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 09-03-2013, 1:32 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default SB-396 as pertaining to Handgun magazines

Ok, I had this pop into my head last night. Senate bill 396 bans and requires destruction/sale of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. As well as any magazine that COULD hold more than 10 rounds (10/30 AR mags)

The Bill ammends to:
Quote:
16740.
(a) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
How will this affect Full and Compact size semi-automatic handguns. Most of their mags are double stack with modifications so that the rounds do not stack as wide, keeping the round count to 10, but they are the length of the standard magazines. Will this attempt to take away the use of MILLIONS of handguns, most of which are bought specifically for "Self Defence."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:33 PM
Gutz's Avatar
Gutz Gutz is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Home is where I make it.
Posts: 4,180
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

I think "new" magazines will need to be created that are 90% plastic, and only capable of physically holding 10 rounds....
__________________
I like big guns and I cannot lie.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:40 PM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,800
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

my guess is that it is just a bad law.... up to you to find magazines that fit the bill.

Under the Clinton AWB, the manufacturers made 10 round mags that could not be converted.

Sigs and S&W had a cut in the body and the floor plat was up inside the magwell when inserted.

Glock made a narrow internal body.

As this impacts CA, who knows what will be manufactured in the first few years....

You can find new Glock 10 round mags... and used AWB made Sig mags...

XD owners might be out of luck



__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:45 PM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,800
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default





__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:48 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Ok, I had this pop into my head last night. Senate bill 396 bans and requires destruction/sale of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. As well as any magazine that COULD hold more than 10 rounds (10/30 AR mags)

The Bill ammends to:


How will this affect Full and Compact size semi-automatic handguns. Most of their mags are double stack with modifications so that the rounds do not stack as wide, keeping the round count to 10, but they are the length of the standard magazines. Will this attempt to take away the use of MILLIONS of handguns, most of which are bought specifically for "Self Defence."
I had this same thought reading through the bill. My best guess is that the author really just wants 10/20 and 10/30 magazines for modern sporting rifles turned in. They would quickly run afoul of recent Supreme Court rulings if they tried to get everyone to turn in their handgun magazines without there being any options for replacements. That being said, I wouldn't put it past the magazine grabbers to actually go after standard pistol magazines too, knowing that the legal challenges will be tied up in the courts for years, long after the deadline to turn in the magazines has past.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:52 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yeah, I ONLY have 10 rounders. But are the factory 10 round mags that are still full length going to fall under this law or not. I understand that they are not "modified" but come from the factory this way, but how will this issue be seen under the law?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2013, 1:56 PM
RobertMW's Avatar
RobertMW RobertMW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: 707
Posts: 2,119
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
I had this same thought reading through the bill. My best guess is that the author really just wants 10/20 and 10/30 magazines for modern sporting rifles turned in. They would quickly run afoul of recent Supreme Court rulings if they tried to get everyone to turn in their handgun magazines without there being any options for replacements. That being said, I wouldn't put it past the magazine grabbers to actually go after standard pistol magazines too, knowing that the legal challenges will be tied up in the courts for years, long after the deadline to turn in the magazines has past.
Yeah, that was going to be the next question I have. Obviously there is going to be a legal challenge if the bill goes through and say that standard cap mags have to be given up. But it seems all firearms related litigation will go way past the deadline for turn-in. Will people make themselves "felons" to see if a favourable challenge? If we all sell or destroy the mags that we have, then get a judging in our favor, all previous laws still say we can't purchase, therefore any standard magazines "should" be an illegal one anyway. They win no matter.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2013, 2:03 PM
Malthusian Malthusian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 3,906
iTrader: 19 / 100%
Default

There will be a class action lawsuit, just like the one pending in New York
It will cost the state Millions, some estimate billions

It is unconstitutional...... period. There is no gray area

You cannot pass a retro-active law without grandfathering. Even in New York, you may keep your normal cap magazines and use them to "full capacity" when at the range. You may only load them to "7" rounds other wise
__________________
Quote:
"While it may come as a surprise to the authors of the legislation, most semi-automatic pistols do in fact come with a pistol grip"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:18 PM
icedevil icedevil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 439
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthusian View Post
Even in New York, you may keep your normal cap magazines and use them to "full capacity" when at the range. You may only load them to "7" rounds other wise
Unfortunately this is not true. All magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds had to be removed from NY state or surrendered. Magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or less could be kept but cannot be loaded with more than 7 rounds unless at the range.

