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
  #561  
Old 04-10-2024, 9:46 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What? Well, you can't currently open carry a handgun anyway, period in almost every county in Ca..
Isn't the 'open carry in counties under 200,000' (Baird v Bonta) effectually banned?

As one poster said "a sad attempt at saving face!"

SB1160 is dead! Maybe the worst of the worst.

You gotta laugh at this.
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 04-10-2024, 9:52 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hopefully Baird eventually wins his case and makes even this silly law moot.

Goodbye Mr. Portantino and don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 04-10-2024, 10:01 AM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

hmmm...no clarification here as to what open carry is or what a "public place" is. In a holster or pocket on my person or in my hand. Does it include a shooting range? How about public lands?"

I guess I better decline any offers to "try out" someone else's firearm.
__________________


ARFrog
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 04-10-2024, 10:56 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARFrog View Post
hmmm...no clarification here as to what open carry is or what a "public place" is. In a holster or pocket on my person or in my hand. Does it include a shooting range? How about public lands?"

I guess I better decline any offers to "try out" someone else's firearm.
My understanding is there is no change in the current law, other than increased penalties for 'unregistered' gun. So the previous applicable statues regarding exceptions for hunting, BLM land, campsites et. still prevail.
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 04-10-2024, 11:07 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
What? Well, you can't currently open carry a handgun anyway, period in almost every county in Ca..
Isn't the 'open carry in counties under 200,000' (Baird v Bonta) effectually banned?

As one poster said "a sad attempt at saving face!"

SB1160 is dead! Maybe the worst of the worst.

You gotta laugh at this.
The sad part is that many feel, with some justification, that SB 1160 isn't 'dead.'

Instead, many feel that it has simply been put in 'sleep mode,' to be awakened at an inopportune time.

Thus, 'laughing' at what is going on and/or 'dismissing' the legislative attempt, for them, feels a bit akin to 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.'

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 04-10-2024 at 11:10 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 04-10-2024, 11:29 AM
jcwatchdog jcwatchdog is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,665
iTrader: 107 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistol_Ned View Post
Trading one draconian law for something less so? I am so relieved I think?

So if you are going to be caught open carrying a handgun, make sure it's registered to you or else. Prior to the early 1990's and to those that received handguns as gifts up to a certain date they weren't registered to individuals. Yea, there is a 4473 out there somewhere if you bought them new.
Aside from all that, using an unregistered gun in a crime is already more of a problem than using one registered to you? whats the point of this law?


He had to make it about gun control, so he just threw something together that would pass. But make no mistake, this whole idea was a huge failure for Portantino. I doubt he had much support. The more I read it, the more ridiculous the original bill was. I just had a feeling that even the democrats as a whole weren?t that stupid. That?s not to say they wouldn?t want annual firearm registration. They always make a statement about how ?we register cars why not guns??. But they knew it wasn?t going to fly with what, for them, is a regrettable constitutional right.
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 04-10-2024, 11:46 AM
joepamjohn's Avatar
joepamjohn joepamjohn is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Land of the lost
Posts: 2,686
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

So it seems shooting Dad?s old WW2 bring back 1911 that was never registered or a Ruger .22 handgun bought face to face (then-legally) at a gun show prior to 1989 out on BLM land, which is a public place, will now get you put in jail?
__________________
"You can't handle the truth"
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 04-10-2024, 12:42 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joepamjohn View Post
So it seems shooting Dad?s old WW2 bring back 1911 that was never registered or a Ruger .22 handgun bought face to face (then-legally) at a gun show prior to 1989 out on BLM land, which is a public place, will now get you put in jail?
If this silly bill should happen to pass, it provides the possession of an un-registered firearm would be an infraction, that is, a fine.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 04-10-2024, 12:54 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is far too narrow and pointless to be the end game, so we need to see what happens if it is resubmitted to the Public Safety Committee.

But this is the second year of a two-year session and the last day for fiscal committee meetings is Aug 16; last day to pass bills is Aug 31. That is 4 months to work the issue through both houses and does not include recesses and Budget drama.

However, this clown is out on Dec 2, 2024, so let?s keep a positive thought.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 04-10-2024, 12:59 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

I don't remember exactly who or where. Maybe some one else remembers who it was.


There was a DOJ Agent testifying, either in Committee or Court, on California's firearm registration system and he said it was all screwed up. That it had firearms listed to people who never owned them. And firearms than should have made the registration list thru the DROS system, didn't get on the list.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 04-10-2024, 1:02 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Just saw Portantino has amended the bill -

Quote:
SB 1160, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: annual registration of firearms. Firearms.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in a public place. Existing law generally makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to 6 months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000. Existing law, if the exposed and unloaded handgun is being carried in a public place or public street in an incorporated city, makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or by a fine not to exceed $1,000 if the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that person and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun.

This bill would extend that increased punishment to also apply if the person with immediate possession of the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun is not listed with the Department of Justice as the registered owner of that firearm, as specified. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
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.
h/t FPC via X/Twitter
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 04-10-2024, 1:13 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
If this silly bill should happen to pass, it provides the possession of an un-registered firearm would be an infraction, that is, a fine.
I read it differently:
Quote:
[(b) (1) Except as specified in paragraph (2), a violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(2) A violation of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, if both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that person.
(B) Either of the following apply:
(1) The person is not in lawful possession of that handgun.
(2) The person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of Section 11106 as the registered owner of that handgun. (Bold face is new language)[.
Current law makes it a significant MD if the open carrier is not in lawful possession of the gun.

This version appears to apply the same MD even if the carrier is in lawful possession but the gun is not listed in the registry to them.

This makes not registering your guns a potential crime when open carrying.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 04-10-2024, 1:27 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,857
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I read it differently:
Current law makes it a significant MD if the open carrier is not in lawful possession of the gun.

This version appears to apply the same MD even if the carrier is in lawful possession but the gun is not listed in the registry to them.

This makes not registering your guns a potential crime when open carrying.
But only if you are open carrying...
What if you are illegally carrying a concealed firearm that is not registered to you?
Also, it does not appear that this bill calls for annual re-registration of firearms into the corrupted data base maintained by the DOJ.
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 04-10-2024, 1:29 PM
ARFrog's Avatar
ARFrog ARFrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Northern Calif - East Bay area
Posts: 1,245
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
If this silly bill should happen to pass, it provides the possession of an un-registered firearm would be an infraction, that is, a fine.
If my IA looks at infractions such as driving tickets, care to speculate how firearms infractions would be viewed as part of the permitting or renwal process?
__________________


ARFrog
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 04-10-2024, 2:00 PM
Wyatt Burp Wyatt Burp is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,309
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Here?s a guy talking how the bill was totally changed with no more registration, fees, etc.

https://youtu.be/JBStlZBf60I?si=hfxLDLoxTu7p1-ar
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 04-10-2024, 2:06 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,716
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capybara View Post
SCOTUS can make all of the rulings and pronouncements they want but they literally have no weight to MAKE the Circuits or state legislatures obey their rulings. That would only come from the Feds, correct? And the Feds LIKE what all of these Commie bastards are doing.

All of the Commie states have basically doubled down on tyranny as punishment for Bruen. And there is nobody to stop it.
You are correct and that is why all firearm and self-defense law need to be removed from state and local gov ability to regulate.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 04-10-2024, 2:07 PM
Rustlin’ Jack Rustlin’ Jack is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 172
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Maybe I am missing the obvious, but where in this bill is any distinction between California residents and out of state visitors?

This reincarnation of what was originally proposed is a sloppy and unnecessary attempt to keep the placeholder of the number SB1160 active.
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 04-10-2024, 2:56 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Burp View Post
Here?s a guy talking how the bill was totally changed with no more registration, fees, etc.

https://youtu.be/JBStlZBf60I?si=hfxLDLoxTu7p1-ar

Please at least list which 'GunTuber' made the video.
Like this is Copper Jacket TV YouTube channel.





__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 04-10-2024, 3:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 44,439
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
I read it differently:
Current law makes it a significant MD if the open carrier is not in lawful possession of the gun.

This version appears to apply the same MD even if the carrier is in lawful possession but the gun is not listed in the registry to them.

This makes not registering your guns a potential crime when open carrying.
The comment you quote was referring to the original form of the bill.

Otherwise, your interpretation of the new version appears to be correct.

This version merely adds the existing sentence enhancements for concealed carry without CCW in PC 25400(c) "concealed" and PC 25850(c) "loaded".

And there is no distinction for out of state visitors, who presumably cannot have their gun(s) registered to them in AFS.
__________________
ARCHIVED Calguns Foundation Wiki here: http://web.archive.org/web/201908310...itle=Main_Page

Frozen in 2015, it is falling out of date and I can no longer edit the content. But much of it is still good!
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

- Marcus Aurelius
Ann Althouse: “Begin with the hypothesis that what they did is what they wanted to do. If they postured that they wanted to do something else, regard that as a con. Work from there. The world will make much more sense.”

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.



Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 04-10-2024, 3:24 PM
Preston-CLB's Avatar
Preston-CLB Preston-CLB is online now
Mountain Picker
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Tuolumne County
Posts: 2,236
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting. With the gut and amend, at least the extremely onerous registration scheme is gone--for now. It could come back under different cover.

According to the CRPA, it's been pulled from committee. Nothing there about gut and amend, thus far.

https://crpa.org/news/blogs/sb-1160-...this-big-news/

Be vigilant, CGers!
-P
__________________
"If you want nice fresh oats, you have to pay a fair price. If you are satisfied with oats that have already been through the horse, well, that comes a little cheaper."
Reply With Quote
  #581  
Old 04-10-2024, 3:43 PM
Darto's Avatar
Darto Darto is offline
Norville Iron Bank
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 5,190
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Posted YT 23 minutes ago...


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #582  
Old 04-10-2024, 5:04 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston-CLB View Post
Interesting. With the gut and amend, at least the extremely onerous registration scheme is gone--for now. It could come back under different cover.
With Gut & Amend it could come back at any time. IIRC there is no limited timeframe as to when it can no longer be amended. They have amended it late at night right before a vote.
Reply With Quote
  #583  
Old 04-10-2024, 6:12 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyatt Burp View Post
Here?s a guy talking how the bill was totally changed with no more registration, fees, etc.

https://youtu.be/JBStlZBf60I?si=hfxLDLoxTu7p1-ar
Please tell us who it is when you post. Copper Jacket is a click whore.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #584  
Old 04-10-2024, 9:04 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpudmanWP View Post
With Gut & Amend it could come back at any time. IIRC there is no limited timeframe as to when it can no longer be amended. They have amended it late at night right before a vote.
The fact he had no co-authors or stated support for the measure was significant. However, they will sometimes throw a big issue out there to see if it has legs and to learn the opposition. On the plus side, it had no chance of making the journey through both houses by the end of Aug.

On the negative side, they can gut and amend a bill already in the Second House (a Senate Bill which has moved to the Assembly) which accelerates the process by bypassing the Senate committees.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #585  
Old 04-10-2024, 10:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The sad part is that many feel, with some justification, that SB 1160 isn't 'dead.'

Instead, many feel that it has simply been put in 'sleep mode,' to be awakened at an inopportune time.

Thus, 'laughing' at what is going on and/or 'dismissing' the legislative attempt, for them, feels a bit akin to 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.'
Applying a total replacement of the content instead of watering down provisions, such as imposing one-time registration instead of annual, seems significant.

An internal Democratic Party whip count may have revealed the current state legislature lacks the votes to pass any form of mandatory registration. I have no doubt that gun control activists will make future attempts, but perhaps this gut and amend indicates that the idea has died for the duration of this session.

Maybe I express too much optimism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
This is far too narrow and pointless to be the end game, so we need to see what happens if it is resubmitted to the Public Safety Committee.

But this is the second year of a two-year session and the last day for fiscal committee meetings is Aug 16; last day to pass bills is Aug 31. That is 4 months to work the issue through both houses and does not include recesses and Budget drama.

However, this clown is out on Dec 2, 2024, so let's keep a positive thought.
Not that anyone outside of tight-knit political circles could confirm, but I can see Governor Newsom himself as having backchanneled a call to stand down on this issue. Swing state voters, many of whom do not even live under universal background check requirements, let alone registration schemes, would not look upon the 2028 presidential candidate favorably for having enacted $250 initial and $125 per-year gun ownership fees.

Last edited by AlmostHeaven; 04-11-2024 at 4:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #586  
Old 04-10-2024, 11:00 PM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
The fact he had no co-authors or stated support for the measure was significant. However, they will sometimes throw a big issue out there to see if it has legs and to learn the opposition. On the plus side, it had no chance of making the journey through both houses by the end of Aug.

On the negative side, they can gut and amend a bill already in the Second House (a Senate Bill which has moved to the Assembly) which accelerates the process by bypassing the Senate committees.
Hopefully, annual registration ended up too daunting of a bridge to cross. Had Senator Portantino followed the traditional anti-gun strategy of incrementalism, perhaps a one-time registration requirement for unregistered firearms could have passed.

Like many others, I suspect the idea will come back in a different form next session.
Reply With Quote
  #587  
Old 04-11-2024, 2:20 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Applying a total replacement of the content instead of watering down provisons, such as imposing one-time registration instead of annual, seems significant.

An internal Democratic Party whip count may have revealed the current state legislature lacks the votes to pass any form of mandatory registration. I have no doubt that gun control activists will make future attempts, but perhaps this gut and amend indicates that the idea has died for the duration of this session.

