SB 124: 2011 DeLeon Ammunition Bill

[Librarian]

Sadly, in California very few of our politicians are at all "on edge".

It's perfectly appropriate to write to the legislators elected from the district in which one lives. (Note that I very carefully avoided saying 'legislators who represent you'.) I believe it is important that the legislators receive communications from their constituents.

Unfortunately, neither pleas based on emotion nor arguments based on facts appear to sway those elected folks. And it further appears there are not enough of "us" to affect re-election funding, the only factor that seems to get the attention of the elected.

[Falconis]

I wrote both my state senator and assembly person. I'll post whatever they write back.

[Jack L]

The DOJ? Led by Kamala Harris? Discourage them from acting on an anti-gun bill??

Yeah, I have a life sized picture of that...

She's not the only person up there. It's a waste of resources and the public can point that out. A poorly written bill that is allowed to move forward. That is was what was in my mind. Jerry keeps saying he wants to cut waste. No time like now to do it.

And those in LE that support this bill instead of getting mentally ill into the system and issues like that are just farting at the moon.

[ZombieTactics]

Someone needs to start a database or list of how much money the State(s) and Federal government are wasting in the process of enacting and defending unconstitutional laws ... only to lose in court.

As far as I am concerned, every time a 2A issue is concerned, it's a matter of "human rights" or "civil rights".

The eventual result could be the ability to form succinct messages conveying the central point of the issue: "DeLeon wasted X million dollars of taxpayer money trying to take away your civil rights".

[jdberger]

Sadly, in California very few of our politicians are at all "on edge".

It's perfectly appropriate to write to the legislators elected from the district in which one lives. (Note that I very carefully avoided saying 'legislators who represent you'.) I believe it is important that the legislators receive communications from their constituents.

Unfortunately, neither pleas based on emotion nor arguments based on facts appear to sway those elected folks. And it further appears there are not enough of "us" to affect re-election funding, the only factor that seems to get the attention of the elected.

I dunno.

CGN has about 50,000 members. 5,000 are "active".

If each of the Active members write one letter explaining:

• This bill has been introduced almost every year for the past 10
• This bill has constantly been rejected as unworkable and most recently as unconstitutional
• It costs the State money to defend bills like this from legal challenges
• California is in a fiscal crisis - surely the money could be better spent elsewhere
• Failure to understand the above calls into question the Legislator's qualifications
• If the Legislator insists on supporting this bill, I will promise to donate at least $100 to his opponent's campaign

I realize that DeLeon's opponent isn't going to win on a Gun Rights platform. He might even be anti-gun, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE is better than DeLeon.

If we can start putting The Fear into them that they might lose their cars and per diems and health insurance and lunches for actively supporting gun control, maybe we can get them to shy away from it...

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?

[kcbrown]

I realize that DeLeon's opponent isn't going to win on a Gun Rights platform. He might even be anti-gun, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE is better than DeLeon.

Be careful what you wish for.

It is possible to get someone worse than DeLeon: just find someone who is anti-gun and competent (or, at least, more competent).

If we can start putting The Fear into them that they might lose their cars and per diems and health insurance and lunches for actively supporting gun control, maybe we can get them to shy away from it...

In the end, what does it cost us? A hundred bucks?

We can throw our weight around if we want to. Shouldn't we?

Yep.

Except that I suspect the numbers aren't on our side. With 5,000 active CGN members, you'd get at most $500K worth of donations to the other side, spread across however many politicians you're talking about. That's assuming every active CGN member puts in money, and that it averages to $100 per member.

The donations from a few wealthy anti-gun types would easily exceed that.


In the face of the incredible disparity of wealth today (and I'm not saying that said wealth should be forcibly redistributed or any nonsense like that. I'm just pointing out that said disparity exists and has real effects), grass roots efforts cannot win if money alone is the measure of or path to success.

[Quser.619]

I've written & called all of my state reps & none could less about my opinion. In fact I had one tell me that AB962 would actually improve the health-care because it would reduce the number of shooting victims. The conversation was politely discontinued when I asked where she got those figures. They simple do not care about facts, it's their opinions alone that matter

[Kyle1886]

"...This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
phrase to read "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
armor."
---

In using the generic term "metal", isn't that just as vague and nondescript as some of the language in AB926? I doubt that there are very few handgun rounds that will not penetrate some gauge of "metal". Isn't there already a law on the books that prohibit "purpose built, armor piercing" ammo use in weapons in CA.? Sorry if I'm being dense, but this bill sounds as if is designed to put all handgun ammo in the armor piercing category. Am I incorrect?

Respectfully
Kyle

[keefbeef]

IANAL, but that phrasing concerned me as well. What round couldn't penetrate some gauge of "metal?" Are we talking aluminum foil or steel plate? Is rimfire being targeted as well?

At first glance, it looked to me as an attempt to ban all ammunition again by classifying them as AP. But what do I know? IANAL

[CalBear]

IANAL, but that phrasing concerned me as well. What round couldn't penetrate some gauge of "metal?" Are we talking aluminum foil or steel plate? Is rimfire being targeted as well?

At first glance, it looked to me as an attempt to ban all ammunition again by classifying them as AP. But what do I know? IANAL

It's so vague the CA DOJ under Kamala Harris would just classify "penetrate metal" as penetrate aluminum foil.

[Drey]

Still vague as to what is Armor Piercing and what is Handgun Ammo.
Lame.

"use of ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor"

Any ammo will penetrate metal. ANY!
Thats what he is after. MF

[stix213]

From my reading of this I don't see how it does anything other than criminalize all rifle rounds, since there is a pistol that chambers all rifle rounds and all rifle rounds can penetrate typical police body armor. The definition of "handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" appears to encompass all rifle rounds period. The updated definition is below, bolding is done by me to follow my reasoning for the above statement.

SEC. 4. Section 16660 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
16660. As used in this part, "handgun ammunition designed
primarily to penetrate metal or armor" means any
ammunition, except a shotgun shell or ammunition primarily
designed for use in a rifle , that is designed
primarily to penetrate capable of penetrating a
body vest or body shield when discharged from a handgun ,
and has either of the following characteristics:
(a) Has projectile or projectile core constructed entirely,
excluding the presence of traces of other substances, from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, beryllium copper,
or depleted uranium, or any equivalent material of similar density
or hardness.
(b) Is primarily manufactured or designed, by
virtue of its shape, cross-sectional density, or any coating applied
thereto, including, but not limited to, ammunition commonly known as
"KTW ammunition," to breach or penetrate a body vest or body shield
when fired from a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person.

Pretty much all rifle rounds are capable of penetrating a shield or standard police soft armor when fired from a pistol, and as such are manufactured using a shape or density capable of doing so. I don't see any other way of reading this.

Another point I didn't bold is that ALL steel core rifle ammo will also fall within this definition for certain.

The definition of "body vest' is also pretty open:

(c) As used in this section, "body vest" means any
bullet-resistant material intended to provide ballistic and trauma
protection for the wearer.

This obviously would mean the lowest rating of body armor is the threshold. All 9mm FMJ target rounds for example should also qualify since they can penetrate Type I vests by virtue of the bullet's shape.

Type I protects against up to .380 ACP, so anything more powerful should be illegal under this law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest#Performance_standards

EDIT: Just for clarity I'd like to point out that the "body vest" definition is existing law I believe, not new in this bill. What is new though is that all of the uses of the word "primarily" are being struck (I'm sure due our recent unconstitutional win that used that word). So currently a handgun round needs to be primarily made to penetrate even the weakest armor, when this new version is just really a check on if it can penetrate based on how I am reading it. Pretty big difference.

[Jack L]

From my reading of this I don't see how it does anything other than criminalize all rifle rounds, since there is a pistol that chambers all rifle rounds and all rifle rounds can penetrate typical police body armor. The definition of "handgun ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor" appears to encompass all rifle rounds period. The updated definition is below, bolding is done by me to follow my reasoning for the above statement.



Pretty much all rifle rounds are capable of penetrating a shield or standard police soft armor when fired from a pistol, and as such are manufactured using a shape or density capable of doing so. I don't see any other way of reading this.

Another point I didn't bold is that ALL steel core rifle ammo will also fall within this definition for certain.

The definition of "body vest' is also pretty open:



This obviously would mean the lowest rating of body armor is the threshold. All 9mm FMJ target rounds for example should also qualify since they can penetrate Type I vests by virtue of the bullet's shape.

Type I protects against up to .380 ACP, so anything more powerful should be illegal under this law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballist...ance_standards

So what next? DeLeon would want to ban all handguns that can chamber any round also used by a rifle? This bill does not detail specifics. It's almost like half the bill was not handed in, the half with all the detailed specifics. The SCOTUS would cut SB-124 to ribbons and trash it..

[oni.dori]

This bill could outlaw hunting rifle ammo. Once you mess with hunters, that's another group that often has many silent players. They too would come out in force to join forces against this nonsense.

See, and all this time, I figured that hunters and their organizations would be involved already too, because they would fall under 2nd Amendment rights as well. Man, just imagine what could happen if we awoke that sleeping giant as well...

[tabrisnet]

I would ask that the members o this board (and those that are not members) refrain from vandalizing any wikipedia articles regarding this or any other legislator or bill.

I've restored about as much of the article as I can about DeLeon's part in the AB962 crapfest, but I also know that I can't keep going back in and fixing it. Further, I'm sure that I did not do the best job on editing it today.