AB 1663- Chiu, 2016 - Dead in Committee

[stix213]

I know facts and data are inconvenient for politicians, but are there statistics as to how many people in Ca each year are killed by AR/Ak, etc. rifles? And how many of those rifles are acquired legally and are legally configured?

Waste of taxpayers money to have these clowns dealing with what is probably much ado about very little.

For the non factual answer to this type of legislation I have two words: Leland Yee.

Politicians rarely try to tackle real problems, because they are generally either too difficult to quickly solve, too hard for many voters to understand, or not politically feasible or even desirable to solve. Politicians like to look like they are solving issues by picking hot button issues from the media, whether they can actually solve them or not, and picking a side. The language of the bill or whether it actually solves a problem is not as important as making the appearance of doing something about a perceived problem to their voting base.

While the amount of crime with AK/AR rifles is infinitesimally small, they are typical firearms used in the relatively rare mass shootings.

I believe this is due to 3 factors. Firstly the media has made them out to be the weapon of choice for killers, so novice wannabe killers without any previous gun knowledge choose them by default. Secondly they are common firearms so even random chance would have them appear in mass shootings at an above average rate compared to other less popular designs. And thirdly being good overall designs themselves they are at least adequate for the job even though any number of other firearms would as well (as evidenced by the mass shooting at the navy base which used a pretty standard pump shotgun to great effect).

The problem of preventing mass shootings is a complex issue that crosses many uncomfortable boundaries for many politicians. Why are mass shooters usually democrats? Why are mass shooters almost always targeting "gun free zones?" Why don't mass shootings happen at gun ranges? Why do mass shootings usually involve young males in their late teens to around 30, to the near exclusion of all other groups? Why do mass shooters typically have very differing motivations yet choose similar tactics?

Politicians don't have those answers and some questions they don't want the answers. It is easier to blame the tool used rather than address the root cause. It is the equivalent of repairing a roof leak by putting a bucket under the drip and claiming the leak is fixed, move along. The problem is enough morons on the left have been convinced that the proper fix for a roof leak is just a bigger bucket this time as they watch their last bucket overflow.

[Buzzworm]

The police will do as they're told. Otherwise, they're out of a job.

Exactly what career criminals are hoping for. Less cops means a better chance of not getting caught or shot. And with less cops means fewer backup officers to respond to felony calls. A felon's paradise.

[IVC]

To put it another way, 1664 is there in case Brown vetos 1663...which he probably will since its SB374.

He can veto both, that's not the problem.

The problem is that the Democrats in CA are at the point where they are confident enough in their grip on power that they can stop pretending and can take off the gloves. What we are seeing here is what the DNC vision of the 2A is. Given a chance, they'd do this nationally in a heartbeat.

Remember Feinstein's "If I had the votes I'd ban all handguns?" Who wants to bet that we'll start seeing more and more along those lines. Sounds crazy now, but so did the idea that "ban AWs" would morph into "ban all semi automatic rifles" just a few years ago.

[Dragunov]

More BS laws that turn law abiding citizens into criminals and does NOTHING to go after criminals.

Gov Brown needs to hear/feel the full force of the CalGuns community.

For those of you that say "just move", whatever laws get passed here in CA set a precedent and can/will in time become laws in other states. Stand and fight!

Only if the people are stupid enough to allow it, or stupid enough vote these idiots in office.

Just because you stand by, and allow yourselves to be trampled upon, DOES NOT mean that others will.

Just an example:

Wendy Davis, was seen through as the anti-gun shill that she is BY THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS, and was bounced out of the governors race BY THE PEOPLE, and by a VERY large margin.

Things don't have to be the way they are in Kal, however, no one has neither the courage, nor the willingness to do what it takes at this point to change it.

Unfortunately, you are now PAST the point of the "soap box", and "ballot box".

You need to go to the next option, but you're so concerned with money, weather, and risk (cowardice), that you now have no hope.

Very sad. Glad I GTFO of there. No one there has my back. Not only that, I may get a few comments on how "I don't know what I'm talking about" or "I moved like a coward", or a comment in those directions. To those I say, look at my current position, compared to yours, then come again.

