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

[Calplinker]

SB-249

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I still don't understand what the realistic threat is from this bill.

I just don't see any mechanism for them to use to:

1. Ban Bullet button either by legislation or administrative fiat.
2. Render currently owned BB equipped rifles illegal WITHOUT a new registration period or compensation.

While I fully expect them to try to do both, I just can't see a path for them to be able to accomplish this in a way that passes judicial muster.

Granted, we'd prefer to defeat the bill before it becomes law, thereby avoiding the risks and costs, but again, I just don't see a path for them to accomplish their goals.

What am I missing?

[Mr.Sandman]

Sorry if I missed it, but what day is the appropriations hearing? Will there be audio available or do we need to attend in person?

[wildhawker]

Nice!
Been hoping for that, well done

All in my spare time after bplvr said I needed to get on it.

-Brandon

[XD40SUBBIE]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I still don't understand what the realistic threat is from this bill.

I just don't see any mechanism for them to use to:

1. Ban Bullet button either by legislation or administrative fiat.
2. Render currently owned BB equipped rifles illegal WITHOUT a new registration period or compensation.

While I fully expect them to try to do both, I just can't see a path for them to be able to accomplish this in a way that passes judicial muster.

Granted, we'd prefer to defeat the bill before it becomes law, thereby avoiding the risks and costs, but again, I just don't see a path for them to accomplish their goals.

What am I missing?

They are calling them conversion kits. Which is not defined in the bill. So the obvious goal will be to go after anything that makes a "fixed" magazine detachable in any way - Bullet button. In essence getting rid of the "scary" AR-style rifles for no virtue other than Yee and KCBS are "afraid" of them.

Here's the counter logic to SB249.

Yee said in the PS committee hearing that this bill needs to be enacted immediately. Because he fears that he will wake up one day and "children" and women" and oh, yeah "men" will die!

Strong intuition there, our distinguished Senator has. Statistically speaking, of course, he, I, you wake up daily and some child, woman or man dies. In aggregate since 1984, only .20% of those deaths or assaults or crimes can be attributed to semi-automatic rifles legal or illegal. So where's the immediate need?

IF YEE really wants to prevent children and women and men and pets from dying tomorrow, he needs to concentrate on the most likely cause of deaths in CA, the country or even the world; Car Accidents.

So taking what we know of SB249 and applying it to what we know about car accidents - it is twice more likely for someone to get into an accident when they are distracted, by cell phone use, eating, and doing makeup. Now, we have a law that carries a fine, and the violation of which becomes an infraction; the texting/cell phone use while driving laws. However, if you are using a handsfree or bluetooth device, you are able to make calls. So essentially in this analogy, a handsfree and/or bluetooth device acts like the bullet button. In that, it allows a driver to have a phone call in the car.

Further, a cup holder in the car encourages drinking, eating while in the car. Make up mirrors allow for the driver to see themselves by flipping the sun visor to apply their make up.

With that said, should we ban these items? How about DVD players and navigation systems? After all, they make it twice as likely to cause death among the number one cause of death in the state, heck, the world. Do we ban cars for the bluetooth device inside them? If Yee's greatest fear, which is so great that he wrote this law to protect children, women and men from death, then he needs to go after the main cause of their deaths? So why do we have SB249 again?

[Calplinker]

No offense but that doesn't answer my question at all. I could care less about how "bad" Yee is or about DVD players, etc.

What legal path can they take to ban BB's that will pass judicial muster?

I just can't see it, nor do I see a path for them to "take" property without compensation.

Simply isn't going to happen.

[madcatsden]

XD40SUBBIE I liked your post and appreciate your message.

I also signed both links and hope this makes a difference.

I was pretty scared by this SB but am glad that it strictly talks about mag-magnets and not bullet buttoned AR's.

I still hope, obviously, it doesn't pass but at least it is not as much doom and gloom as it's being portrayed as.

[Uxi]

Steinberg's purpose is clear: give the AG the power to treat bullet buttons as a nuisance through regulatory powers. In effective constructive possession. You can argue it in court all you want. You'll lose your weapons, go to jail, and start dipping into any savings until the ADA of your local county uses limitless resources to coerce you into a plea to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars in your defense and maybe get them back. If you're lucky and don't end up in front of a jury full of public employees who think the weapons are evil and you're just as bad for not trusting the police to protect you anyway.

Your example will make most of us get rid of ours or bury them in the back yard or move to Free States while the latest lawsuit gets stalled indefinitely on a case pending in the 9th Circuit that everything else gets to tied to... hoping it actually gets resolved, much less addresses the core principles of the RTKBA.

[XD40SUBBIE]

No offense but that doesn't answer my question at all. I could care less about how "bad" Yee is or about DVD players, etc.

What legal path can they take to ban BB's that will pass judicial muster?

I just can't see it, nor do I see a path for them to "take" property without compensation.

Simply isn't going to happen.

sorry, I got caught up in my preaching...I thought I answered you with my first line. The bill bans conversion kits - which is undefined as to what those are. Other than they will allow an otherwise fixed magazine to be detachable - does that sound like a bullet button and/or similar device? Further, the law says, if you are caught with one, you will be a criminal. Fined $50, I think it was for the first "conversion kit" and confiscation and destruction of the device. If found on your rifle, your rifle is confiscated and gets destroyed.

But My point is that that's just the beginning the ultimate goal is to get rid of the AR's all together. How? If you can't figure out a way to sell a compliant AR or if it would be cost prohibitive to sell an AR to CA, then essentially, it will go away from here.

As for confiscation without compensation, it appears to be a violation of the 5A, which states that the government cannot take private property for public use without compensation. But that would be up the courts to decide.

[Calplinker]

Nuisance

Steinberg's purpose is clear: give the AG the power to treat bullet buttons as a nuisance through regulatory powers. In effective constructive possession. You can argue it in court all you want. You'll lose your weapons, go to jail, and start dipping into any savings until the ADA of your local county uses limitless resources to coerce you into a plea to avoid spending tens of thousands of dollars in your defense and maybe get them back. If you're lucky and don't end up in front of a jury full of public employees who think the weapons are evil and you're just as bad for not trusting the police to protect you anyway.

Okay, now that approach I fully understand, but still don't see how they would be successful at this.

Hasn't Hoffmag assured us again and again that there is no way for CalDOJ to undo their finding that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed mag?? Hasn't CalDOJ told the legislature that they don't have the power to administratively ban them and the "solution" must come from the legislature?

I remember reading time and again about how their has never been a successful prosecution of a BB equipped rifle for good reason. Every time they try, our side lawyers up and they drop the case because they know a BB equates to a fixed mag, per the law.

Banning BB's is exactly what Yee is trying to do, but the way I see it, they have boxed themselves into a corner.

What they want is either an administrative solution, or to write a law that legislatively re-defines a "fixed" magazine in a fashion that would ban the bullet button.

The current law, as written is so vague it will never pass judicial muster even if it were to pass and Brown to sign it, which I doubt.

Personally, I think it is written so vaguely, because they have no idea how to write it to accomplish what they really want.

If I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out a way to LEGALLY get to where they want to be, I just don't see a path. Every proposed solution would either be blocked with a lawsuit, or worse yet (from their perspective), open up yet another AW registration window.

Again, unless I'm missing something, I see them boxed into a corner of their own making.

[XD40SUBBIE]

Okay, now that approach I fully understand, but still don't see how they would be successful at this.

Hasn't Hoffmag assured us again and again that there is no way for CalDOJ to undo their finding that a BB equipped rifle is a fixed mag?? Hasn't CalDOJ told the legislature that they don't have the power to administratively ban them and the "solution" must come from the legislature?

I remember reading time and again about how their has never been a successful prosecution of a BB equipped rifle for good reason. Every time they try, our side lawyers up and they drop the case because they know a BB equates to a fixed mag, per the law.

Banning BB's is exactly what Yee is trying to do, but the way I see it, they have boxed themselves into a corner.

What they want is either an administrative solution, or to write a law that legislatively re-defines a "fixed" magazine in a fashion that would ban the bullet button.

The current law, as written is so vague it will never pass judicial muster even if it were to pass and Brown to sign it, which I doubt.

Personally, I think it is written so vaguely, because they have no idea how to write it to accomplish what they really want.

If I try to put myself in their shoes and figure out a way to LEGALLY get to where they want to be, I just don't see a path. Every proposed solution would either be blocked with a lawsuit, or worse yet (from their perspective), open up yet another AW registration window.

Again, unless I'm missing something, I see them boxed into a corner of their own making.

I would be surprised if Hoffmag can give that assurance. There's no such thing as a policy or law they cannot undo. Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS has ruled on this 39 years ago and we still have people talking about overturning it.

The point is that the CADOJ may have agreed to the bullet button as a legal exemption to the CA definition of what an assault rifle is. However, SB249 aims to reverse that by making the very thing that makes it not an AW illegal, which subsequently makes the rifle illegal. This is pretty clear as Amanda Wilcox stated that she wants stronger amendments from the DOJ. So if this is not sufficient to get rid of the rifle, then Amanda requests that the CADOJ add language to be further prohibitive.

There may not have been successful prosecution of the BB to date, because we never had a law that specifically bans "conversion kits" that converts an otherwise fixed magazine semi-automatic rifle into a detachable magazine rifle. What does the BB do? Prohibits access to the mag release with your finger. But when you use a tool or a button, you can release or detach the magazine. SB249 aims to get rid of that ability.

Of course, the avenues to enforcement would lead to court room visits, that's the beauty of our justice system. Had that ever stopped a bill from becoming law? The bad part is IF you or I or anyone else here gets to be the champ and takes it for the team to spend the money and the time and the resources to fight it in court? That's why I said previously to fight this with our wallets. We will need to build up some funds to pay for the litigation, should this get past Governor Brown.

[Calplinker]

Legal

The bill bans conversion kits - which is undefined as to what those are. Other than they will allow an otherwise fixed magazine to be detachable - does that sound like a bullet button and/or similar device?

No need to apologize, I don't mind preaching.

I completely understand their goal and how they are trying to accomplish it. I just don't see the bill, as written, having a snowball's chance in **** of ever becoming law without being blocked and eventually overturned as unconstitutionally vague.

Even if they pull off a miracle of logic and somehow craft language that re-define's a "fixed magazine", or even eliminating the whole "fixed magazine" language from the statute, they can't get around the issue of "taking" our existing rifles without compensation or opening up a new registration period.

Similiarly, I don't see an administrative way for them to declare BB equipped rifles in violation of current law. They've run from this legal encounter for years as they know that dog won't hunt.

Again, I understand what they want to do, but just don't see a path for them to get there that has any chance at all of becoming reality.

[XD40SUBBIE]

No need to apologize, I don't mind preaching.

, having a snowball's chance in **** of ever becoming law without being blocked and eventually overturned as unconstitutionally vague.

Again, this has not stopped other bills before. Hell, the xn is constitutionally vague! But again, that is not for the assembly, the senate or even the governor to decide that's for either the CASC or the SCOTUS. After hearing the PS committee meeting, I am fairly doubtful anyone in office have the ability to spell Constitution, define it, nonetheless interpret if a bill is within its confines.

[JSolie]

Or you can do it the 2012 way and we'll submit a hard copy letter on our dime via http://stopsb249.org/send-a-letter.

-Brandon

Already done, good sir!

[wjc]

Hey Brandon,

I gotta tell you this one stop shop for the petitions, letters, and addresses at stopsb249.org is brilliant!

It makes it a lot easier to push an organized effort against/for legislation.

Thanks again to all for creating it!

[Uxi]

I don't think whether it'll pass constitutional muster even enters their thought processes.