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
  #121  
Old 01-17-2013, 11:12 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 479
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Guys, seriously. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT ANY OF IT MEANS. And we won't know for months, not until it is in its final version, fully amended several times, gone through at least three committees and passed in both the senate and assembly.

Until then, this is JUST A PLACEHOLDER. It is 100% subject to change, and almost certainly WILL change before all is said and done.

Every question you ask is potentially an avenue to a change or new subsection being added in. That is why there is LIMITED discussion on the board. The last thing we want is an SB249 type debacle where changes in the provisions of the law kept mysteriously mirroring what was being discussed on this and other gun boards.

If you have a question that absolutely must be answered right now, despite all of that, send a PM to one of the senior members or something. Don't just point out how this law as currently written allows for x configuration, or would ban y but not z.

ok.. rant off.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 01-17-2013, 11:18 AM
WeekendWarrior's Avatar
WeekendWarrior WeekendWarrior is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Guys, seriously. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE WHAT ANY OF IT MEANS. And we won't know for months, not until it is in its final version, fully amended several times, gone through at least three committees and passed in both the senate and assembly.

Until then, this is JUST A PLACEHOLDER. It is 100% subject to change, and almost certainly WILL change before all is said and done.

Every question you ask is potentially an avenue to a change or new subsection being added in. That is why there is LIMITED discussion on the board. The last thing we want is an SB249 type debacle where changes in the provisions of the law kept mysteriously mirroring what was being discussed on this and other gun boards.

If you have a question that absolutely must be answered right now, despite all of that, send a PM to one of the senior members or something. Don't just point out how this law as currently written allows for x configuration, or would ban y but not z.

ok.. rant off.
Loose lips sink ships... holds as true today as it ever did.
__________________
in the hands of
OH MY!
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 01-19-2013, 5:26 AM
glbtrottr's Avatar
glbtrottr glbtrottr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: By the Beach, Baby!
Posts: 3,492
iTrader: 46 / 88%
Default

If Kegwin and Yee had any sack they would try to ban pistols as is their true intention instead of the passive aggressive pandering they do to the desperate housewives of California they aspire to become. Stockton and Oakland? Pshaw.

I watched Yee tonight on Stossel- never have I seen such an unresponsive moving of the goal post "we don't need to arm our children, we can't order teachers to carry arms" and completely ignoring Suzanna Hupps experience or Stossels actual statistics. The champion of Chinese Shark Fin Soup went so far as to claim that cities in California have the lowest per capita murder rate in the country, arguing that those most restrictive cities have the best stats, railroading and ignoring fact upon fact.

Clearly Californians prefer an agenda focused on gay and union rights, entitlements and illegal immigration over safety, security, civil rights and fiscal responsibility.

Refresh the tree, people.
__________________
Visit http://www.policemisconduct.net to learn more about "isolated incidents"
Obama's Favorite TV show? "Homeland", about a Muslim who betrays his nation on the way to the White House...http://tinyurl.com/c8tvk92
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 01-19-2013, 8:36 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,259
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
This really needs to be stopped dead in it's tracks.
exactly, we should not have to give up anything, we are already oppressed. lets not get stockholm syndrome here folks.
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<7 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 01-19-2013, 8:39 AM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,259
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glbtrottr View Post

Clearly Californians prefer an agenda focused on gay and union rights, entitlements and illegal immigration over safety, security, civil rights and fiscal responsibility.
Yeah you got that right.
__________________
#blackriflesmatter
<7 years till retirement, can't wait to leave this state
California, where all of the good stuff is banned, registered, regulated or prohibited, yay.....
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 01-19-2013, 1:21 PM
Anchors's Avatar
Anchors Anchors is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dystopia
Posts: 5,927
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Dude we need to really work on OpSec here. Maybe we should disseminate ideas that will actually help us and pretend they're negative so Yee will see them lol
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 01-19-2013, 2:17 PM
sdfire's Avatar
sdfire sdfire is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 1,349
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death at wasn't bad enough.
__________________
My next Meet and Greet, Rally or Clean Up in San Diego
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8#post19129608
Please protect me from the evil that I see, and the darkness that I cannot.----Rev.Johnson
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 01-19-2013, 2:17 PM
sdfire's Avatar
sdfire sdfire is offline
CGSSA Associate
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 1,349
iTrader: 58 / 100%
Default

Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death tax wasn't bad enough.
__________________
My next Meet and Greet, Rally or Clean Up in San Diego
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...8#post19129608
Please protect me from the evil that I see, and the darkness that I cannot.----Rev.Johnson
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 01-19-2013, 2:24 PM
Wiz-of-Awd Wiz-of-Awd is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Where I'm at ;)
Posts: 2,737
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Really, it's not at all far fetched to think of this as true for their long term end game, in their war against our guns.

Just wait us out, and force their hand through repossession made possible via legislation (after death) by the government. It will take a while, but is very telling of the common push among the anti-crowd year after year.

This fight is for tomorrows citizens of this country more than it is for us - living hear today.

