The STOP SB 249 (Yee) Campaign: Moves fwd to Appropriations Cmte - Back to Work!!

[Johnnyfres]

Rogervzv, so on this thread your stating that you believe the bill states nothing about the bullet button in itself and only applies to mag-magnet type of devices.

But on the Yee mega thread you stated this?

This thread is a monster. Can't make heads or tails of it. Could someone summarize where things are? Are we in serious danger of losing the Bullet Button exemption or not?

It seems like you, yourself are unsure. If you are unsure sign the petition and be done with it. We do not want to feed any more information to the anti's.

[HowardW56]

Yes. I did it at my longer post in this thread. The bill a) is civil not criminal; and b) read correctly, simply bans magnetic BB tools and the like. The histrionic language in this analysis just seems silly to me.

Here is my earlier analysis:
According to the bill’s text, “a conversion kit means either of the following:

(1) Any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed and intended to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following: (A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515. (B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515. (C) Paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.

(2) Any part that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, is designed solely and exclusively to convert that firearm into an assault weapon as defined by one of the following: (A) Paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515. (B) Paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515. (C) Paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 30515.”

... what I get out of it is that this text would ban bullet button magnetic tools. A bullet button magnetic tool, when affixed to a bullet button rifle, arguably converts it to an assault weapon because then you can arguably remove the magazine without the "use of a tool." Of course there is the old argument that the magnetic tool is a tool and thus you have not turned your rifle into an assault weapon. This stupid bill is trying rather inarticulately to close this argument.

Put it this way. Under current law it is pretty well established that a typical black rifle with a bullet button is not an assault rifle because it does not have a detachable magazine (the bb renders it non-detachable). Nothing in the above text changes this (does it?).

What the above text prohibits is parts or combinations of parts that convert an otherwise non-assault weapon (i.e. our present BB rifles) into an assault weapon. That would be a part that essentially made the bullet button function without a tool, i.e. a bullet button magnetic attachment device.

If the weapon is not converted into an "assault weapon" then the parts are not covered by this bill. Thus, Mini 14s would be fine under the above language, black rifles with BBs would be OK as long as no part "converted them to assault weapons." Well right now it is illegal to possess a (non-grandfathered) assault weapon anyway. This bill appears to simply ban parts that subvert the BB such as those magnetic BB tools that actually attach to the BB and make it usable without the use of a tool.

Hope this helped.

Roger,

I decline to join your analysis.

Penal code 17(a) makes a violation of the proposed law a misdemeanor since the proscribed conduct addressed in the Yee SB 249 bill is not listed as an infraction ("A felony is a crime that is punishable with death, by imprisonment in the state prison, or notwithstanding any other provision of law, by imprisonment in a county jail under the provisions of subdivision (h) of Section 1170. Every other crime or public offense is a misdemeanor except those offenses that are classified as infractions.")

As for the scope of the bill, a flash suppressor is a part. A pistol grip is also a part. Those parts are listed as assault weapon features. If affixed to a firearm, the firearm can become an assault weapon. There is nothing in the Yee bill that says the combination of parts have to make an "unlawful" assault weapon - just an assault weapon.

Nor does it [SB 249] say that the parts have to be affixed, just that they make an assault weapon "when" affixed to the firearm As such, it applies to the parts alone. Thus, the only issue here would be the design and intent of the parts. That would be left for the jury to decide. That is a very dangerous position for the public.

With cases like People v. Rooney applying twisted analysis of firearm laws, such a broad interpretation is more likely in California than not. For those who doubt, one only need look to the People v. Nguyen matter currently on appeal addressing the issue of "attempted" possession and "attempted" manufacture of an assault weapon for possessing disassembled and incomplete parts of an unlisted AK kit.

In conclusion, I believe that the Davis analysis and our approach to the matter is both sound and prudent. You are, of course, welcome to disagree. I'm happy to review any substantive argument with legal citation you would care to offer for discussion.

