Quantcast
CALIFORNIA fire mission: SB808, SB580, SB505, and SB199 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > Activism

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 10, 2014, 09:12 AM   #1
cbob1911
Member
 
 
Join Date: August 18, 2012
Posts: 8
CALIFORNIA fire mission: SB808, SB580, SB505, and SB199

** FIRE MISSION **
OPPOSE NOW: 4 Gun Control Bills Up for Vote, Two by Kevin de Leon

Right now is your chance to act and help kill four anti-gun bills hitting the Assembly Appropriations Committee - including two by Assemblymember Kevin "Ghost Gun" de Leon.

Head to Firearms Policy Coalition to send a letter of opposition on SB 808, SB 580, SB 505, and SB 199, then call the Assemblymembers below and tell them you strongly oppose these gun control bills. It will take only a few minutes to e-mail and call the members below, so TAKE ACTION NOW and stop the bills before they move forward.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/california/sb808/
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/california/sb580/
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/california/sb505/
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/california/sb199/
cbob1911 is offline  
Old August 11, 2014, 09:55 AM   #2
Ryanxia
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 18, 2010
Posts: 2,996
Sound like some crazy Bills being proposed. Good luck to you CA folks.

Also, a description of the Bills would be helpful to let people know what they are and why they should be opposed.
I got the jist of them by reading the generic responses on the links.
__________________
Vote in November for your Pro Second Amendment representatives. State and Federal.

Join NRA Today!

Takes 2 minutes to donate to NRA-ILA https://www.nraila.org/get-involved-...re/donate.aspx
Bloomberg is spending, we can too. Every little bit helps.
Ryanxia is online now  
Old August 11, 2014, 12:15 PM   #3
fastbolt
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Within the lightning
Posts: 2,376
Do you support the sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm manufactured or assembled without a serial number (or unique mark)?

Do you support aiding in the manufacture or assembly of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm?

If peace officers in CA are already able to make inquiries via CLETS of the AFS when performing welfare checks of individuals, at their discretion, if they feel it prudent depending on the circumstances, do you oppose making it a requirement they do so?

What's your particular objection to deleting the 6 millimeter restriction from the definition of a BB device in CA law? You think it's a good idea to sell a realistic looking BB device to a minor without the permission of the minorís parent or guardian?

Just curious.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old August 11, 2014, 12:19 PM   #4
fastbolt
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Within the lightning
Posts: 2,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanxia View Post
...
Also, a description of the Bills would be helpful to let people know what they are and why they should be opposed.
I got the jist of them by reading the generic responses on the links.
When you click on each link provided above, then click on the highlighted orange colored bill number/author title on the new page to see the text of the proposed law.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer
fastbolt is offline  
Old August 11, 2014, 02:36 PM   #5
boomeradf
Member
 
 
Join Date: May 26, 2012
Posts: 27
Quote:
Do you support the sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm manufactured or assembled without a serial number (or unique mark)?

I personally am not of the belief a firearms requires a SN or a unique mark if I am building it at home.

Do you support aiding in the manufacture or assembly of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm?

This is already cared for with a penalty at the Federal level

If peace officers in CA are already able to make inquiries via CLETS of the AFS when performing welfare checks of individuals, at their discretion, if they feel it prudent depending on the circumstances, do you oppose making it a requirement they do so?

If they already have the ability shouldn't this be a choice they make at that time? Why do we need more things to be mandatory?

What's your particular objection to deleting the 6 millimeter restriction from the definition of a BB device in CA law? You think it's a good idea to sell a realistic looking BB device to a minor without the permission of the minor’s parent or guardian?



Just curious.
I know nothing on the final point or how that is cared for in CA.
boomeradf is offline  
Old August 11, 2014, 11:19 PM   #6
fastbolt
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 26, 2002
Location: Within the lightning
Posts: 2,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by boomeradf View Post
Do you support the sale or transfer of ownership of a firearm manufactured or assembled without a serial number (or unique mark)?

I personally am not of the belief a firearms requires a SN or a unique mark if I am building it at home.
That wasn't the question, though, and isn't the entirety of the proposed legislation. There are 2 other provisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomeradf View Post
Do you support aiding in the manufacture or assembly of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm?

This is already cared for with a penalty at the Federal level
A state level law would provide for prosecution of alleged violations at the state court level, without having to involve fed agencies to gain prosecution at the federal level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomeradf View Post
If peace officers in CA are already able to make inquiries via CLETS of the AFS when performing welfare checks of individuals, at their discretion, if they feel it prudent depending on the circumstances, do you oppose making it a requirement they do so?

If they already have the ability shouldn't this be a choice they make at that time? Why do we need more things to be mandatory?
Preaching to the choir.

This isn't at all uncommon, though. People (the public and their elected officials) often decide they know exactly what they want of their peace officers, and may decide to make some actions required, instead of optional or discretionary.

It's often something to do with paperwork, forms and records keeping, but in this case it would appear to be radio traffic (or MDT use) to perform a specific records inquiry of the DOJ database. The return on the inquiry is only as good (and current) as any previous data input, though.
__________________
Retired LE - firearms instructor & armorer

Last edited by fastbolt; August 12, 2014 at 07:56 PM.
fastbolt is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.