AB 1663- Chiu, 2016 - Dead in Committee

[CAL.BAR]

The current law prohibits "rifle with detachable magazine," which is what bullet button prevents - detachable magazine.

The new language would ban rifles that "can accept a detachable magazine." Very similar, but it goes after the ability to accept a detachable magazine, not the ability to detach a magazine. A rifle with bullet button *can accept* a detachable magazine because that's what happens when one replaces the magazine.

Not quite. The CURRENT law DOES ban rifles that CAN ACCEPT a detachable magazine. However, with a BB the rifle CANNOT accept a "detachable magazine" because once inserted, the magazine is NO longer detachable and thus no longer a "detachable magazine".

PC 12276.1 (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: ....

I haven't see the language yet the new bill proposes, but your distinction is not it.

[ProlificARProspect]

Not quite. The CURRENT law DOES ban rifles that CAN ACCEPT a detachable magazine. However, with a BB the rifle CANNOT accept a "detachable magazine" because once inserted, the magazine is NO longer detachable and thus no longer a "detachable magazine".

PC 12276.1 (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: ....

I haven't see the language yet the new bill proposes, but your distinction is not it.

Read it

[ProlificARProspect]

AB1663

A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(D)*The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(4)*A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(d)*For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)*“Detachable magazine” means an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action.
(2)*“Fixed magazine” means 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.

[Best sale]

But a majority of Californians, including >60% of both Democrats and independents, support the ban.

Yeap. cos "WE" have done a poor job educating the public..
to many,a detachable magazine must be worst than a" clip".
90% don't even know we do background check, 10 day wait ,BB and all that.

As a fellow Kalifornia gun owner, I hate to admit it,......but we are reaping what we sow....,

[chris]

the stupid has begun.

[Milsurp Collector]

Not a bad idea. How many signatures do you think it would take for us to get it on the ballot?

The total number of signatures required for initiative statutes is 365,880.
The total number of signatures required for constitutional amendments is 585,407.

You would need paid signature gatherers to get that many signatures, and that would cost millions of dollars.

[chris]

But a majority of Californians, including >60% of both Democrats and independents, support the ban.

Expand the definition of California's assault
weapons ban to include semi-automatic rifles
with detachable ammunition magazines

January 2016 Yes: 56% No: 39% No opinion: 5%

Party registration (January 2016)
Democrat Yes: 70% No: 27% No opinion: 3%
Republican Yes: 31% No: 63% No opinion: 6%
No party preference/other Yes: 61% No: 33 No opinion: 3%

http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline...rs/Rls2526.pdf

of course democrats support the ban. I bet 99% have no idea that we have an AWB in the first place. we have two in fact which makes the California voter the most idiotic people on the face of the planet.

I wonder if the crybabies of Mulford will no see who really wants to ban your rifles.

[Colt]

YES, the 2002-1012 Crime report by the CA DOJ compiled by both the Brown and Harris administrations determined that on average 55 people a year are killed by a rifle of any caliber and any action. 100% more people in the state 110 people on average are killed annually by use of a "Blunt Object" something that can't be classified as a weapon.

MOST firearms crime and murder is done by young men of color, under age 29 with small caliber handguns, .22, .25, .32, .380...

Thanks. Good info. So all this time and taxpayers $ going to be spent because less than 55 people a year are killed by rifles? The politicians and their media supporters are truly deranged.

How much will this cost? The bill, the courts, the enforcement, etc.? Seems to me an argument about the true numbers and the economics of this may work with some members of the public who are unsure about the issue.

We need our elected officials worrying about the big stuff, not a bunch of crap politics.

[chris]

"This bill would expand the classification of assault weapons to include semi-automatic center fire rifles, which are capable of accepting detachable magazines."

Isn't this ALREADY the law?!

I believe so. but don't underestimate the idiocy of California voters who have no idea what gun laws we have. of course a Democrat wrote the bill. go figure.

[shda5582]

The total number of signatures required for initiative statutes is 365,880.
The total number of signatures required for constitutional amendments is 585,407.

You would need paid signature gatherers to get that many signatures, and that would cost millions of dollars.

Do they have to be paid or can they be volunteers? Is there an established minimum that you have to pay them?

[Milsurp Collector]

Do they have to be paid or can they be volunteers? Is there an established minimum that you have to pay them?

Please read this http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=156804

The era of the volunteer-run initiative is over in California...
and has been since 1982, the last time a volunteer initiative made it to the ballot.

California's century-old ballot initiative process was created to counter the powerful interest groups thought to be controlling the state government, said John Matsusaka, president of the University of Southern California's Initiative and Referendum Institute. In practice, he said, the great number of signatures required and the short time frame in which to gather them -- about five months -- make it nearly impossible for even the most well-organized of citizen groups to succeed without a trove of cash and an army of paid signature gatherers.

[IVC]

You've lost already. How can confiscation be an option or even a consideration?

How?

Democrats want it, they have a supermajority, there is no backlash from either their base or Democratic gun owners, they propose it, it passes through a committee, gets to a vote, passes, governor signs it, we file a legal challenge and nothing happens before the law goes into effect, we wait, we lose at the district level, we file an appeal and either win and the court decides to go en banc, or lose and SCOTUS ducks the cert.

You know, the usual way we get gun control in CA.

[colossians323]

How?

Democrats want it, they have a supermajority, there is no backlash from either their base or Democratic gun owners, they propose it, it passes through a committee, gets to a vote, passes, governor signs it, we file a legal challenge and nothing happens before the law goes into effect, we wait, we lose at the district level, we file an appeal and either win and the court decides to go en banc, or lose and SCOTUS ducks the cert.

You know, the usual way we get gun control in CA.

Bam .........................QFT, serfs, know your place and don't resist!

[glockman19]

The total number of signatures required for initiative statutes is 365,880.
The total number of signatures required for constitutional amendments is 585,407.

You would need paid signature gatherers to get that many signatures, and that would cost millions of dollars.

Well Cal Guns has 228,620 Members, 27,777 Active Members. Let's assume 15,000 actual active members since some may have dual screen names.

So...IF 15,000 members each got 25 signatures we would have 375,000. Now add in signatures from every shooting range and you can get the 585,407 for an amendment.

FFL's could and should get signatures at time of sale and DROS.

[Librarian]

Not quite. The CURRENT law DOES ban rifles that CAN ACCEPT a detachable magazine. However, with a BB the rifle CANNOT accept a "detachable magazine" because once inserted, the magazine is NO longer detachable and thus no longer a "detachable magazine".

PC 12276.1 (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: ....

I haven't see the language yet the new bill proposes, but your distinction is not it.

12776 is not the current PC numbering. Please change your source for California Codes to http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml