California Gun Owners Could Use Your Help Against SB249

[TT]

So even though there is a major high level push on renewing the national AWB, banning hi cap mags and the new national Internet ammunition restrictions that was just proposed, life for shooters in the free states is just going to continue on its merry way?

There aren’t too many people who think an AWB or mag ban has any chance at the Federal level, while California has had both for years. Again, California’s problems are unique to California. Nothing wrong with asking for help, but don’t portray the fight as Californians working to protect the rest of the country- that’s not what it is.

 

[michaelbsc]

...Nothing wrong with asking for help, but don’t portray the fight as Californians working to protect the rest of the country- that's not what it is.

I agree that it isn't a case of "Californian's working to save the rest of the country." That particular characterization is skewed.

Having said that, however, We should be mindful that California's zealous regulatory candor has the habit of spreading to other places, and via DC is a particularly vexing vector.

I'm reminded of the "Smoking Settlement" lawsuits some years back when NC fell to giant awards. I believe it was RJ Reynolds's attorney who commented "if you can't win in NC where can you win?" Shortly thereafter the whole industry defense imploded.

Contrarily if California can be wrestled to the ground about 2A rights then that does bode well for the rest of the country. No guarantee mind you. But if they can't restrict California where can they restrict.

MB

 

[hso]

But if they can't restrict California where can they restrict

That's a more accurate approach than "Since they do it here they'll do it to you" when I'm sitting in TN, Como is in Alaska and others are in other states with strong RKBA and weak Anti sentiments.

This is more like keeping the enemy tied up elsewhere on the front so they don't have the strength to fight in your backyard.

Regardless of how you want to view it, helping fight Anti legislation in California is at least enlightened self-interest.

 

[C0untZer0]

If you look at where the most important 2A cases have come from - they've come from the most restrictive states / district:

Washington DC - Heller case
Chicago, IL - McDonald
Chicago, IL - Ezell
Chicago, IL - Moore/Shepard v Madigan

Maybe if it wasn't a national election year the NRA would spend more money in California and Illinois, but I think they have national politics to worry about.

 

[TT]

Contrarily if California can be wrestled to the ground about 2A rights then that does bode well for the rest of the country.

A nice thought, but so far the RKBA fight in California has been a nearly continuous string of losses.

 

[Capybara]

Much more savvy legal minds than mine are posting over on the 2A board on Calguns that if this thing does pass, the recriminations by injunctions and rulings by the SCOTUS could have unintended consequences for the authors of this badly written bill.

I was not trying to portray California shooters as the saviors of the free states at all, but as michaelbsc astutely stated, "We should be mindful that California's zealous regulatory candor has the habit of spreading to other places, and via DC is a particularly vexing vector."

I think that his eloquent choice of words are the thought I was trying to ineffectively convey.

 

[talldragon]

Signed it. It is hard to change things here in Kali.....

 

[Capybara]

Thanks Talldragon. Please get all of your friends to sign it, post it on your Facebook if you have one, etc. Every little bit helps and even if Yee manages to ram this through, I have been told repeatedly, that it could have huge POSITIVE implications for 2A in California, but it will be a long, court battle with involvement with the 9th and the SCOTUS.

 

[tomrkba]

deleted

 

[Quiet]

On 08-07-2012, SB 249 was amended again.

The newest amended version of SB 249 redefines "detachable magazine" to include those magazines that can be removed from a firearm without disassembling the firearm, this includes those magazines that can be removed with using a tool or tip of a bullet.

Bottom line:
SB 249 now bans the possession of "bullet button" maglock equipped semi-auto pistols, semi-auto rifles and semi-auto shotguns.

If passed SB 249 will go into effect on 07-01-2013.
There will be no "grandfathering" or registering affected firearms as assault weapons, all affected firearms will be subject to confiscation without compensation.
Affected firearms must be transported out-of-state or surrendered to law enforcement prior to 07-01-2013.