A.W.D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdfire View Post
Any form of registration will lead to eventual confiscation. The anti gun people say "you can keep your guns" but they want you to pay extra fees and go out of your way to conform to their registration rules. They may not take your guns from you, but they will prevent you from passing on your registered fire arms to your family or children, leading to your firearm being confiscated or destroyed without compensation. It's like paying the government to take property from your heirs. As if the death tax wasn't bad enough.
__________________
Quote:
In the end, time and irony always win.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-22-2013, 1:15 PM
patweb patweb is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

--by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at any time before January 1, 2001, shall register the firearm by January 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.
(c) Any person who, between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2014, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in section 30515 and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm by July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish.---


According to the last statement the bullet button would become obsolete, since they are allowing persons that own the weapon to keep it whether the magazine is detachable or not.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-22-2013, 1:35 PM
jrr jrr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 479
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Really dude... we can read. And once again - the bill isn't final. See above re: "registration = confiscation". Any other effects of the bill are conjecture at this point, and discussing them only gives any staffer with a brain and access to google more ideas.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 01-22-2013, 2:15 PM
zvardan's Avatar
zvardan zvardan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Concord, CA
Posts: 578
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

If they force me to register, I'm nit paying a dime. I really don't care what they attempt, I'm tired of paying money.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 01-22-2013, 2:18 PM
NorCalMik's Avatar
NorCalMik NorCalMik is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 138
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

What about the ineffectiveness of a registry?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...and-never-did/
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 01-22-2013, 2:18 PM
nothinghere2c's Avatar
nothinghere2c nothinghere2c is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,282
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I lost my wallet in a boating accident and can no longer afford registration. Do they accept EBT?
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 01-22-2013, 2:29 PM
mosinnagantm9130's Avatar
mosinnagantm9130 mosinnagantm9130 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Places
Posts: 8,499
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalMik View Post
What about the ineffectiveness of a registry?http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...and-never-did/
You think they care?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodEyeSniper View Post
My neighbors think I'm a construction worker named Bruce.

Little do they know that's just my stripper outfit and name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChopperX View Post
I am currently cleaning it and I noticed when I squeeze the snake this white paste like substance comes out. What the heck is this crap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff L View Post
Don't D&T a virgin milsurp rifle. You'll burn in collector hell.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 01-22-2013, 3:55 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 34,300
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default STATUS UPDATE 1/22 15:45

The bill is still in the Rules Committee, not yet assigned to its first 'actual' committee, and no amendments have been filed to 'fill out' the original, very short text.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 01-22-2013, 5:06 PM
MacDaddy's Avatar
MacDaddy MacDaddy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 270
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading. It's really Stossel and Hupp versus Yee...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/
__________________
NRA Life Member

Last edited by MacDaddy; 01-22-2013 at 10:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 01-22-2013, 5:24 PM
bigbully bigbully is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 1,749
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

That's some funny sh--! Even John Stossel was like WTF!
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 01-22-2013, 6:47 PM
mud99 mud99 is offline
Make Calguns Great Again
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,077
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

OMG Yee is a moron

He absolutely got owned.

Where does he get his statistics from? They should have asked him to cite them.

The best victory is knowing that he and Adam are probably watching this thread right now stewing from their loss.

Last edited by mud99; 01-22-2013 at 6:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 01-22-2013, 7:26 PM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,636
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy View Post
Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/
Bwahahahaahha. Yee got destroyed
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 01-22-2013, 7:54 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,454
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yee is an absolute idiot. How did this guy get elected? He does not comprehend "per capita" data and I am not even sure he comprehends English all that great. His thought process is nonsensical.

I am surprised though that neither Stossel nor Hupp mentioned that Columbine happened during the AW ban.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 01-22-2013, 9:28 PM
a1fabweld's Avatar
a1fabweld a1fabweld is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,422
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

I can't believe people elected Yee to do anything more than clean toilets. He sounds like a developmentally disabled elementary school age kid.
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:06 PM
speleogist speleogist is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 211
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That guy is such an idiot. Doesn't even know what per capita means.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 01-22-2013, 10:35 PM
DonFerrando's Avatar
DonFerrando DonFerrando is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 622
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

It's painful to listen to this guy. So uninformed, helpless and besides the point. Is this how politicians handle all legislation or just gun control measures? Scary.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 01-22-2013, 11:14 PM
KIMBER8400's Avatar
KIMBER8400 KIMBER8400 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 653
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I heard it on the radio that Yee immigrated to US at age of 3. My grandfather's English is much better and he came to US at age of 30.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 01-23-2013, 4:46 AM
a1fabweld's Avatar
a1fabweld a1fabweld is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,422
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIMBER8400 View Post
I heard it on the radio that Yee immigrated to US at age of 3. My grandfather's English is much better and he came to US at age of 30.
Welcome to the forum! Great 1st post!
__________________
.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 01-23-2013, 2:24 PM
MEGSDAD MEGSDAD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 114
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sorry, I'm new to the 2A battle. do we wait until this goes to committee and contact the committee members then? or who do we voice our displeasure to?
thanks
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 01-23-2013, 2:54 PM
merrill merrill is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 151
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Huh - listening to Yee was almost as if reality got suspended for a minute or two. I better check the house for a gas leak.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 01-23-2013, 3:15 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacDaddy View Post
Watch this. The title is somewhat misleading. It's really Stossel and Hupp versus Yee...

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/2102441434001/
At the end Yee said "We don't let children carry guns. Why are we going to let teachers carry guns!?"

I thought the teachers were supposed to be the responsible ones in a classroom?!?!?!
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 01-23-2013, 3:19 PM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,414
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

We don't let teachers carry guns, why should we let police carry them?

Makes about as much sense
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 01-23-2013, 5:09 PM
SKSer's Avatar
SKSer SKSer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEGSDAD View Post
Sorry, I'm new to the 2A battle. do we wait until this goes to committee and contact the committee members then? or who do we voice our displeasure to?
thanks
Voice your displeasure with anyone and everyone that matters now. Also not just the legislatures and officials, talk to friends and family as well. Most of the people view government as all powerful and just look at every thing after the laws come out with the mentality of "oh well, I guess this is what I have to do now"
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 01-23-2013, 5:14 PM
SKSer's Avatar
SKSer SKSer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Yee was a joke. He has the attitude of "I know what is best for the people. I am the one in charge. The people are all like little children that don't know what is best for them." He used to work in the school so im sure he views the people as young and immature just like the students.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 01-24-2013, 11:42 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 34,300
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default TEXT OF THE BILL IS AVAILABLE

Status today is
Quote:
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
?? Still in Rules?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

An act relating to assault weapons. An act to amend Sections 30515 and 30900 of, and to add Section 30680 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 47, as amended, Yee. Assault Firearms: assault weapons.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers. Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
This bill would revise these provisions to mean a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes.
This bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
By expanding the definition of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires that any person who, within this state, possesses any .50 BMG rifle, except as otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would exclude from those provisions a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to July 1, 2014, if specified requirements are met.
(3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice.
This bill would require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December, 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm before July 1, 2014, with the Department of Justice.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.


Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers.

Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.


Remember, BLUE ITALIC is new text, different from the previous version, RED STRIKEOUT is text from the prior version but removed in the current one.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Last edited by Librarian; 01-24-2013 at 11:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 01-25-2013, 3:10 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,893
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Status today is ?? Still in Rules?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

An act relating to assault weapons. An act to amend Sections 30515 and 30900 of, and to add Section 30680 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 47, as amended, Yee. Assault Firearms: assault weapons.
(1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers. Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.
This bill would revise these provisions to mean a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes.
This bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.
By expanding the definition of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law requires that any person who, within this state, possesses any .50 BMG rifle, except as otherwise provided, be punished by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
This bill would exclude from those provisions a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to July 1, 2014, if specified requirements are met.
(3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice.
This bill would require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December, 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm before July 1, 2014, with the Department of Justice.
(4)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.


Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law enforcement officers.

Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.


Remember, BLUE ITALIC is new text, different from the previous version, RED STRIKEOUT is text from the prior version but removed in the current one.
Appears similar to what Yee posted on his site not that long ago.
__________________
Check out the new and exciting twin stick shooter Omega Reaction on Steam!

http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 01-25-2013, 8:18 AM
courtc2911 courtc2911 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What are CalGunner's personal speculation on the chances Yee's Bullet Button ban will pass? Consider of course CA is now entirely Democrat controlled... :-(

Do you think the chances are 10%, 50%, 95%???
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 01-25-2013, 8:58 AM
oldyeller oldyeller is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sonoma County
Posts: 1,414
iTrader: 56 / 100%
Default

100% - can you say super majority?
__________________
Wanted- Dillon XL650 blue press parts/conversions
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 01-25-2013, 10:14 AM
JohnnyG JohnnyG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 114
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Thanks for that video. I LOL'd at work watching Yee try to construct a logical thought, but then I got real sad thinking about all the people that voted him into office. This state is doomed...
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 01-25-2013, 10:20 AM
REH's Avatar
REH REH is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyG View Post
Thanks for that video. I LOL'd at work watching Yee try to construct a logical thought, but then I got real sad thinking about all the people that voted him into office. This state is doomed...
Thats the problem. All the people who voted him in, a small area in SF, are like minded.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:32 AM
JoshuaS's Avatar
JoshuaS JoshuaS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,617
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 01-25-2013, 11:39 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 JoshuaS View Post
I think Brown may be smart enough, even if he were as anti-gun as these dumtards, to see certain consequences of this act, similar to what another legislative act in 2006 tried to put an end to. Vague enough? He may well veto Hopefully it doesn't get that far
I don't know, if this is what it takes to get rid of the assault weapon ban in California, I say go for it.

However if we want to avoid this, yes Brown is our only hope. Even then I think the dems have a super majority, from my limited understanding, that means they can override a governor veto.
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 3:22 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.