CALIFORNIA fire mission: SB808, SB580, SB505, and SB199

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.

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 minor’s parent or guardian?

Just curious.

Ryanxia said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

I know nothing on the final point or how that is cared for in CA.

boomeradf said:

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.

Click to expand...

That wasn't the question, though, and isn't the entirety of the proposed legislation. There are 2 other provisions.

boomeradf said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

boomeradf said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.