As amended, SB249...
Penal Code 30515
(d)(1) For the purposes of this section, "detachable magazine" means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. "Detachable magazine" includes, but is not limited to, a magazine that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.
(2) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent of this chapter.
(3) This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.
__________________

 

[tomrkba]

If passed SB 249 will go into effect on 07-01-2013.
There will be no "grandfathering" or registering affected firearms as assault weapons, all affected firearms will be subject to confiscation without compensation.
Affected firearms must be transported out-of-state or surrendered to law enforcement prior to 07-01-2013.

Is confiscation like this constitutional at all? If so, will gun owners line up to turn them in? Did this happen with other guns in the past?

 

[beerbeer95648]

CA legislators have never cared if something is constitutional. But, when the assault weapons ban first appeared, the state opened up a registration program for residents to register their weapons as RAW's (registered assault weapons). Not the case this time.

 

[Capybara]

Politicians in this state's capital have U.S. Constitution toilet paper in all of the bathrooms.

 

[Quiet]

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff's letter to the CA legislature to oppose SB249.

 

[Pistola]

I always knew that frisco was rabid anti gun, but this is insane.

These have "detachable magazine", so would my walther ppk, buckmark
and ruger 10/22 be illegal?

 

[michaelbsc]

I always knew that frisco was rabid anti gun, but this is insane.

These have "detachable magazine", so would my walther ppk, buckmark
and ruger 10/22 be illegal?

That's my read. From what I could figure out only revolvers would still be legal.

 

[bergmen]

That's my read. From what I could figure out only revolvers would still be legal.

No, not true. See this thread, very authoritative:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=605484

Dan

 

[danez71]

This looks like it applies to 'assualt weapons'. Not all guns.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_bill_20120807_amended_asm_v93.html


'Assaualt weapons' are define by being center fire and have certain 'features'.

The features are defined below.


The bulk of it read as follows:

SB 249, as amended, Yee. Firearms: assault weapon
conversion kits. Assault weapons.
Existing law, with certain exceptions, prohibits the possession of
an assault weapon, as defined, and makes violations subject to
criminal penalties. Existing law defines a firearm as an assault
weapon, in part, based upon whether it has a detachable magazine.

This bill would define "detachable magazine" for this purpose to
mean any ammunition feeding device that can be removed from the
firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, and to include a
magazine that may be detached from the firearm by depressing a button
on the firearm either with the finger or by use of a tool or a
bullet. The bill would declare that these amendments are declaratory
of existing law, would direct the Attorney General to adopt
regulations, and would make these amendments operative July 1, 2013.
By expanding the definition of existing crimes, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program
.....
.....
.....
....

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal
Code is amended to read:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

 

[Librarian]

The operative part of the bill is (d), added to 30515

(d) (1) For the purposes of this section, "detachable magazine"
means any ammunition feeding device that can be removed from the
firearm without disassembly of the firearm action. "Detachable
magazine" includes, but is not limited to, a magazine that may be
detached from the firearm by depressing a button on the firearm
either with the finger or by use of a tool or a bullet.
(2) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations
that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent
of this chapter.
(3) This subdivision shall become operative on July 1, 2013.

The words "this section" refer only to PC 30515 - the fully specified 'name' for 30515 is

Penal Code
.. Part 6
..... Title 4
........ Division 10
........... Chapter 2
.............. Article 1
................. Section 30515
​

As

Penal Code - PEN
PART 6. CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS [16000. - 34370.]
( Part 6 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

TITLE 4. FIREARMS [23500. - 34370.]
( Title 4 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

DIVISION 10. SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO PARTICULAR TYPES OF FIREARMS OR FIREARM EQUIPMENT [30210. - 33690.]
( Division 10 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

CHAPTER 2. Assault Weapons and .50 BMG Rifles [30500. - 31115.]
( Chapter 2 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

ARTICLE 1. General Provisions [30500. - 30530.]
( Article 1 added by Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6. )

Not that most folks need to know about the technical organization of California Penal Code ...

(All that "Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6" stuff? In their great wisdom, the Legislature thought re-arranging the Penal Code about 'Dangerous Weapons' would be fun, and so we got new numbers and stuff moved all around, effective Jan 1, 2012.)

 

[Kynoch]

I originally posted this on the legal board and was directed that this would make more sense here on the activism board.

Senator Leland Yee, of San Francisco (I know, big surprise) has authored a horrible and misleading bill, SB249, that may end up with all AKs and ARs being declared illegal in California. The language of the bill is evolving at the moment and is deliberately vague and unclear so as to make the interpretation of the law confusing for LEOs and citizens. We already have bullet buttons and have survived the past few years with them, even though they are a compromise. Senator Yee only recently even became aware of what a BB is, then after hearing a news story about Mag Magnets, decided in his infinite wisdom and dominion over us stupid citizens that all AWs must go, no discussion, no negotiation. His viewpoint is very totalitarian, kind of surprising for a self-confessed liberal. It is interesting that he is a Chinese immigrant, he must obviously be used to totalitarian government edicts.

You may ask yourself, "I live in a free state, California is a lost cause, why should I care or help?" This is way beyond a gun issue, this is a civil rights issue. We must defeat this badly written exercise in publicity grabbing. Please go to http://stopsb249.org/sb-249-faq/ and help us to defeat this by signing the petition and posting this on your Facebook, there are links on the site.

Trying to get the word out on this and could use THR's help. If you disagree or do not want to help, fine, but anyone can quickly fill out the petition and anyone can quickly post it on their Facebook using the links on the StopSB249 website. Besides being a brilliant argument for term limits, this bill is everything that is bad about California politics, it was poorly authored by an out of touch politician, based upon his own
misinformation and mistaken perceptions of what the law already covers. Even if it is defeated, it sets a dangerous precedent for a state that really doesn't want it's citizens to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for any help. We really are on the front lines here and support from our fellow shooters in free states would mean a lot.

He came to the USA with his parents when he was 3.

 

[danez71]

The operative part of the bill is (d), added to 30515 The words "this section" refer only to PC 30515 - the fully specified 'name' for 30515 is

Penal Code
.. Part 6
..... Title 4
........ Division 10
........... Chapter 2
.............. Article 1
................. Section 30515
​

As Not that most folks need to know about the technical organization of California Penal Code ...

(All that "Stats. 2010, Ch. 711, Sec. 6" stuff? In their great wisdom, the Legislature thought re-arranging the Penal Code about 'Dangerous Weapons' would be fun, and so we got new numbers and stuff moved all around, effective Jan 1, 2012.)

Forgive me.....


So are you agreeing with me that this only* applies to 'assualt weapons'?





*only: I say 'only' in the sense that it doesnt affect rimfires and other featureless centerfire guns. Its a terrible law on many levels and I dont mean to use the word 'only' as to trivialize it.

 

[Quiet]

I say 'only' in the sense that it doesnt affect rimfires and other featureless centerfire guns. Its a terrible law on many levels and I dont mean to use the word 'only' as to trivialize it.

It affects:
semi-auto centerfire rifles
semi-auto centerfire & rimfire pistols
semi-auto shotguns

 

[Librarian]

So are you agreeing with me that this only* applies to 'assualt weapons'?

Yes. (which includes certain

semi-auto centerfire rifles
semi-auto centerfire & rimfire pistols
semi-auto shotguns

)

 

[Kynoch]

There aren’t too many people who think an AWB or mag ban has any chance at the Federal level, while California has had both for years. Again, California’s problems are unique to California. Nothing wrong with asking for help, but don’t portray the fight as Californians working to protect the rest of the country- that’s not what it is.

Hardly. Tell that to IL, NJ, MA, etc. Denial isn't a river...

 

[danez71]

Yes. (which includes certain )

semi-auto centerfire rifles
semi-auto centerfire & rimfire pistols
semi-auto shotguns

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud. I value your interpretation.


Correct me if I'm wrong, the bill is targeting 'assaul weapons'. Assault weapons are define by:

SECTION 1. Section 30515 of the Penal
Code is amended to read:
30515. (a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, "assault weapon" also
means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location
outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the
capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

If I'm reading this right, a glock wont be effected because it does not have

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor,
forward handgrip, or silencer.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely
encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon
without burning the bearer's hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.


And lets say a plain jane Ruger mini 14 wont be affected as long as it dowsnt have the features' listed
here:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action
of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length
of less than 30 inches.



And I dont see were rimfire 22lr, say a plain jane Ruger 10/22, would be effected.