overnight accidental felons in communistCalifornia

[Ubermcoupe]

Does anyone know when and where this was first aired on TV, and by whom?

One of the interviewed mentions the "recent passing of SB23", so I am guessing early 2000s

[ScottB]

More like 1999-2000

I still don't understand why an SKS with a detachable mag is treated any differently than an M1 Carbine

[unusedusername]

The State AG lost the ability to add to the SB23 list sometime back due to the passing of another law.

This is a good reminder of where we were 10 years ago, but we are more on the winning side of things now. We just have to keep it up.

[Cokebottle]

The State AG lost the ability to add to the SB23 list sometime back due to the passing of another law.

2006 the DOJ's "window" to add new lowers to the list was closed.

And that is the ironic thing (and the origin of the whole "two weeks" meme here on CGN).

SB23 banned by feature, but the lists were still open.
The DOJ... Alison, Iggy, and their cronies along with final approval from Lockyer... could have added every new lower that was built to the list for almost 6 years.
Alison and Iggy came to gun shows, looked at the lowers for sale, and said that they would be on the list in "two weeks"

They never appeared on the list. No lowers were added after the 1999 ban.
2006, the list was locked, Iggy blew a gasket and put a slug into his desk. Ultimately, the "Bureau" of Firearms was reduced to a "department" under Brown.

[JoeJinKY]

You guys are forgetting that other state have gone farther than California. In fact, in several states mere possession of a +10 or +15 round magazine is a felony. Yep, states like HI NJ and MA went retroactive on magazines as well as ownership of certain firearms.

So ... if the gu'mint stabs you with a 10" knife, you should be grateful that they're not stabbing you with a 12" knife like the other states? GET REAL.

[repubconserv]

I can not wait for CGF and the others to slap the dog shi... snot.... out of CA and it's retarded gun laws

[CSACANNONEER]

So ... if the gu'mint stabs you with a 10" knife, you should be grateful that they're not stabbing you with a 12" knife like the other states? GET REAL.

Get a clue. I was commenting on the post below. Note the word "only"??? Obviously, California is not the only state that does this. Maybe a little reading comprehension is in order then, maybe you will be able to "get real".

Only in California can you be following the law one day and the next day, with no change in your actions, you are a felon

[donw]

i think the California state legislature has a history of creating more problems than they solve, don't they?

[Wherryj]

Only in California can you be following the law one day and the next day, with no change in your actions, you are a felon

Not only in CA unfortunately. New York has made "examples" of several people traveling legally with weapons into felons.

[Untamed1972]

I always wondered why these laws were not challengable as being unconstitutional with regard to the USCONs prohibition on "retroactive law making"?

[scrat]

Wow pretty sad

[Uxi]

The State AG lost the ability to add to the SB23 list sometime back due to the passing of another law.

This is a good reminder of where we were 10 years ago, but we are more on the winning side of things now. We just have to keep it up.

I'm mixed, but it I think continual registration would ultimately be preferable to BB's, though obviously not as ideal as a complete lack of infringement.

[fonso]

I always wondered why these laws were not challengable as being unconstitutional with regard to the USCONs prohibition on "retroactive law making"?

Me, too. Especially since both the U.S. and the California Constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws from being enacted!!!

[Kid Stanislaus]

Not only this, but only in California can it be made retroactive as well.

Pardon the live'n snot out of me but isen't that an ex post facto law?

[Untamed1972]

Me, too. Especially since both the U.S. and the California Constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws from being enacted!!!

At a minimum one should be immune from prosecution for posession of the now prohibited item. If it was legally purchased and later banned the most they should be subject to is confiscation of the item. Not that I agree with that either....but you shouldnt be prosecuted if it was legal when you obtained it.