Maybe I express too much optimism...
I already expressed upthread (see my reply to you in Post #539) why I think this legislation was 'put to sleep' - for now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...Worried about potentially providing something that can be turned into fodder supportive of anti-gun legislation? Try living in a state with a supermajority who want to eliminate private gun ownership coupled with no Republican holding major state office to help keep them in check. Put simply, they don't need to look for a 'rationale' to justify it. They want it, they pass it.

Why do you think so many here are 'resigned' in terms of not being able to truly stop it in the political process; including the pro-gun outfits like CRPA? It's one thing to fight and we still do. But, it's a matter of knowing where the majority of your resources are 'better' expended.

Personally, I feel the holdup on SB 1160 came as a result of a combination of things...
  • a bridge too far, too soon
  • questions which cannot be effectively addressed
  • cost and complexity
  • the author leaving office
  • more
That doesn't mean it's dead. It means that enough got 'cold feet' and would feel more comfortable if some of the above were 'ironed out' a bit more before proceeding. While they may have, in essence, a certain carte' blanche, there are still checks and balances they have to be concerned with.
So, let me be more 'precise' in what I was saying...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
The sad part is that many feel, with some justification*, that SB 1160 isn't 'dead.'

Instead, many feel that it has simply been put in 'sleep mode,' to be awakened at an inopportune time.

Thus, 'laughing' at what is going on and/or 'dismissing' the legislative attempt, for them, feels a bit akin to 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.'
*..."With some justification" alludes to a number of possibilities, including gut & amend, reintroduction, incrementalism, etc. In other words, some less overt attempt which won't create as much media buzz. As such, we need to be cautious in 'dismissing' this particular attempt for, as you can see reading through the thread, many feel that, even if actually defeated, it will crop back up again; likely in a 'surprise' way when a lot of people 'aren't looking' so they can 'sneak' it through before a sufficient number can or will react.

The 'sad' part is that we have to worry about such things at all; i.e., that while a specific piece of legislation may be 'dead' in a particular session, it also may not be and/or can be brought back in another session. As I told you before, it's one of the things I complained about decades ago. Legislation can be defeated 999 times, but it only takes once to become Law; thus, the axiom, which seems to be the case here...



[You may not be aware of this, but such 'miscommunication' is part of why I tend toward slightly 'longer' posts in many cases. Virtually every time I try to 'shorten' things a bit, something gets missed or someone assumes I don't know what I'm talking about because I alluded to a major point or proviso rather than adding even more text. If you go through any number of 'random' threads, you'll find such creates quite a number of posts that, otherwise, could have been avoided.]
Reply With Quote
  #588  
Old 04-11-2024, 3:44 AM
yuccales's Avatar
yuccales yuccales is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Northern California
Posts: 587
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Not that anyone outside of tight-knit political circles could confirm, but I can see Governor Newsom himself as having backchanneled a call to stand down on this issue. Swing state voters, many of whom do not even live under universal background check requirements, let alone registration schemes, would not look upon the 2028 presidential candidate favorably for having enacted $250 initial and $125 per-year gun ownership fees.
I truly believe this!
__________________
Rest In Peace, Officers Singh, Corona, O'Sullivan, Moye Jr. ,Ishmael, Gutzwiller, Gibson, Inn, Benedetti, Vaca, Lenehan, Alvarado, Vella, Arroyos, Paredes, Santana, Cordero, Carrasco Jr, Clinkunbroomer, Le.
Reply With Quote
  #589  
Old 04-11-2024, 6:33 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlmostHeaven View Post
Not that anyone outside of tight-knit political circles could confirm, but I can see Governor Newsom himself as having backchanneled a call to stand down on this issue. Swing state voters, many of whom do not even live under universal background check requirements, let alone registration schemes, would not look upon the 2028 presidential candidate favorably for having enacted $250 initial and $125 per-year gun ownership fees.
Newsom has already stepped off that cliff. He has advocated for a re-write of the 2A. If 1160 was enacted, he would have years to collect, cherry-pick and skew data to display why it is a great idea.

While on this topic, what is the source for the posited $250 initial/$125 ongoing fee? The bill said the fee would be set by DOJ and the Waterfowl folks tossed out an initial $250, but there is no testimony or analysis (it did not reach the fiscal committee) to officially project the costs. So where did this number come from?
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #590  
Old 04-11-2024, 6:45 AM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11,080
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just an aside to fill in gaps on where these bills come from (it is not Portantino). Certainly Bloomberg-funded groups and the Giffords, etc. have a large play. That is why we see similar efforts across the country.

But for the registration version of 1160, that was home-grown. From Portantino website:
Quote:
This statue, which requires gun owners to register each firearm annually, is an important tool to remind all citizens of the civic responsibility that comes with owning a firearm. Indeed, the historic roots for this statue trace back to colonial America and serve as a reminder that with ownership comes responsibility,? stated Attorney Brian Hennigan and Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson, who both suggested the bill idea to the Senator.
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #591  
Old 04-11-2024, 8:00 AM
AlmostHeaven AlmostHeaven is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2023
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,612
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
Newsom has already stepped off that cliff. He has advocated for a re-write of the 2A. If 1160 was enacted, he would have years to collect, cherry-pick and skew data to display why it is a great idea.

While on this topic, what is the source for the posited $250 initial/$125 ongoing fee? The bill said the fee would be set by DOJ and the Waterfowl folks tossed out an initial $250, but there is no testimony or analysis (it did not reach the fiscal committee) to officially project the costs. So where did this number come from?
I think even Governor Newsom possesses the political instincts to know that some policy ideas, however personally attractive to tyrants, go beyond the realm of public acceptability. Indeed, he has proposed a constitutional amendment to nullify the Second Amendment, raise the minimum age of gun possession from 18 to 21, implement universal background checks, impose mandatory waiting periods, and prohibit so-called assault weapons. These concepts have 50% or more support in several swing states. Registration fees engender far broader opposition.

As for the $250 initial and $125 recurring fee numbers, I thought they came from a CRPA video?
Reply With Quote
  #592  
Old 04-11-2024, 10:04 AM
Rickybillegas Rickybillegas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2022
Posts: 1,139
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
The sad part is that many feel, with some justification, that SB 1160 isn't 'dead.'

Instead, many feel that it has simply been put in 'sleep mode,' to be awakened at an inopportune time.

Thus, 'laughing' at what is going on and/or 'dismissing' the legislative attempt, for them, feels a bit akin to 'eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.'
ca sb 1160(2).jpg

Well, you could be right. As others are pointing out, there is still a window of time for bad things to happen. Nevertheless, if Chuck Michel is calling this thing 'dead' for the session, I'm going with that and laugh at the outrageous failure, until it raises from the dead in some other form.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ca sb 1160.jpg (88.5 KB, 8 views)
Reply With Quote
  #593  
Old 04-11-2024, 1:59 PM
Sgt Raven's Avatar
Sgt Raven Sgt Raven is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 85/101
Posts: 3,513
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

According to a CRPA video, 1160 was just one part of 5 separate bills. I'm not sure what the other 4 bill numbers are, but the CRPA's lobbyist said they all need to be killed.
__________________

DILLIGAF
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice"
"Once is Happenstance, Twice is Coincidence, Thrice is Enemy Action"
"The flak is always heaviest, when you're over the target"
Reply With Quote
  #594  
Old 04-11-2024, 2:19 PM
SpudmanWP SpudmanWP is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,143
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is CRPA talking about the other bills

Reply With Quote
  #595  
Old 04-11-2024, 6:15 PM
joepamjohn's Avatar
joepamjohn joepamjohn is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Land of the lost
Posts: 2,686
iTrader: 59 / 100%
Default

Good, glad it?s squashed for now. I guess I can go back to worrying about my 2 giant, expensive and now non-compliant gun safes that are not on the current DO approved list??.🫣 at least now I now there is a $169.00 lock box that?s is on the list I can get??
__________________
"You can't handle the truth"
Reply With Quote
  #596  
Old 04-12-2024, 12:19 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,527
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickybillegas View Post
Attachment 1225001

Well, you could be right. As others are pointing out, there is still a window of time for bad things to happen. Nevertheless, if Chuck Michel is calling this thing 'dead' for the session, I'm going with that and laugh at the outrageous failure, until it raises from the dead in some other form.
"Isn't 'dead'" doesn't necessarily mean for this session. It will come back, in some form, at an inopportune time. Maybe not this session, but it will come back.

This was more a 'run it up the flag pole' as it was introduced by a State Senator who is 'out,' at a time when the Governor has national aspirations, and before the infrastructure was ready. Some claim it was simply a way to 'scare' gun owners in this State; but, I suspect there's more to it than that. It's why we have to be careful doing 'the dance of joy' as it will tend to divert attention from one of the few times when the Left has openly 'announced' one of its goals.

Remember what happened in The Wizard of Oz when the Munchkins were celebrating that 'the wicked old witch was dead,' an even worse, meaner one appeared...



I don't know if they'll be that overt about it as this could be their typical ploy; i.e., put out a real 'scary' one, pull it back, and introduce one they'll try to sell as more 'reasonable.'
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:55 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy