CA bill would ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable mags


PDA






husbandofaromanian
August 11, 2013, 10:35 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/11/latest-bills-could-make-california-toughest-state-on-gun-control/

Wow...!!! Banning a complete class of firearms... I can't think of any semi-auto rifles off hand that don't use detachable magazines...

If you enjoyed reading about "CA bill would ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable mags" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Lone Haranguer
August 11, 2013, 10:58 PM
... I can't think of any semi-auto rifles off hand that don't use detachable magazines...
Tube-fed .22s are about it.

AKElroy
August 11, 2013, 11:05 PM
Quote:
... I can't think of any semi-auto rifles off hand that don't use detachable magazines...
Tube-fed .22s are about it.

This is the silly part of such laws. Both mag tubes and SKS fixed-boxes are, in fact, detachable, just not easily. Don't think they would not make the leap once they get this foolishness passed.

splithoof
August 12, 2013, 03:12 AM
^^^Exactly about forcing you to comply. We elected them to rule over us; if we don't like it we have but few options: un-elect them next go around, bring suit in court, take our chances on the street, or leave the state. The latter is likely also the most practical, but not for all. Yea, it's nothing more than words on paper, but those words can lead to steel handcuffs and vertical bars with lots of concrete.
In California, there are more voters who are more interested in what the politicians will dole out to them, and fewer and fewer who care about your piddly firearms. Vote with your feet. California is truly a lost cause.

AKElroy
August 12, 2013, 01:08 PM
We elected them to rule over us

No, we hired them to represent us and follow our dictates. As for forcing compliance, I would love to see someone in a town hall ask OUR HIRED SERVANTS exactly what type of weapons they will be using to disarm those refusing to comply with this nonsense.

THEY WORK FOR US. This foolishness must stop. When will a strong enough leader rise from among us to organize and help us fire these people?

HexHead
August 12, 2013, 01:18 PM
Seems like the Garand would pass muster.

splithoof
August 12, 2013, 02:10 PM
AKElroy, I must respectfully disagree. The majority of voting citizens in California want rulers, as those rulers will continue to redistribute the remaining wealth from those who have it to those who don't. That is their dictate, not the preservation of rights concerning firearms. To them those rights stand in the way of the greater goal for the greater good, and the proof of that is in their continual reelection, with the subsequent appointment of anti-gun law enforcement officials at all levels. Adding to this is the continued reelection of anti-gun sheriffs. Now I realize that there exist some in upper echelon law enforcement who are on our side, but the fact remains that those from the larger population centers are not, and that is where the state power base is located.
Our hired servants don't like to say much about how they carry out operations, but time is on their side, and they know it. As the patriots die off, more and more of the voting masses go with the program, and eventually gun ownership will be going the way of cigarette smoking in California: serious decline.
How do we change this? My solution is that we need to rid the state of the non-producers, but that is way too far off topic. Easier might be to get more voters into shooting, if we can make that happen before we have no places to do so. Just my two cents.

Rob0321
August 12, 2013, 08:25 PM
I would never voluntarily live in CA, but once every 3 years when the Corps gives me new orders there is a chance that I have to go back. This is getting absurd.

danez71
August 12, 2013, 11:13 PM
The majority of voting citizens in California want rulers....

You seem to state your opinion as fact when, in fact, you have no proof that they are facts.

Bashing a states population accomplishes nothing good.

AKElroy
August 12, 2013, 11:23 PM
Unfortunately, I think he is exactly right. If that is offensive to some, that is not the fault of the facts.

splithoof
August 13, 2013, 12:14 AM
As a California resident for close to fifty years, and who has seen the state decline to the point of it's current situation, those are my views, and yes I am bashing it. I have watched the changing demographic of the voting public; look no further than to see the party in charge. Proof? That would take a lot of space to quantify, but as I see it anyone who has not noticed the steady decline, with a parallel decline in firearm related rights and opportunities is in serious DENIAL. Yes, the number of gun owners has seen major increases of late, but the increasing number of draconian laws has matched the pace. Currently according to CRPA, there are forty-nine (49) pieces of firearms related legislation making their way through the legislative process, and the outlook for a lot of it is that Jerry Brown will sign much of it into law. The Democrats have a solid majority in both state houses, and the governor is one of them. We can make all the calls, send all the letters and postcards, e-mails, etc., but in the end much of their pet legislation will go through eventually.

Mastiff
August 14, 2013, 12:51 AM
I've been a resident of Illinois for 43 years. Our state is just as anti-gun as California, but we are now getting implemented a Shall Issue Concealed Carry law. The only reason we got it is because of a District Court decision.
If the Supremes do their job, I believe most of these BS laws are going to be wiped away. Hopefully, within my lifetime.:banghead:

DSling
August 14, 2013, 02:04 AM
I can't take the west coast sorry I can't help

Another post tracked by the government.

dogmush
August 14, 2013, 08:12 AM
I've been watching some of these new gun laws come down in the bad states. I think the anti gunners are over-reaching.

Banning all detachable mag semi's comes very close to:

a prohibition on an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

Which has been explicitly declared unconstitutional. I think the lawsuits that spring from this kind of law are going to end up, in a few years, being the nail in the coffin of the entire idea of an AWB.

Passing this law is, I think, a Pyrrhic Victory for anti's.

lemaymiami
August 14, 2013, 10:55 AM
I haven't lived in Cali since I was a baby (army family -grew up moving from here to there and overseas as a child....) thank heavens. Here's the way I see it - folks generally get the government they deserve, unfortunately. For those that believe they deserve better (and I'm hoping that's at least half the state) they'd better get busy doing something about it. You either have to work to improve the situation or leave for someplace better. Noting the out migration from that state you can see what many have chosen.

For the rest of us around the country, California and place similar are a cautionary tale... here in Florida, many I've know fear that California is just 20 or 30 years ahead of us.....

splithoof
August 14, 2013, 05:51 PM
^^^Yep. Been researching other places to retire to, in a few years. If everything goes as planned, and it is well on the way, Family will be out of here likely for good. We will miss the beach trips (now fifteen minutes away), but plan on making an annual camping trip back to the coast anyways. Wife and kids are all for it, leading the charge. For a whole host of additional reasons, not just the constant civil rights violations by the state, we are done with it, and don't ever see it changing in our lifetimes. The state won't miss us, the state will only miss our $$$.

Ryanxia
August 14, 2013, 06:31 PM
I do believe common use clause would prevail in a court challenging.

Also, doesn't CA already have a law against detachable mags hence the bullet button? Or is that just for AR type rifles.

SilentStalker
August 14, 2013, 07:04 PM
And the thing is, as long as you take it the more they will do. The more we accept the laws the more of this nonsense will pass.

nplant
August 14, 2013, 08:58 PM
Bullet buttons are work-arounds to make rifles that would otherwise be assault weapons (CA state's definition, not the true definition) legal. Anything under the "named ban" is banned regardless of configuration. Non-named receivers that can be configured so that they would be "feature banned" can escape said ban by use of a bullet button.

That said, there's another bill that seeks to make bullet buttons illegal. And another to vilify any magazine that "can or could" ever take more than 10 rounds, and that latter bill would make it so that you have to get rid of anything that you purchased legally and retained throughout the state AWB (which is still in effect, as noted above).

Yeah - I have for years exhorted anyone and everyone I know to fight against these idiotic bills on principle, but there just aren't enough people who are interested in reading past the titles of bills. Those titles are essentially great marketing copy ("Keep Everyone Safe From Everything Ever Act of 2013"), so who could be against it? While I hate to say it, I'm with splithoof - I was born here and have lived nowhere else my entire life, but if these laws are passed and not instantly injuncted (is that a word?) and defeated, California will lose my income taxes for the rest of time, and I'll move to the next best state (still trying to figure this out for my family).

doom
August 15, 2013, 02:10 AM
There comes a point, where you have to be like the pro-choice people, and loiter in the state capital to have your voice heard. You say there are not enough people? What happened to the loud, small squeeky wheel? You Californians need to just show up, and just do what the NY state people did, and not put up with this BS anymore. Don't comply!

Thermactor
August 15, 2013, 10:32 AM
Really time to start thinking about boycotting California businesses, whenever possible.

Ryanxia
August 15, 2013, 10:45 AM
There are many forms of resistance. They can only destroy the Constitution if you allow them to. Remember that.

jim243
August 15, 2013, 10:53 AM
California is indeed a strange place. I am not sure if their residents are at fault there for electing these legislators or if we are at fault for supporting their economy.

For a State that is so anti-gun, they make a ton of movies that depict extreme violence with the same weapons they want to ban. But is it us that supports their craziness buy purchasing tickets to their films. By us that purchase their agricultural products, I actually like FL orange juice better, hate lettuce, and do not drink wine. And when it comes to video games (not sure they are all made there) they are the most violent (Activision, Headquartered in Santa Monica, California, Call of Duty).

Do we need to take action, yes by not purchasing their products or selling them ours. Stop purchasing your lowers from California companies, drink FL orange juice, tell the sponsors of the shows on ABC (Disney own) that you will stop buying their products if they keep advertising with a company that is so anti-2nd amendment.

The only reason they think they can get away with this is because of the economic power that we are giving them by buying their crap. (SO STOP)

You have the power, just learn how to use it.
Jim

loose noose
August 15, 2013, 01:11 PM
Fortunately, I lived in California from '66-'92, primarily as a Law Enforcement Officer. However when they outlawed my Mini-14, and my Colt AR-15, and the taxes went thru the ceiling, I said enough, took my retirement and got the he!! out of that God Forsaken State.

The biggest problem they have are all the people on welfare, food stamps, assisted government living, that are usually on drugs, or have a criminal record that still enjoy their right to vote, and want more of the big government way of life. How do ya think Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein keep getting elected?! Now more recently Jerry Brown (Moonbeam). I would definitely say the majority of the population must fall under the problem areas.

Granted California is one of the most beautiful states in the union, but until I see some major changes in that state, you won't see me or my family going back there.

LewSchiller
August 15, 2013, 01:29 PM
We got out in '89
Moved to Colorado which is now, sadly, heading down the same rat hole.

splithoof
August 15, 2013, 03:04 PM
noose, I am right behind you, trying to line up our retirement spot in another state. Everything is exactly as you describe it. I just hope folks will be kind, as we want to blend in and not project even the slightest minuscule hint of where we are escaping from. On our final car drive to freedom, we are going to deposit the license plates in the nearest trash can and be done with it. Can't wait for it to happen!

AlexanderA
August 16, 2013, 11:35 AM
The problem in California is that a few urban centers skew the politics of the whole state. You'll find that the same thing is true in most, if not all, of the "antigun" states. Chicago skews Illinois, NYC skews the state of New York, Baltimore and the DC suburbs skew Maryland, etc. Hardly anyplace has antigun sentiments statewide.

316SS
August 16, 2013, 01:43 PM
The problem in California is that a few urban centers skew the politics of the whole state. You'll find that the same thing is true in most, if not all, of the "antigun" states. Chicago skews Illinois, NYC skews the state of New York, Baltimore and the DC suburbs skew Maryland, etc. Hardly anyplace has antigun sentiments statewide.

Precisely. I live in the California-occupied portion of the State of Jefferson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_%28Pacific_state%29), and I wish every day that it was a real state instead of a notional one.

madsend81
August 16, 2013, 06:24 PM
One of the recent changes to the AWB bill is they removed the language including rimfires. So the 10/22's, Marlin 795's and the AR's chambered for 22lr will not be affected (this time around).

rromeo
August 16, 2013, 08:41 PM
The only reason they removed .22 rimfire rifles from the bill is to try to gather support from casual gun owners. "See Larry, we don't really want to ban the rifle you and your son shoot pop cans with, just the real assault weapons. We need your support. "
They are good at divide and conquer.

Zoogster
August 17, 2013, 09:00 AM
I live in the California-occupied portion of the State of Jefferson, and I wish every day that it was a real state instead of a notional one.

While the notion of the State of Jefferson seems appealing now, consider that one of the primary reasons for it back when the movement started was the locals wanted to log it on a massive scale the state of California wouldn't allow.
They essentially wanted to exploit all the limited resources as rapidly as possible, which would have been a major boom, until the bust some years down the road, with lousy land left over afterwards.
The beauty of that area would probably be non-esistant at this point and lacking all the forests and wilderness residents enjoy.




As for the impact of all this legislation, I have seen a major shift in a larger percentage of people in recent years.
A growing percent of gun owners' eyes gloss over when I try to tell them why a gun is not legal with a pistol grip and that removeable magazine, or how they can't use a magazine over 10 rounds in that bullet buttoned affixed rifle. Or with those planning to claim they have grandfathered 11+ round magazines using magazines that were banned before they were old enough to own a gun. Young 20 somethings with 30 round magazines and drums, they clearly acquired for thier new gun more recently.
The laws have become so onerous and tedious the once almost extensively lawful gun owning crowd is changing.
I have not reached that point myself, but I see it more and more in others.
In fact I get the impression that the extensively state heavy laws are causing a percentage to give up on many gun laws altogether, and as a result have less respect for federal ones as well.
It is different to have many doing what are certainly felonies on a large scale.

ChaoSS
August 17, 2013, 11:50 AM
As for the impact of all this legislation, I have seen a major shift in a larger percentage of people in recent years.
A growing percent of gun owners' eyes gloss over when I try to tell them why a gun is not legal with a pistol grip and that removeable magazine, or how they can't use a magazine over 10 rounds in that bullet buttoned affixed rifle. Or with those planning to claim they have grandfathered 11+ round magazines using magazines that were banned before they were old enough to own a gun. Young 20 somethings with 30 round magazines and drums, they clearly acquired for thier new gun more recently.
The laws have become so onerous and tedious the once almost extensively lawful gun owning crowd is changing.
I have not reached that point myself, but I see it more and more in others.
In fact I get the impression that the extensively state heavy laws are causing a percentage to give up on many gun laws altogether, and as a result have less respect for federal ones as well.
It is different to have many doing what are certainly felonies on a large scale.I see that as a dangerous situation, one where the government can keep people under control under threat of arrest.

IE, you may not want to go to a protest, because if things get ugly and they start arresting people, you might have a book and release, charges dropped, turn into book and charge with a number of gun related felonies. But stay home, and don't make noise, and they won't bother you.

wally
August 20, 2013, 04:13 PM
I get the impression that the extensively state heavy laws are causing a percentage to give up on many gun laws altogether, and as a result have less respect for federal ones as well.
It is different to have many doing what are certainly felonies on a large scale.

Dwarfed by the number of dope possession felonies in California going un-prosecuted, I'd wager.

Carl N. Brown
August 20, 2013, 04:32 PM
Since the 1890s, semi-auto designs have become state-of-the-art for all purposes and detachable box magazines are quite frankly a safety feature allowing quick and safe unloading (remove the magazine, eject any round in the firing chamber, you're safely unloaded), compared to systems that can require working all rounds through the firing chamber as you unload the gun (I love my 336 and 1892 but unloading six or ten unfired rounds can be slow and requires a feeding motion for each round).

Praxidike
August 20, 2013, 10:03 PM
Feinstein and Bloomberg have publically stated that if they could get the votes, all guns in the U.S. would be confiscated. Politicians in places like New York and California want to ban all firearms, but they can not do so legally. What they can do legally is start to ban every little feature that they can think of. They aren't stupid or naive and they know exactly how firearms work. It's all by design...

Every time I hear about one of these bills, I always hear progunners complain about how stupid and pointless banning magazines sizes, collapsible stocks, vertical grips, etc will be in stopping gun crimes. What you all aren't noticing is that they aren't banning these items to try and stop gun deaths or to keep guns about of the hands of criminals like they say, but rather to try to slowly chip away at are right to own guns using back door tactics.

316SS
August 26, 2013, 05:32 PM
While the notion of the State of Jefferson seems appealing now, consider that one of the primary reasons for it back when the movement started was the locals wanted to log it on a massive scale the state of California wouldn't allow.
They essentially wanted to exploit all the limited resources as rapidly as possible, which would have been a major boom, until the bust some years down the road, with lousy land left over afterwards.
The beauty of that area would probably be non-esistant at this point and lacking all the forests and wilderness residents enjoy.

This area has already been logged on a massive scale. The "forests and wilderness" around here is virtually all second growth, and a responsible and balanced approach to resource management is possible. The State of Jefferson was a movement for local control of an area that is severely disconnected in terms of politics and values from the capitols of Salem and Sacramento. The locals do argue over guns/logging/fishing etc. but that is very different from being dictated to by Sacramento.

barnbwt
August 26, 2013, 10:04 PM
"The beauty of that area would probably be non-existent at this point and lacking all the forests and wilderness residents enjoy."

You don't mean the same residents who desperately needed logging jobs, and ended up leaving the area to seek employment working "lousy land" elsewhere, do you? Or do you mean the moneyed folks who visit resort homes there a few weeks a year? Sorry to pile on, but this mentality irks me (I grew up in Washington state where every dang decision has to tip-toe around the stupid salmon everyone worships :rolleyes:). Alpine back country isn't particularly conducive to making a living if you don't exploit its resources. Logging offered a reliable way for the people there to rise above subsistence and better their lot in life. Look to the job situation across the rest of the Cascades to see how poor a substitute eco-tourism is for a real economy.

Thomas Jefferson sent the Lewis and Clark expedition into the Pacific Northwest in 1803, and envisioned the establishment of an independent nation in the western portion of North America which he dubbed the "Republic of the Pacific",[1] hence the association of his name with regional autonomy.

The Wikipedia article on the place is actually quite interesting, even more so because I grew up fairly close to this area and never heard a dang thing about it in the public schools ;). It was a grand idea doomed by glory-hogging idiots and bad timing (rifle-brandishing patriots making loud proclamations and Pearl Harbor, respectively). Something that gun-rights agitators should really keep in mind. Fundamentally, we scare the anti's, so we must always tread wisely. We won't win by aggression--they would only prove our arguments by defending themselves vigorously. Things worked out for the Jeffersonians in that they were able to roll themselves back into "the fold" by vigorously supporting the Allied effort in WWII--all was forgiven (more or less). Had they retreated to a bunker or accosted a National Guard depot...:uhoh:

I also wonder if the Jeffersonians knew what they were getting themselves into seeing as there's an awful lot of Federal land out there (*permitted for logging*), and they were basically going to seize it as their own...you don't want to mess with Uncle Sam's wallet ;).

TCB

nulook45
August 26, 2013, 10:36 PM
Why don't you poor folks living in that comunist state just tell them to F>O and pack up and move the loss of income would be staggering to the state . no more tax income from the millions that move out same thing goes with bussiness too colorado is learning the hard way vote with your taxes and your money and DEFUND california , they cant pay the police to arrest anyone what are they going to do ?????

grubbylabs
August 26, 2013, 10:52 PM
I can't tell you how happy I am not to live in California any more. I grew up their and left as soon as possible.

I don't think I can say I will never go back, but if I do, it will be against my will.

316SS
August 27, 2013, 02:41 PM
As a nation we cannot afford to abandon whole states, especially one as influential as California, to the antis. Demographic trends of immigration and urbanization are eventually going to bring this fight to the so-called free states, just look at the Californization of Colorado. The time to stand and fight in places like New York and California is now.

wally
August 27, 2013, 03:01 PM
Feinstein and Bloomberg have publically stated that if they could get the votes, all guns in the U.S. would be confiscated.

Texas would say what we said to Santa Ana -- "Come And Take It"

Could be the start of something big, put up or shut up time for the Constitution and the Second Amendment!

If you enjoyed reading about "CA bill would ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable mags" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!