So far NY is a very dangerous precedent that previously grandfathered standard capacity magazines can be later banned outright (like SB396). There is a legal challenge pending, unfortunately that will take time and the plaintiffs have not yet been able to get an injunction stopping enforcement of the law pending resolution of the court case.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:18 PM
glock_this's Avatar
glock_this glock_this is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 8,226
iTrader: 48 / 98%
Default

The S&W M&P 15-22 (22lr rifle) has a 10rnd factory mag available but said factory mag is the same 25rnd mag body, just pinned at the factory for 10 rnds.
__________________
10 +1 in the chamber

WTS: Gun stuff & things
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:22 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthusian View Post
There will be a class action lawsuit, just like the one pending in New York
It will cost the state Millions, some estimate billions

It is unconstitutional...... period. There is no gray area

You cannot pass a retro-active law without grandfathering. Even in New York, you may keep your normal cap magazines and use them to "full capacity" when at the range. You may only load them to "7" rounds other wise
The author believes that she is getting around this problem by giving everyone a year to sell their 10/20 or 10/30 magazines.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:24 PM
jpx0123 jpx0123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 898
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

i've been wondering about this as well. the factory and mecgar mags i have are 10 rounders with a plastic base plate. would that be affected with this legislation?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:28 PM
mattymatt's Avatar
mattymatt mattymatt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SoCal
Posts: 486
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Come and take em!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-03-2013, 3:48 PM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 898
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I have a couple handguns that are no longer in production and the 18-round mags, also no longer in production, sell for up to $100 on gunbroker. No way will there be 10 round mags for these ever made. Illegal taking.
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA member, FBI San Francisco CA AA board member. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:28 PM
Granite Granite is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 461
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

In prohibition did people have to turn in their alcohol when it passed? This I assume would set precedence for the magazine turn in.

I also believe as this is fought in the courts, the law can't be enacted, thus hold onto your mags.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:31 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 198
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
I have a couple handguns that are no longer in production and the 18-round mags, also no longer in production, sell for up to $100 on gunbroker. No way will there be 10 round mags for these ever made. Illegal taking.
From http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/..._asm_comm.html

Quote:
3)Fifth Amendment Takings Issues. (See policy committee
analysis.) Government has the authority to take private
property when necessary for government activities. But there
are limits on this power. If the takings issue in this bill
(no grandfathering of high capacity magazines lawfully
possessed prior to the effective date of this bill) were
litigated, the state could argue the prohibitions in this bill
do not require just compensation because it is a valid
exercise of police powers. For example, in 1979 a D.C.
district court ruled that a ban on dangerous weapons is a
valid exercise of police powers. In Fesjian v. Jefferson,
plaintiffs challenged a D.C. statute that banned the
registration of new handguns and machine guns. Any handguns or
machine guns that could not be registered had to be
surrendered to the chief of police, lawfully removed from the
District, or lawfully disposed. The court held such a taking
was a legitimate exercise of legislative police power to
prevent a perceived harm, not an exercise of eminent domain
for public use.

Ultimately, however, it is difficult to predict how state
courts might rule on takings issues.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2013, 4:56 PM
Hoooper Hoooper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Petaluma
Posts: 2,401
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite View Post
In prohibition did people have to turn in their alcohol when it passed? This I assume would set precedence for the magazine turn in.

