat.
2. Render currently owned BB equipped rifles illegal WITHOUT a new registration period or compensation.

While I fully expect them to try to do both, I just can't see a path for them to be able to accomplish this in a way that passes judicial muster.

Granted, we'd prefer to defeat the bill before it becomes law, thereby avoiding the risks and costs, but again, I just don't see a path for them to accomplish their goals.

What am I missing?
  #1352  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:09 PM
Mr.Sandman's Avatar
Mr.Sandman Mr.Sandman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 533
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Sorry if I missed it, but what day is the appropriations hearing? Will there be audio available or do we need to attend in person?
  #1353  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:13 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Nice!
Been hoping for that, well done
All in my spare time after bplvr said I needed to get on it.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
  #1354  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:36 PM
XD40SUBBIE's Avatar
XD40SUBBIE XD40SUBBIE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I still don't understand what the realistic threat is from this bill.

I just don't see any mechanism for them to use to:

1. Ban Bullet button either by legislation or administrative fiat.
2. Render currently owned BB equipped rifles illegal WITHOUT a new registration period or compensation.

While I fully expect them to try to do both, I just can't see a path for them to be able to accomplish this in a way that passes judicial muster.

Granted, we'd prefer to defeat the bill before it becomes law, thereby avoiding the risks and costs, but again, I just don't see a path for them to accomplish their goals.

What am I missing?
They are calling them conversion kits. Which is not defined in the bill. So the obvious goal will be to go after anything that makes a "fixed" magazine detachable in any way - Bullet button. In essence getting rid of the "scary" AR-style rifles for no virtue other than Yee and KCBS are "afraid" of them.

Here's the counter logic to SB249.

Yee said in the PS committee hearing that this bill needs to be enacted immediately. Because he fears that he will wake up one day and "children" and women" and oh, yeah "men" will die!

Strong intuition there, our distinguished Senator has. Statistically speaking, of course, he, I, you wake up daily and some child, woman or man dies. In aggregate since 1984, only .20% of those deaths or assaults or crimes can be attributed to semi-automatic rifles legal or illegal. So where's the immediate need?

IF YEE really wants to prevent children and women and men and pets from dying tomorrow, he needs to concentrate on the most likely cause of deaths in CA, the country or even the world; Car Accidents.

So taking what we know of SB249 and applying it to what we know about car accidents - it is twice more likely for someone to get into an accident when they are distracted, by cell phone use, eating, and doing makeup. Now, we have a law that carries a fine, and the violation of which becomes an infraction; the texting/cell phone use while driving laws. However, if you are using a handsfree or bluetooth device, you are able to make calls. So essentially in this analogy, a handsfree and/or bluetooth device acts like the bullet button. In that, it allows a driver to have a phone call in the car.

Further, a cup holder in the car encourages drinking, eating while in the car. Make up mirrors allow for the driver to see themselves by flipping the sun visor to apply their make up.

With that said, should we ban these items? How about DVD players and navigation systems? After all, they make it twice as likely to cause death among the number one cause of death in the state, heck, the world. Do we ban cars for the bluetooth device inside them? If Yee's greatest fear, which is so great that he wrote this law to protect children, women and men from death, then he needs to go after the main cause of their deaths? So why do we have SB249 again?

Last edited by XD40SUBBIE; 07-06-2012 at 10:05 PM..
  #1355  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:40 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default

No offense but that doesn't answer my question at all. I could care less about how "bad" Yee is or about DVD players, etc.

What legal path can they take to ban BB's that will pass judicial muster?

I just can't see it, nor do I see a path for them to "take" property without compensation.

Simply isn't going to happen.

Last edited by Calplinker; 07-06-2012 at 2:44 PM..
  #1356  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:50 PM
madcatsden madcatsden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

XD40SUBBIE I liked your post and appreciate your message.

I also signed both links and hope this makes a difference.

I was pretty scared by this SB but am glad that it strictly talks about mag-magnets and not bullet buttoned AR's.

I still hope, obviously, it doesn't pass but at least it is not as much doom and gloom as it's being portrayed as.
  #1357  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:51 PM
Uxi's Avatar
Uxi Uxi is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,110
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Steinberg's purpose is clear: give the AG the power to treat bullet buttons as a nuisance through regulatory powers. In effective constructive possession. You can argue it in court all you want. You'll lose your weapons, go to jail, and start dipping into any savings until the ADA of your local county uses limitless resources to coerce you into a plea to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars in your defense and maybe get them back. If you're lucky and don't end up in front of a jury full of public employees who think the weapons are evil and you're just as bad for not trusting the police to protect you anyway.

Your example will make most of us get rid of ours or bury them in the back yard or move to Free States while the latest lawsuit gets stalled indefinitely on a case pending in the 9th Circuit that everything else gets to tied to... hoping it actually gets resolved, much less addresses the core principles of the RTKBA.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

9mm + 5.56mm =
.45ACP + 7.62 NATO =
10mm + 6.8 SPC =


Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis; Jn 1:14

Last edited by Uxi; 07-06-2012 at 2:53 PM..
  #1358  
Old 07-06-2012, 2:53 PM
XD40SUBBIE's Avatar
XD40SUBBIE XD40SUBBIE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
No offense but that doesn't answer my question at all. I could care less about how "bad" Yee is or about DVD players, etc.

What legal path can they take to ban BB's that will pass judicial muster?

I just can't see it, nor do I see a path for them to "take" property without compensation.