"STAND AND FIGHT"? I do wish you well, and if it literally comes to that, I HOPE you don't find yourself standing alone, but I'm afraid you will. Are you willing to be the only one to die, or go to prison, and have your family ridiculed BECAUSE you had to do it alone, because NO ONE would stand with you, and people on Calguns would post about how you are a nutjob, and how they disapproved of your actions, and got what you deserved, AND WOULDN'T STAND WITH YOU, because they were "afraid"? That is EXACTLY what would happen.

Stand and fight? good luck with that.


Not trying to start crap. Just speaking the truth.

[shda5582]

But there is no itemized list of features. SB23 did that, and that is their root of this bill. They are still using it in conjunction with the term "assault weapon".

Either way, these two bills work hand in hand to ban eveything we are talking about anyway.

We've got to jump on both simultaneously, and I think this is a scatter-bomb approach this legislative term on their part, particularly a revenge tactic by Harris, to coincide with Newsom's prop in order to deplete our resources, cause a distraction and chaos, all in order to get one or two of these 3 totalitarian agendas through.

There is. Any rifle capable of firing centerfire ammo, can accept a magazine that CAN be larger than 10 rounds, etc. They're pretty much defining all magazine-fed rifles as assault weapons.

[Defy Concealment]

The only way this is beaten is if Brown gives it the ol' middle finger. And for the sake of argument, let's say he does. OK, that's nice.

And then, the next time around? This is the Gay Marriage strategy all over again. They kept throwing sh*t at the wall until something stuck. Then they took that opportunity to get into more courts, and eventually to SCOTUS. I applaud them. And as hard as it was for them, the LGBTTPSJZYZWTFROFLBBQ? crowd had it generally much easier - they are a group that garners sympathy from many parts of society.

To the typical Californian progressive (i.e. the mentally ill), gun owners are Satan's Little Helpers. We rape nuns, build 50 caliber multiautomatic baby mulching death machines in our garages, while masturbating to Neo-Nazi music and burning crosses to keep warm.

So, you stop it this session. It's coming back next session. And again, and again, until a governor of even weaker character, bereft of any ethics or morals, occupies Sacramento. That man or woman will sign in a heartbeat.

The only solution is that in my signature. I'm not talking about or advocating violence, not even bringing firearms. We can even give it a catchy name, like the "Community Rights Network". Put 10,000 2A supporters in the middle of Sacramento, blocking traffic, holding up tactful signs, and get some attention. Play the "woe is me" card, not the "how dare you" card.

You can save the bullets and gasoline for later, but probably not much later at this rate.

Me and several of my like minded patriot brethren will be right there beside you brother. PM sent.

[murphy.kenji]

It's been called "creep". The insidious, patient erosion of rights where they cannot be stolen in one fell move. The easiest comparison (co-opted from a smarter man than myself) is with cigarettes.

When I was a child, there was smoking on airplanes. Maybe they had a 'smoking section', I don't know. Twenty years ago I visited a shopping mall in Pennsylvania which still had standing ashtrays in the hallways. Ten years ago there was smoking in bars and restaurants.

Today, cigarettes are taxed to oblivion and illegal to smoke in most public and common areas.

I've never been a smoker. I have to admit that I appreciate leaving restaurants and bars without the stink of tobacco on my clothes and in my lungs. However, I've always felt a little reluctant about the way that the right to make the (admittedly poor) decision to dmoke was gradually eroded. This is how the change occurs, with a whimper rather than a bang, with the slow but inexorable crawl of a glacier, as they gently lift your rights (in this case, your human right to defend your own life) from your fingers and extinguish them.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[shda5582]

Just because you are completely uninformed about NRA activities to protect gun rights in California doesn't mean "the NRA doesn't do a thing to help" gun owners in California.



Read this sticky thread and inform yourself http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=832289

I pulled the filings for the first 3 cases (don't have time to pull the rest, at work) and in all of them the NRA is NOT listed as being in the plaintiff section in the initial filing. They come later on, supporting the case and putting their name on it only after it's been working through the courts and it looks like it's going to be a guaranteed win. How is that supporting the case when they aren't even on it from the beginning?

[ProlificARProspect]

"Silver lining" doesn't mean "it's good." It means the law is coming whether we want it or not, so we might look for any positive that might be there, even if for a couple of years.

It's really pathetic to say it, but no BB for a couple of years followed by confiscation is indeed better than straight confiscation.

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

It's your RKBA! Did you know you typed that great philosophical sentence because your right of free speech?

It's a constitutional right the keep and bear arms. I doubt you would freely give up your money, car, house, career, or family if the state "confiscates" them. The state is Armed with missiles, planes, tanks and a armada of troops that will follow orders to arrest or kill it's own citizens if necessary for the government. We counter the threat of a all out tyrinical gov with our little army of bullet button equipped rifles, that is our only buffer zone left.

[BluNorthern]

For the weak minded individuals that think this is a good thing because you will get rid of your bullet button, your wrong. This is a tyrannical state declaring all out war of its law abiding citizens..

Every single time something like this comes along we have those here saying "this could be a good thing...this could be a good thing"

Weak minded is right!

[stix213]

"Silver lining" doesn't mean "it's good." It means the law is coming whether we want it or not, so we might look for any positive that might be there, even if for a couple of years.

It's really pathetic to say it, but no BB for a couple of years followed by confiscation is indeed better than straight confiscation.

Exactly. Silver lining means it is overall bad but here is something to be taken advantage nonetheless. People need to stop confusing the meaning of that phrase. The two I see are the reopening of the AW registry and the ban from sale of all detachable mag semi autos makes for a potentially much easier target to fight a court case on common use grounds.

I was never optimistic we could win before because it was so easy to just change your configuration and get whatever you want here still. A handful of banned by name firearms and some combination of features banned doesn't make for a convincing argument. But with an entire class of firearms banned, the same as in Heller, we may just get the attention of the SCOTUS, and if we're lucky the opinion gets written by one of the conservative justices and settles AWB issues.

[e90bmw]

I know facts and data are inconvenient for politicians, but are there statistics as to how many people in Ca each year are killed by AR/Ak, etc. rifles? And how many of those rifles are acquired legally and are legally configured?

Waste of taxpayers money to have these clowns dealing with what is probably much ado about very little.

For the non factual answer to this type of legislation I have two words: Leland Yee.

First and foremost how will this in any way change gun violence? It won't.
They seem to want the public to believe that, someone that is already on their way to commit a murder or other criminal act won't violate all the laws in between and the murder, etc.

They also have ignored the fact that more people are killed with hands and feet than with long rifles every year. This is from the FBI statistics.
They also ignore that overall gun violence is down, see the CDC and FBI statistics.

With that being said, they can't factually claim that this is about gun or public safety. It's all about the hate and destruction of the 2A.

Hopefully Brown will veto this like he did the other in the past.
Otherwise - I will not register. I will buy an AR Mag Lock instead.
I will convert to side charge uppers and remove the gas tube.
I will not register as AW!

Every semi-auto rifle is now an assault weapon now. ALL FEATURES HAVE BEEN DROPPED! If it's got a mag, is't an assault weapon!

[Milsurp Collector]

I pulled the filings for the first 3 cases (don't have time to pull the rest, at work) and in all of them the NRA is NOT listed as being in the plaintiff section in the initial filing. They come later on, supporting the case and putting their name on it only after it's been working through the courts and it looks like it's going to be a guaranteed win. How is that supporting the case when they aren't even on it from the beginning?

Did you skip over the part about the NRA employing a full-time lobbyist in Sacramento, retaining a California law firm to aid in legal challenges to California gun laws, and assisting in challenges to local gun ordinances?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=845492

You claimed the NRA isn't doing anything to help California gun owners, and that simply isn't true.

[kygen]

Any moles lurking here are probably laughing their asses off at us. We are so divided.

[sl0re10]

Any moles lurking here are probably laughing their asses off at us. We are so divided.

maybe; but this is how most unmanaged face to face meetings go.

pretty normal.


Also; not all of it is division. Some exchange of info going on in these posts too. Yes; its pretty much all semi autos. Yes; its your 80. Yes; you can't sell it down the line.