I also believe as this is fought in the courts, the law can't be enacted, thus hold onto your mags.
during prohibition bottles werent oulawed, alcohol was. Prohibition would be more like ammo being outlawed. You could I guess be expected to use up all your alcohol before prohibition started, but unless you are Rep. DeGette of CO magazines arent used up
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:01 PM
chris's Avatar
chris chris is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: In Texas for now
Posts: 17,324
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icedevil View Post
Unfortunately this is not true. All magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds had to be removed from NY state or surrendered. Magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or less could be kept but cannot be loaded with more than 7 rounds unless at the range.

that part shows the utter stupidity we are up against.
__________________
http://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php

Quote:
Public Safety Chairman Reggie Jones Sawyer, D-Los Angeles said, “This is California; we don’t pay too much attention to the Constitution,”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Dj8tdSC1A
contact the governor
https://govnews.ca.gov/gov39mail/mail.php
In Memory of Spc Torres May 5th 2006 al-Hillah, Iraq. I will miss you my friend.
When Hell is full the dead will walk the Earth. (Dawn of the Dead)
NRA Life Member.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-03-2013, 5:10 PM
icedevil icedevil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 439
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Granite View Post
I also believe as this is fought in the courts, the law can't be enacted, thus hold onto your mags.
Unfortunately this is not the case. New Yorkers were required to dispose of their standard capacity mags even though a court challenge was pending.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:37 PM
thospb thospb is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 208
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

If these laws are signed by the Governor, I will replace the Bullit Buttons with standard Mag. releases, assemble my 30 rnd mags, and load them with tracer and ball. If I am going to become a felon it may as well be for good reason. Fuq em.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-03-2013, 6:47 PM
3006's Avatar
3006 3006 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 670
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronlglock View Post
I have a couple handguns that are no longer in production and the 18-round mags, also no longer in production, sell for up to $100 on gunbroker. No way will there be 10 round mags for these ever made. Illegal taking.
+ 1 on this no way to get replacement's
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-03-2013, 8:27 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

All thus talk about takings, clauses, etc. please. That's for constitutional republics. We're a fascist state. And no, that's not hyperbole. I really believe we are. So any stupidity like constitutional issues talk is meaningless. Might as well argue angels on the head of a pin or something.

Get over it. Just shut up and accept your benevolent overlords.
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:11 PM
lechiffre lechiffre is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
In prohibition did people have to turn in their alcohol when it passed?
NO.

Prohibition outlawed almost all sales, production, and transportation of alcohol. It did not outlaw possession or consumption.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:14 PM
boltstop's Avatar
boltstop boltstop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 353
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by icedevil View Post
Unfortunately this is not the case. New Yorkers were required to dispose of their standard capacity mags even though a court challenge was pending.
Then I would suggest that the challenge wasn't properly framed. The plaintiff has standing and can establish injury. Akin to appealing your execution but we'll go ahead an execute you anyway whoe we're waiting for the appeal to be heard. No analogy is perfect but you get the idea.

I've said it several times here, this proposed law is deadly as it establishes a precent that government can deny you the use and enjoyment of your legally acquired property with no compensation or recourse to establish that you are causing no harm.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-03-2013, 9:54 PM
Anthonysmanifesto's Avatar
Anthonysmanifesto Anthonysmanifesto is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 615
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Ok, I had this pop into my head last night. Senate bill 396 bans and requires destruction/sale of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. As well as any magazine that COULD hold more than 10 rounds (10/30 AR mags)

The Bill ammends to:


How will this affect Full and Compact size semi-automatic handguns. Most of their mags are double stack with modifications so that the rounds do not stack as wide, keeping the round count to 10, but they are the length of the standard magazines. Will this attempt to take away the use of MILLIONS of handguns, most of which are bought specifically for "Self Defence."
because the measure specifical states "..magazine that is only of sufficient length to hold no more than 10 "

My initial read is that it bans virtually every XD, GLOCK, SIG etc 10 rd magazine in existence.

anyone else?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-03-2013, 10:16 PM
socalblue socalblue is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 749
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto View Post
because the measure specifically states "..magazine that is only of sufficient length to hold no more than 10 "

My initial read is that it bans virtually every XD, GLOCK, SIG etc 10 rd magazine in existence.

anyone else?
You are spot on. This bill essentially "takes" a significant percentage of pistols from legitimate owners.

Manufacturers will tool up to make compliant magazines for a small number of the most popular current production pistols. Everything else is out of luck.

Add micro stamping & handguns sales & use will essentially die in CA in 2-3 years, when the last of the pistols currently on the roster fall off.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-03-2013, 11:27 PM
cire raeb cire raeb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Kalfornia
Posts: 447
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Loni Hancock can go F herself, I am going to store my stuff in Nevada until this thing blows over.

Last edited by cire raeb; 09-04-2013 at 12:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-04-2013, 12:44 AM
mzagg mzagg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A lot of valid points above. Many flaws in what is written.

I know everyone just wants to talk about it. To vent, express frustration, point out stupidity, etc.

I think the best thing would be to wait before talking for 2 weeks until after Sept. 13. Hopefully Brown sees the light.

Last edited by mzagg; 09-04-2013 at 6:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-04-2013, 3:55 PM
Guapoh Guapoh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hey fellas,

The Assembly's website says this about 396 today, 9/4/2013 - it states that on the 2nd reading the bill was ordered amended and to be recalled for 2nd reading again at later date. Anybody have any idea what the substance of the amendment might be about?

S.B. No. 396-Hancock et al.
An act relating to firearms.
Vote required: 41
2013
May 30-In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Jun. 17-Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Aug. 14-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes
4. Noes 2.) (August 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Aug. 21-Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Aug. 30-From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12.
Noes 5.) (August 30).
Sept. 3-Read second time and amended. Ordered return to second
reading.
__________________
Wilson Combat; LWRC; Sako; Springfield Armory; Sig Sauer; Benelli; Remington; Ruger
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:18 PM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,529
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I am not gunsmith, how do I know if my legally purchased 10 rounders fall into the spider web, they were represented, by the manufacture, at the time of purchase to be 10 rounders, they fit correctly into the magazine well of a handgun that was/is on the State of California's Roster, which means they passed all tests to be on said roster and are approved by the State of California, I see a lawsuit that will win.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthonysmanifesto View Post
because the measure specifical states "..magazine that is only of sufficient length to hold no more than 10 "

My initial read is that it bans virtually every XD, GLOCK, SIG etc 10 rd magazine in existence.

anyone else?
__________________
"I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Matthew Quigley

Last edited by Californio; 09-04-2013 at 5:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:28 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 555
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guapoh View Post
Hey fellas,

The Assembly's website says this about 396 today, 9/4/2013 - it states that on the 2nd reading the bill was ordered amended and to be recalled for 2nd reading again at later date. Anybody have any idea what the substance of the amendment might be about?

S.B. No. 396-Hancock et al.
An act relating to firearms.
Vote required: 41
2013
May 30-In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Jun. 17-Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
Aug. 14-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes
4. Noes 2.) (August 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Aug. 21-Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
Aug. 30-From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 12.
Noes 5.) (August 30).
Sept. 3-Read second time and amended. Ordered return to second
reading.
if you to leginfo and type "396" in the search box, click on the bill, then click on the "compare versions" tab, you can, in the drop down, pick the 2nd most recent version of the bill to compare to and see what changed.

It looks like they changed the penalty for violation from misdemeanor to an infraction/misdemeanor wobbler. They also added additional language to define what 'manufacturing' is, but that language only comes into force if AB-48 is also signed into law this year. They did this because AB-48 also modifies the same section. With the extra language they added, SB-396 will modify the section to include both the changes by 48 and by itself. (They did this with a number of bills so that there is no conflict with two laws trying to fight it out over a PC section)

Last edited by prometa; 09-04-2013 at 4:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-04-2013, 4:35 PM
chip3757 chip3757 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Riverside
Posts: 188
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If they changed it does it have to go back through both houses?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-04-2013, 5:00 PM
Guapoh Guapoh is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 433
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prometa View Post
if you to leginfo and type "396" in the search box, click on the bill, then click on the "compare versions" tab, you can, in the drop down, pick the 2nd most recent version of the bill to compare to and see what changed.

It looks like they changed the penalty for violation from misdemeanor to an infraction/misdemeanor wobbler. They also added additional language to define what 'manufacturing' is, but that language only comes into force if AB-48 is also signed into law this year. They did this because AB-48 also modifies the same section. With the extra language they added, SB-396 will modify the section to include both the changes by 48 and by itself. (They did this with a number of bills so that there is no conflict with two laws trying to fight it out over a PC section)
Thanks.
__________________
Wilson Combat; LWRC; Sako; Springfield Armory; Sig Sauer; Benelli; Remington; Ruger
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-04-2013, 5:08 PM
stitchnicklas stitchnicklas is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: riverside,ca
Posts: 6,829
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattymatt View Post
Come and take em!
this
__________________
screw the market place..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-04-2013, 6:30 PM
mzagg mzagg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Silicon Valley
Posts: 214
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It looks like they amended it and reduced a few items that they thought might be cause for a veto ?? I.e. simplifying what it covers to narrow the scope.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-04-2013, 7:01 PM
prometa prometa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 555
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chip3757 View Post
If they changed it does it have to go back through both houses?
No. The change was made prior to the assembly vote. Once the assembly passes the bill, the senate will have to revote to concur on the amendments, after which it will go to the Governor.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-04-2013, 8:59 PM
pMcW's Avatar
pMcW pMcW is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Morgan Hill
Posts: 530
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertMW View Post
Ok, I had this pop into my head last night. Senate bill 396 bans and requires destruction/sale of all magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. As well as any magazine that COULD hold more than 10 rounds (10/30 AR mags)

The Bill ammends to:

Quote:
16740.
(a) As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” means any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. As used in this part, “large-capacity magazine” also includes a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
How will this affect Full and Compact size semi-automatic handguns. Most of their mags are double stack with modifications so that the rounds do not stack as wide, keeping the round count to 10, but they are the length of the standard magazines. Will this attempt to take away the use of MILLIONS of handguns, most of which are bought specifically for "Self Defence."
The language of the bill says nothing about "length." It says that it applies to magazines that "...had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified..."

If it was designed and built as a 10-round (or fewer) magazine, then it should not matter how long it is.
__________________
Questions about new laws? Seek answers here first: Assault weapons law? | Ammunition law? | Magazine law?

M1A, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, Garand? Not banned.

Remove BB or similar device after AW reg? We don't know.
Quote:
(5) The department shall adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this subdivision. These regulations are exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). SB 880 | AB 1135
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-04-2013, 9:46 PM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pMcW View Post
The language of the bill says nothing about "length." It says that it applies to magazines that "...had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but has been permanently modified..."

If it was designed and built as a 10-round (or fewer) magazine, then it should not matter how long it is.
try reading it again, or just search for length...
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

"I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!!!" A Few Good Men
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-05-2013, 6:46 AM
big jim's Avatar
big jim big jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 309
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
This argument is using a case pre Heller & McDonald, and does not address the in common use and individual rights argument laid out in them
__________________
Winning is half the battle. The other half? Why red and blue lasers of course
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-05-2013, 7:18 AM
Rodell Rodell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Wet side of Washington State
Posts: 323
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The part that really galls me is the prohibition on previously (and permanently) converted magazines. Another cosmetic fear?
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 8:47 PM.




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.