Simply isn't going to happen.
sorry, I got caught up in my preaching...I thought I answered you with my first line. The bill bans conversion kits - which is undefined as to what those are. Other than they will allow an otherwise fixed magazine to be detachable - does that sound like a bullet button and/or similar device? Further, the law says, if you are caught with one, you will be a criminal. Fined $50, I think it was for the first "conversion kit" and confiscation and destruction of the device. If found on your rifle, your rifle is confiscated and gets destroyed.

But My point is that that's just the beginning the ultimate goal is to get rid of the AR's all together. How? If you can't figure out a way to sell a compliant AR or if it would be cost prohibitive to sell an AR to CA, then essentially, it will go away from here.

As for confiscation without compensation, it appears to be a violation of the 5A, which states that the government cannot take private property for public use without compensation. But that would be up the courts to decide.

Last edited by XD40SUBBIE; 07-06-2012 at 3:00 PM..
  #1359  
Old 07-06-2012, 3:05 PM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Nuisance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxi View Post
Steinberg's purpose is clear: give the AG the power to treat bullet buttons as a nuisance through regulatory powers. In effective constructive possession. You can argue it in court all you want. You'll lose your weapons, go to jail, and start dipping into any savings until the ADA of your local county uses limitless resources to coerce you into a plea to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars in your defense and maybe get them back. If you're lucky and don't end up in front of a jury full of public employees who think the weapons are evil and you're just as bad for not trusting the police to protect you anyway.
Okay, now that approach I fully understand, but still don't see how they would be successful at this.

Hasn't Hoffmag assured us again and again that there is no way for CalDOJ to undo their finding that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed mag?? Hasn't CalDOJ told the legislature that they don't have the power to administratively ban them and the "solution" must come from the legislature?

I remember reading time and again about how their has never been a successful prosecution of a BB equipped rifle for good reason. Every time they try, our side lawyers up and they drop the case because they know a BB equates to a fixed mag, per the law.

Banning BB's is exactly what Yee is trying to do, but the way I see it, they have boxed themselves into a corner.

What they want is either an administrative solution, or to write a law that legislatively re-defines a "fixed" magazine in a fashion that would ban the bullet button.

The current law, as written is so vague it will never pass judicial muster even if it were to pass and Brown to sign it, which I doubt.

Personally, I think it is written so vaguely, because they have no idea how to write it to accomplish what they really want.

If I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out a way to LEGALLY get to where they want to be, I just don't see a path. Every proposed solution would either be blocked with a lawsuit, or worse yet (from their perspective), open up yet another AW registration window.

Again, unless I'm missing something, I see them boxed into a corner of their own making.

Last edited by Calplinker; 07-06-2012 at 3:07 PM..
  #1360  
Old 07-06-2012, 3:11 PM
XD40SUBBIE's Avatar
XD40SUBBIE XD40SUBBIE is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 625
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calplinker View Post
Okay, now that approach I fully understand, but still don't see how they would be successful at this.

Hasn't Hoffmag assured us again and again that there is no way for CalDOJ to undo their finding that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed mag?? Hasn't CalDOJ told the legislature that they don't have the power to administratively ban them and the "solution" must come from the legislature?

I remember reading time and again about how their has never been a successful prosecution of a BB equipped rifle for good reason. Every time they try, our side lawyers up and they drop the case because they know a BB equates to a fixed mag, per the law.

Banning BB's is exactly what Yee is trying to do, but the way I see it, they have boxed themselves into a corner.

What they want is either an administrative solution, or to write a law that legislatively re-defines a "fixed" magazine in a fashion that would ban the bullet button.

The current law, as written is so vague it will never pass judicial muster even if it were to pass and Brown to sign it, which I doubt.

Personally, I think it is written so vaguely, because they have no idea how to write it to accomplish what they really want.

If I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out a way to LEGALLY get to where they want to be, I just don't see a path. Every proposed solution would either be blocked with a lawsuit, or worse yet (from their perspective), open up yet another AW registration window.

Again, unless I'm missing something, I see them boxed into a corner of their own making.
I would be surprised if Hoffmag can give that assurance. There's no such thing as a policy or law they cannot undo. Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS has ruled on this 39 years ago and we still have people talking about overturning it.

The point is that the CADOJ may have agreed to the bullet button as a legal exemption to the CA definition of what an assault rifle is. However, SB249 aims to reverse that by making the very thing that makes it not an AW illegal, which subsequently makes the rifle illegal. This is pretty clear as Amanda Wilcox stated that she wants stronger amendments from the DOJ. So if this is not sufficient to get rid of the rifle, then Amanda requests that the CADOJ add language to be further prohibitive.

There may not have been successful prosecution of the BB to date, because we never had a law that specifically bans "conversion kits" that converts an otherwise fixed magazine semi-automatic rifle into a detachable magazine rifle. What does the BB do? Prohibits access to the mag release with your finger. But when you use a tool or a button, you can release or detach the magazine. SB249 aims to get rid of that ability.

Of course, the avenues to enforcement would lead to court room visits, that's the beauty of our justice system. Had that ever stopped a bill from becoming law? The bad part is IF you or I or anyone else here gets to be the champ and takes it for the team to spend the money and the time and the resources to fight it in court? That's why I said previously to fight this with our wallets. We will need to build up some funds to pay for the litigation, should this get past Governor Brown.

Last edited by XD40SUBBIE; 07-06-2012 at 3:20 PM..
Closed Thread

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 9:37 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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.