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

[BucDan]

Oh wait, just read Cnynrat's reasoning...makes sense on the broader.

[rogervzv]

Seems to me that it definitely goes beyond just the mag tools. For example, I would think it would make it illegal to possess the standard mag release button and related parts that came with your lower parts kit. I know I have a few of those tucked away somewhere.

I agree with you.

I read the analysis by Jason Davis, and I understand their argument that SB249 could be construed to be extremely broad. Quite disturbing, but not entirely surprising, that such a poorly written bill can be brought forward.

Don't get me wrong; I am against this bill. But I believe that to say that it bans bullet button rifles is simply wrong. It bans mag tools and the like, or, as you say, a kit that lets you reconvert your BB rifle to non-BB.

In practice what this bill would do in practical terms (in my opinion) is: a) let the DA hassle the guys at gun shows who sell mag tools; b) let the cops nail you if they catch you at the range using a mag tool or the like. Neither scenario particularly worries me.

There is always the risk that a crusading DA will use this bill to hassle someone, such as a gun store. But I doubt it will happen. (Although in this screwed up Democrat state, who knows?).

[BucDan]

True, but after seeing the wording interpreted on the broader sense, it could easily hit the mag catch and mag spring. Which would lead us to welding in the mags and top loading... Yuck

[TacticalPlinker]

Signed. I don't Facebook or Tweet.

I'll second that motion.

Why can't we have these types of petitions and websites for every other anti-gun bill in California? I only saw 60 signatures on the 1st petition though.

[wildhawker]

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

[xgi1991]

Signed and shared, me and the wife

[rogervzv]

Roger,

I decline to join your analysis.

.....

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.

[USMCM16A2]

Legal Analysis by Jason Davis

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

[Lone_Gunman]

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

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

[USMCM16A2]

Legal Analysis

Roger,




Are you a lawyer?. No sarcasm intended, just curious about other folks ideas, always willing to hear another side of a story. A2

[jrwhitt]

Signed and shared.

[wildhawker]

For what it's worth, "in my opinion" generally precedes or follows a statement that is otherwise unsupported.

To underestimate the reach of the bill is to not have experience defending innocent Californians.

-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.

[taperxz]

Regardless of what your opinion is on the bill, theses kinds of bills tend to grow like a cancer. Never underestimate the power of a law that seems vague but matastisizes in a judges mind.

[rogervzv]

Roger,

Are you a lawyer?. No sarcasm intended, just curious about other folks ideas, always willing to hear another side of a story. A2

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.

[rogervzv]

For what it's worth, "in my opinion" generally precedes or follows a statement that is otherwise unsupported.

To underestimate the reach of the bill is to not have experience defending innocent Californians.

-Brandon

Kind of interesting, since the words, "in my opinion" precede all audit reports issued by CPAs. (Or I should say "we CPAs." ).

In any case I gave you my reasoning, so the above comment by wildhawker is inapplicable.