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

[wildhawker]

Oh, no disagreement. Was just commenting on the "takings" issue brought up - there's a lot of other (more fundamental) arguments against this thing. It arguably outlaws almost every semiautomatic rifle designed after the Garand - and maybe even the Garand if it has a flash supressor on it - I suspect it's possible to "readily" remove the magazine on a Garand "without disassembly of the firearm action" (though I haven't done it myself and would take corrections).

I will say that, to notionally anti-gun legislators who don't recognize the 2nd Amendment, arguing that something is a "taking" that will cost a ton and/or get creamed in court is a better argument now even if the better court argument is based on the 2nd Amendment if we lose the legislative battle.

-TQ

Just to clarify for the readers and grassroots that there are two different arguments to make with respect to SB 249: [1] now, to stop the bill during the legislative process, and [2] the arguments that Brett refer to above that we would make in court should the bill pass into law.

Right now, we just need everyone focused on [1]. SB 249 is in Aprops. That is the only target. Takings and costs/compensation is the core argument at play at the present.

-Brandon

[wildhawker]

All,

Contact tools: http://stopsb249.org/take-action.

Contact information: http://stopsb249.org/contacts.

-Brandon

[wildhawker]

Anyone have any idea when SB-249 will be heard?

Aug 15 at Assembly Appropriations Committee, State Capitol, Room 2114,
Sacramento, California 95814.

-Brandon

[wildhawker]

You're ignoring what 30515 states. They may yet amend this bill again but for now it does not further alter or add to 30515. I'm going to be a little more non-specific with my answers lest Yee and Co feel like getting creative again with this bill.

Exactly.

-Brandon

[Farrier-1]

Exactly.

-Brandon

So then you agree that we are adding fuel to the fire by publicly discussing SB249 on an open public forum?

I don't see an open forum whereas Senators are discussing strategy. Nor do I see public forums that allows us to participate in NRA tactics.

Starting to wonder if loose lips, sinks ships.

Thank you for your effort Brandon - I'll donate more $ when available.

[wildhawker]

So then you agree that we are adding fuel to the fire by publicly discussing SB249 on an open public forum?

I don't see an open forum whereas Senators are discussing strategy. Nor do I see public forums that allows us to participate in NRA tactics.

Starting to wonder if loose lips, sinks ships.

Thank you for your effort Brandon - I'll donate more $ when available.

I think we don't have a choice. People *will* talk, and I'd rather they be informed. Further, we need people invested and engaged. Talking is how humans do that.

However, we don't need to give technically-inept people help. If we talk more about the core issues and stay focused on our deliverables (Take Action, "project wildfire"-type viral campaigning) we'll have less opportunity to give the other side a helping hand.

Thank you for your support and good questions.

-Brandon

[sevendayweekend]

I think we don't have a choice. People *will* talk, and I'd rather they be informed. Further, we need people invested and engaged. Talking is how humans do that.

However, we don't need to give technically-inept people help. If we talk more about the core issues and stay focused on our deliverables (Take Action, "project wildfire"-type viral campaigning) we'll have less opportunity to give the other side a helping hand.


-Brandon

well said. thank you. and thanks to calguns for everything you do.

[vincewarde]

Chill out. California is the only US state with a full-time paid NRA lobbyist. We also have a full-time paid lobbyist from CRPA (an NRA affiliate), and then there's Paul Payne who is a full time paid NRA representative here in this state.

What's more, the NRA loves to work behind the scenes. Whatever they're up to regarding this crappy bill in Sacramento, they sure aren't going to publicly talk about it. That's just not their style.

But I have absolutely no doubt that they're up to their necks fighting this bill.

+1 on the above!

We need to let the NRA work the way they work best and CALGUNS needs to keep working the way it works best. There is definately room for both.

[vincewarde]

It's no surprise that liberal media friends of Obama want bring attention to Romney in a negative light.

Yep, in hopes that gun owners will stay home.

[LoneYote]

Aug 15 at Assembly Appropriations Committee, State Capitol, Room 2114,
Sacramento, California 95814.

-Brandon

I assume that this meeting would be open to the public as was the Safety committee? I have never been to the state capitol or sat in on any kind of real legislative process meeting. I am tempted to make the long drive up there if I could have this opportunity. Perhaps other So. Cal. people might be interested in a car pool kind of thing? I just signed up so I believe you can PM me through the website if we want to get this thing going.

[vincewarde]

Here's the operative text:

"SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
***
(d)
(1) For the purposes of this section, "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. "Detachable magazine" includes a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.

(2) The Attorney General shall amend applicable regulations to bring those regulations into conformi1y with this subdivision.

(3) This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013."

-Brandon

Wow - and when Yee figures out that we can all convert to featureless, will he then find a way to ban all detachable mag semi-autos? At some point he is going to run afoul if the 2nd Amendment. I have a feeling that if we can't get Jerry Brown (who knows what he will do) to veto this bill, we will have to challenge it in the courts.

Then there is the matter of what exactly "readily removed" means. Ditto "disassembly". It probably won't affect SKS's etc - but who knows how it will be interpreted.

[JSolie]

One of my Sacramento Customers called me today to let me know that our local State Senator Ted Gaines(R) hasn't received any calls about the bill and that it isn't on his radar screen. Sacramento has a ton of Calgunners and for what it's worth, they all need to call their local state politicians as well.

Anyone else calling the local state guys here to complain about SB249??

I can attest that he has received at least one....mine! Assuming that the web contact form is working correctly.

[roushstage2]

I meant to email Ted Gaines earlier today and forgot. Doing that right now!!
ETA: Emailed Mr. Gaines and the NRA-ILA just now!

[Lugiahua]

I don't know if anyone mentioned this idea above...

But wouldn't it be helpful if we could get gun manufacturers on the topic?
consider that they could loss thousands of customer due to SB249, they would likely to be happy to join our cause.

[wildhawker]

Wow - and when Yee figures out that we can all convert to featureless, will he then find a way to ban all detachable mag semi-autos? At some point he is going to run afoul if the 2nd Amendment. I have a feeling that if we can't get Jerry Brown (who knows what he will do) to veto this bill, we will have to challenge it in the courts.

Then there is the matter of what exactly "readily removed" means. Ditto "disassembly". It probably won't affect SKS's etc - but who knows how it will be interpreted.

Shhh. You're ruining our little surprise for Monday.

-Brandon