AB 1663- Chiu, 2016 - Dead in Committee

[bootstrap]

So, what does AB 1663 and 1664 mean, should it pass?

Further infringement of 2A and enables backdoor confiscation of personal property that has not been used to commit the crime of assault.

[robertkjjj]

IIRC, the bills would allow current owners to register them as AW's, so you can still own it and use it if you were to register it as an AW. You would only be able to transfer it out of state, keep it for the rest of your life, or destroy it - the same restrictions that currently apply to RAW's.

...................
I haven't hear anyone explain how this will be implemented. A couple questions:

Hypothetical scenario 1: Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Let's assume Fred doesn't even follow the news, or all the pending new laws. So, lets assume this bill passes. Fred doesn't even know about it. Fred's AR15's are safe queens.
So, a few years later, Fred dies. His kids think that now all the guns are theirs. They now think they are free to take these to the range. Then what happens?

Hypothetical scenario 2:Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Fred hears about this bill. He hears that it passes. He decides to be a good boy, and follow the new law, and he goes and registers all his AR15's. A few years later, he dies. Then what happens? At this point, how does the state even KNOW that Fred has died? They would need to know he had died, to then take away the rifles. At this point, also, his kids, not even knowing about the law, could then just "inherit" the rifles and take them to use as they see fit.

See? I don't understand the real-world logistics of how this would be implemented.

Anyone have any good guesses on this? And, is there ANY precedent, in the USA, for making a law like this work?

Note: please don't give any info to the "enemy". I'm just saying, that this seems like an unworkable law.

[Whiskey_Tango]

Does a transfer not need occur when firearms are bequeathed? I would assume the unknowing Fred family would find out at that juncture.

Doesn't the death cert get issued by the state?

[model63]

...................
I haven't hear anyone explain how this will be implemented. A couple questions:

Hypothetical scenario 1: Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Let's assume Fred doesn't even follow the news, or all the pending new laws. So, lets assume this bill passes. Fred doesn't even know about it. Fred's AR15's are safe queens.
So, a few years later, Fred dies. His kids think that now all the guns are theirs. They now think they are free to take these to the range. Then what happens?

Hypothetical scenario 2:Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Fred hears about this bill. He hears that it passes. He decides to be a good boy, and follow the new law, and he goes and registers all his AR15's. A few years later, he dies. Then what happens? At this point, how does the state even KNOW that Fred has died? They would need to know he had died, to then take away the rifles. At this point, also, his kids, not even knowing about the law, could then just "inherit" the rifles and take them to use as they see fit.

See? I don't understand the real-world logistics of how this would be implemented.

Anyone have any good guesses on this? And, is there ANY precedent, in the USA, for making a law like this work?

Note: please don't give any info to the "enemy". I'm just saying, that this seems like an unworkable law.

Regarding #2.

The rifles are registered. Every death within California goes into a death registry. Although not mandatory, we often do final filings of taxes for estates, etc. It seems pretty easy that the registry will have a residence attached to it per person and through a process of deduction Kamala Harris & Co. will send a team to knock on doors to retrieve assault weapons of the deceased. To me they will simply cross check databases and come up with a list for retrieval and send out notices, etc.

Not only that some legislature will propose a bill of inheritance (much like stolen firearms being reported) that requires survivors (probably even spouses) and burdens them with turning them in within 30-60 days or else schedule an appointment to get them picked up...or get a no knock warrant ?

We already have assault weapons registered... surely there must be a precedents for it now no?

[CandG]

...................
I haven't hear anyone explain how this will be implemented. A couple questions:

Hypothetical scenario 1: Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Let's assume Fred doesn't even follow the news, or all the pending new laws. So, lets assume this bill passes. Fred doesn't even know about it. Fred's AR15's are safe queens.
So, a few years later, Fred dies. His kids think that now all the guns are theirs. They now think they are free to take these to the range. Then what happens?

Hypothetical scenario 2:Fred has a bunch of AR15's. Fred hears about this bill. He hears that it passes. He decides to be a good boy, and follow the new law, and he goes and registers all his AR15's. A few years later, he dies. Then what happens? At this point, how does the state even KNOW that Fred has died? They would need to know he had died, to then take away the rifles. At this point, also, his kids, not even knowing about the law, could then just "inherit" the rifles and take them to use as they see fit.

See? I don't understand the real-world logistics of how this would be implemented.

Anyone have any good guesses on this? And, is there ANY precedent, in the USA, for making a law like this work?

Note: please don't give any info to the "enemy". I'm just saying, that this seems like an unworkable law.

Regarding #1, Fred's kids will be felons and go to prison. That's the price of living in CA, I suppose. If you don't follow all the PC updates as they happen, you will unknowingly, and inevitably, become a felon at some point in your life. That's their goal - felons need government support, and our government LOVES people who need support. Not to mention, each law abiding gun owner that they can turn into a felon, is one less conservative voter, and their families will turn to voting liberal because it's the hand that feeds them.

[rimfire78]

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

~Ayn Rand

[aerodan]

People fought and died for the right to have a constitution, be free to keep themselves safe and on an even keel with others. How anyone would want to actively destroy a right we fought hard to get is, truly, selfish and illogical. Mr. Chiu is just a political animal trying to advance at the expense of history and his constituency. That's what I'll say when I call his office in the morning.

[nicki]

Win a battle, lose a War.

When one makes decisions based on emotion while ignoring facts, you can make some really stupid things.

Such is our Legislature. It is apparent that they are so blind with their "agenda" that they have ignored shifting public opinion regarding guns across the country.

Their blind attacks on the 2nd amendment will give ammunition to Republicans in other parts of the country that could cost the Democrats elections on the Federal Level.

Should Pro Gun candidates win in November across the country, one thing we need that must be at the top of the Federal Legislation in 2017 is a Federal Firearms civil rights bill with teeth, not a toothless version of the 1986 FOPA.

Our legislators have graciously given us the blueprints of what should actions by state and local governments should be civil rights violations.

Nicki

[ddestruel]

..

Should Pro Gun candidates win in November across the country, one thing we need that must be at the top of the Federal Legislation in 2017 is a Federal Firearms civil rights bill with teeth, not a toothless version of the 1986 FOPA.

Our legislators have graciously given us the blueprints of what should actions by state and local governments should be civil rights violations.

Nicki

^THIS


and then follow up over the next few years with multiple pieces of legislation to create a woven fabric instead of one piece of legislation that can assist.

[advocatusdiaboli]

No, they want to go after rifles based on what is inserted into them, not what can be taken out.

[The Gleam]

I like to bump these relevant threads when after a couple of weeks I see about the top 20 predominant threads in the CA 2nd Amendment forum take the whole idea of why it's here off track.

Especially when I see thread inquiries like "should I buy X now" or "what should I buy if the panic starts" and "how can I register my guns under the new law.

Good luck to you all, and let's work toward stopping this crap.

[Caper]

Good luck to you all, and let's work toward stopping this crap.

This!!! +1

[machrono]

The 1994-2004 federal AWB that started all this flash hider and pistol grip nonsense proved to have no measurable effect on crime. Amazing that not only does Sacramento fail to acknowledge that, but they are actually looking to double down on it!

[CandG]

The 1994-2004 federal AWB that started all this flash hider and pistol grip nonsense proved to have no measurable effect on crime. Amazing that not only does Sacramento fail to acknowledge that, but they are actually looking to double down on it!

Flash hiders are killing our children!

[BRSupply]

What is happening with this? Is it waiting for Brown to veto?