SSE-AB 169 makes it illegal?

[BumBum]

28050 is the PPT section, so they are saying that you can PPT two non-rostered handguns per calendar year. by doing that, they minimize the constitutional problems regarding prohibiting people from selling their legally obtained and possesed firearms that are not on the roster.

I don't disagree with that, but I was answering OP's question that specifically pertained to SSE. That would no longer be allowed.

I'll admit that trying to decipher this stuff is a puzzle, and in reading it all again, I now am wondering this: would the new PPT provision allow out-of-state transfers (2 per year), i.e. no longer even needing SSE?

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

Here's the summary of what the author of this proposal is intending to do:

http://www.asmdc.org/members/a07/press-releases/dickinson-bill-to-limit-guns-available-for-sale-approved-by-senate-public-safety-committee

[Fatgunman]

AB169 IS still in suspense right?

[Don the savage]

Here's the summary of what the author of this proposal is intending to do:

http://www.asmdc.org/members/a07/pre...fety-committee

What a ****ing piece of ****. Keep voting for these douche bags.

[kingkev]

AB169 IS still in suspense right?

According to this sticky thread, it's at the Senate, amended on 8/12 and re-referred to Com. on APPR...whatever that means.

[RickD427]

AB169 IS still in suspense right?

It's no longer in suspense. It went to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 12th.................

[FrankDux]

haha WOW! Is this Dickson ***** for real?!!

[Corbin Dallas]

Yes they are.

How about this? If a manufacturer no longer wishes to continue paying the state to certify their firearm it then I'd no longer listed and this deemed unsafe.

Now AB169 apples to these weapons as well.

How's that work for you?

Can anyone say blackmail?

No pay? No play...

[SMR510]

What about the fact that loan is included in the 2 per year?

(2) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to this subdivision is limited to a total of two firearms per person, per calendar year.

So if I want to let a friend take one of my off roster guns to the range without me I can only do it 2 times a year and then not sell/buy any off roster guns through PPT? This better be shot down, this law is completely unconstitutional just because they want to take away a legal avenue to acquiring off roster guns that they purposefully put into the law.

Somehow these idiots need to be stopped, how many ineffective laws need to be written before someone tells them "thanks for trying to help but you sir are a moron".

[Fatgunman]

What about the fact that loan is included in the 2 per year?

(2) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to this subdivision is limited to a total of two firearms per person, per calendar year.

So if I want to let a friend take one of my off roster guns to the range without me I can only do it 2 times a year and then not sell/buy any off roster guns through PPT? This better be shot down, this law is completely unconstitutional just because they want to take away a legal avenue to acquiring off roster guns that they purposefully put into the law.

Somehow these idiots need to be stopped, how many ineffective laws need to be written before someone tells them "thanks for trying to help but you sir are a moron".

When less morons vote them into office.

[ke6guj]

What about the fact that loan is included in the 2 per year?

(2) The sale, loan, or transfer of any firearm pursuant to this subdivision is limited to a total of two firearms per person, per calendar year.

So if I want to let a friend take one of my off roster guns to the range without me I can only do it 2 times a year and then not sell/buy any off roster guns through PPT? This better be shot down, this law is completely unconstitutional just because they want to take away a legal avenue to acquiring off roster guns that they purposefully put into the law.

Somehow these idiots need to be stopped, how many ineffective laws need to be written before someone tells them "thanks for trying to help but you sir are a moron".

temporary loans like you describe do not fall under the subsection being amended.


and I wouldn't argue that it is unconstitutional just because they decide to remove a method of acquisition that they specifically allowed earlier.

[flyer898]

Another thing is there will probably not be any new semi-auto pistols place on the roster. The microstamping requirement is in effect as of this May. As far as I know none of the firearms manufacturers are using this technology yet.

[Aldemar]

Here's the summary of what the author of this proposal is intending to do:

http://www.asmdc.org/members/a07/pre...fety-committee

<rant on>

I suppose if you say something enough times, people that have absolutely zero idea what something is about will believe it.

Just look at how many times the word "unsafe" is used in the article. Someone who has absolutely no knowledge, or interest for that matter, in guns will read that and think we are running around with guns that go off by themselves. There is no mention of who created the "roster", what qualifies a handgun as being unsafe, or the qualifications of the people that maintain it.

Try this.....when someone asks you what your hobby is, state "firearms". I bet you will get a much more positive or neutral reaction than if you stated "guns". I started doing this a few years ago and noticed quite a difference. This is what the grabbers are doing to us and we need to start implementing the same strategy.

<rant off>

This is the same tactic as they are using for so-called assault weapons. Eventually, everything will fall off the list as models are discontinued or companies go out of business and there is no one to pay the fee to keep a handgun on the list. There will be no legal option but to turn them in.