-Brandon

Well, I agree with your approach to the matter. As I have said, I oppose this bill. But I do not agree with the Davis analysis. It is simply wrong. The idea that the text, as written, would apply to flash suppressors and whatnot is incorrect in my opinion. I have already given you my substantive argument. My cites are contained on the flowchart available on this site which state that a bullet button magazine is not a detachable magazine under California law. Nothing in this wretched SB249 changes that.

The posts above just reinforce how potentially dangerous this bill is. Jason Davis detailed analysis of the bill and rogervzv's review (this isn't a shot at rogervzv, he hasn't indicated how detailed his review was), but my point is that two attorneys can't agree on what it means...

I put more faith in Jason Davis' analysis; the reasoning for that is that his legal practice is centered in this area of the law and he knows it well... I do not know what rogervzv area of practice is.

Regardless which attorney is correct we wouldn't know with any certanty what this bill means, if this bill becomes law, until someone is tried and there is an appeal.

How is the average gun owner going to know where they stand legally?

[Carnivore]

Can someone please explain the need to call this "Yee" tool or write his office? The guy is a zealot and nothing we say can possibly change his mind. I understand letting others know about the possible side effects of the law etc but contacting Yee to me is like trying to get the pope to renounce god as fake. It just looks to me like a complete waste of time better spent on other endeavors.

[wildhawker]

As I understand their comments, poster rogervzv is a CPA.

In any case, it's unfortunate that they continue to reinforce their lack of legal knowledge and experience in California gun law matters by arguing silly positions that have been quite explicitly - and totally - undermined by the facts.

ETA: Their total misrepresentation of the criminal liability aspect is a rather large tell.

-Brandon

[taperxz]

It so happens. Nothing in any of my posts shall be construed as legal advice to anyone or which may be relied upon by anyone.

Any one with a screen name on a public forum can call themselves a lawyer.

Based on reading your posts, I'm not convinced. Credentials please. It would help with the discussion at hand.

[Uxi]

Wow, this is far worse than I thought. I fully expect it to pass and Moonbeam to sign it.

[wildhawker]

So this POS bill effectively creates constructive posession of an AW in CA. I'm getting so freaking sick of these gun banners.

No, the bill does not create "constructive possession." It creates a seperate offense for possession of conversion kits. However, there is a case currently on appeal akin to 'constructive possession' of "assault weapons" that shows how far off the reservation courts can get. Especially with laws on the books like SB 249.

-Brandon

[Lone_Gunman]

What a mess. The whole AW ban has become an indecipherable rats nest. Time to throw it out.

[SpunkyJivl]

Signed, shared, liked, hard copy to be mailed, CGF donation sent. This one has GOT to be squashed with extreme prejudice.

[controlled_burst]

Signed, shared, sent and call to follow

CB

[SpunkyJivl]

Folks,



Do not let up your pressure on Yee and his gang of thugs, but there is a bright side to this in Jasons analysis. This law is so badly written, so broad, would make a whole class of weapons illegal and their owners criminals that it will not pass Constitutional muster.
A Legislator even a moron like Yee knows that you CANNOT make something retroactively illegal. You have a bullet buttoned rifle that was purchased legally, and or have a lower parts kit for an AR15 that was purchased prior to SB249 it is yours. Even if this Bill runs through all the committees all the way to Moonbeams desk and he signs it, it will be stopped at the higher court level. Just like DeLeons ammo bill. Keep up the pressure and the donations to NRA and CGF. Thanks, A2

God I love how that sounds. Gives me true hope.

Keep the pressure up!!

[rogervzv]

Rogervzv, so on this thread your stating that you believe the bill states nothing about the bullet button in itself and only applies to mag-magnet type of devices.

But on the Yee mega thread you stated this?

It seems like you, yourself are unsure. If you are unsure sign the petition and be done with it. We do not want to feed any more information to the anti's.

It seems like you are not noticing the different dates as regards the various posts. And yes, the Megathread contains more crud posts and useless stuff than you can shake a stick at. Glad shorter more informative posts are now available.

My interpretation of the bill is contained in this thread. I'm sure it is clear.

[Mesa Tactical]

What the above text prohibits is parts or combinations of parts that convert an otherwise non-assault weapon (i.e. our present BB rifles) into an assault weapon. That would be a part that essentially made the bullet button function without a tool, i.e. a bullet button mag.

I see three flaws in your analysis:

1. You seem to assume a "non-assault weapon" is necessarily an AR-15 or other black rifle already fitted with a bullet button. But so are the three stripped lower receivers in this room behind my chair. So if I have anything that can be used to build up those lowers into assault weapons (and I do, bins full of grips, magazines and lower parts kits), I could easily be in violation of this law.

2. As a matter of fact, I needn't even be in possession of the stripped lowers for the bins full of parts to be problematic.

3. "Parts or combination of parts" is broad and inclusive language, when applied to a "conversion kit." This means, for example, ANY lower parts kit you may possess, or (if I understand the language correctly), ANY components from the lower parts kit.

I agree with you this isn't the intent of the law (I don't think it is), but it's not the intent that should concern us, it's the language, and how it will be enforced once it is on the books. For just one example, if I was Brownells and I read the bill as it is today, I would never send another LPK to California.

On the other hand, I'm a little less hysterical about this than some folks. The law doesn't have to be completely defeated to neutralize it, it just needs some reworking. This is where gun rights lobbyists can come in very handy, assuming they haven't been neutralized themselves by their own constituencies' unnecessary demonizing of the legislators and staff who are needed to do this work.

[SanPedroShooter]

I see three flaws in your analysis:

1. You seem to assume a "non-assault weapon" is necessarily an AR-15 or other black rifle already fitted with a bullet button. But so are the three stripped lower receivers in this room behind my chair. So if I have anything that can be used to build up those lowers into assault weapons (and I do, bins full of grips, magazines and lower parts kits), I could easily be in violation of this law.

2. As a matter of fact, I needn't even be in possession of the stripped lowers for the bins full of parts to be problematic.

3. "Parts or combination of parts" is broad and inclusive language, when applied to a "conversion kit." This means, for example, ANY lower parts kit you may possess, or (if I understand the language correctly), ANY components from the lower parts kit.

I agree with you this isn't the intent of the law (I don't think it is), but it's not the intent that should concern us, it's the language, and how it will be enforced once it is on the books. For just one example, if I was Brownells and I read the bill as it is today, I would never send another LPK to California.

On the other hand, I'm a little less hysterical about this than some folks. The law doesn't have to be completely defeated to neutralize it, it just needs some reworking. This is where gun rights lobbyists can come in very handy, assuming they haven't been neutralized themselves by their own constituencies' unnecessary demonizing of the legislators and staff who are needed to do this work.

I dont quite get this part. Are you saying that these *** licking traitors in Sac are necessary, maybe perhaps to stop this thing, but I am not holding my breath.

Maybe like necessary evil, but I wont even give them that much credit. I think the gun lobbyist constituents have every right to demonize these 'law makers'. They deserve it and much more.

All that said, I have faith in the NRA and CRPA lobbyists, they will do what they can.... They may be our only hope to stop this before it passes. I dont think someone that suggests that California tax paying gun owners 'move to Montana' is going to be impressed by an email....

[IPSICK]

IANAL ...

But I can't say I completely disagree with Rogervzv's opinion. Unless this law is establishing constructive possession criteria, I'm unsure how this can be as far reaching as Jason Davis' analysis would suggest. However, there are also some causes for concern. One of them being that he assumes a complete ban of military style Semi automatic rifles is not Yee's intent. From his statements on TV, I fully disagree with this opinion. Additionally, the Yee bill uses fixed instead of non-detachable in the language. The former being a legal term and the latter being an industry term. If our way rifles are somehow redefined as fixed this will cause problems and I'm unaware if there is case law to support the term non-detachable. Forgive my ignorance if I have missed it somehow.

Again, IANAL so Mr. Davis' analysis is problematic to my dissent because his opinion would more closely reflect a ruling that could establish case law should this law come to pass. I do wholeheartedly agree that we must strongly oppose this bill, I'm just afraid that publication of this analysis gives as much strength to this bill as it does to our opposition of it.

Apologies if my language and writing in this post is a bit incoherent. This was sent from my phone.