California: Legislature Goes for Semi-Auto Ban Trifecta

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aragon

member
Joined
Dec 13, 2014
Messages
887
Location
The Golden State of California
I just received the following the the CA Rifle and Pistol Association. Difficult to tell where these three bills are going to go. They will no doubt pass both houses but Gov. Brown recently vetoed Senate Bill 374 so there is still hope.

It would be interesting to get other peoples' inputs on this "trifecta." Everywhere else I have looked online the discussion quickly degenerates to bashing CA or giving thanks for living elsewhere. Let's please keep this productive. Thanks!

"California: Legislature Goes for Semi-Auto Ban Trifecta
Millions of Common Firearms Could be Banned by Three Pending New Bills!


The California legislature is back in session, and politicians are wasting no time seeking media attention by introducing ill-conceived gun bans that would ban millions of commonly owned firearms.

On January 14, 2016, Assembly Member David Chiu introduced AB 1663 (coauthored by Members Levine and Ting and backed by current California Attorney General and U.S. Senate candidate Kamala Harris). Immediately thereafter Assembly members Levine and Ting introduced AB 1664 (coauthored by Assembly Member Chiu).

Not to be outdone by the Assembly, State Senators Hall and Glazer introduced a similar bill, SB 880, on Friday, January 15, 2016 in the California Senate.

AB 1663 (which is a retread of vetoed SB-374 from 2013) will turn all “semiautomatic centerfire rifle that do not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds” into “assault weapons.” Generally speaking, if you have a semiautomatic centerfire rifle and you can remove the magazine by pushing the magazine release button or your rifle has a “bullet button,” the rifle will be considered to be an “assault weapon” and you will be required to register the rifle as an “assault weapon” with the California Department of Justice. (A “bullet button” is a magazine disconnect locking device that replaces or covers the standard magazine release mechanism. The device forces a shooter to use a tool to remove the magazine. Under current law, the use of a “bullet button” prevents certain firearms from being classified as “assault weapons.”)

AB 1664 and SB 880 do roughly the same thing. They either redefine or rephrase the current definition of “assault weapon” to include firearms that are affixed with a “bullet button.”

All of these bills have one purpose: to redefine the phrase “assault weapon” in a way that will ban millions of commonly owned and lawfully possessed firearms. The term “assault weapon” is a legal term only, it has no technical meaning in firearms parlance. That’s why the gun ban lobby loves it. It means whatever they want it to mean. So the gun ban lobby is using these bills to expand the definition of “assault weapon” to affect widely popular and lawfully owned firearms. By redefining and expanding the meaning of the legal term “assault weapon," these bills would dramatically expand the already byzantine legal definition of “assault weapon” and would ban millions of conventional firearms used by hunters, target shooters, boy and girl scouts, and men and women who choose to own a firearm to defend themselves and their families.

In almost all instances, any one of these bills would require those who possess firearms equipped with a “bullet button” to register the firearm as “assault weapons” or face confiscation, arrest, prosecution, and jail. In almost all situations, gun owners would never be able to sell their firearms or pass them on as an inheritance.


Under each of these bills, the process of registering the firearm will require the owner to pay a fee and provide the following information to the state:
· A description of the firearm and unique identifiers;
· The date the firearm was acquired;
· The name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which the firearm was acquired;
· The registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and;
· California driver’s license number or California identification card number.

Registered “assault weapons” may never be sold or passed down in the family in California. Those who fail to comply face having their homes searched and their all guns confiscated. They could also face arrest, prosecution, and sentencing ranging from probation to jail. These bills will make another class of accidental felons out of law abiding people who, like the DOJ’s own experts, often can’t determine what an “assault weapon” is!

If any of these bills are enacted, then unless folks realize that their guns are now considered “assault weapons,” and unless they register their guns and pay a fee (tax) to the state, millions of guns that have been owned safely for years will become illegal to possess and their unsuspecting owners would become felons at the stroke of a politician’s pen. That has happened many times in the past, because the state never allocates sufficient funds to educate gun owners about the requirements of new laws.

Are you mad enough yet? Well, add this to the mix: Harris' support for these bills is the height of hypocrisy! It was her very own DOJ that, in 1999, defined “detachable magazine” as it is currently defined in the California Regulations and allowed magazine disconnect locks like the “bullet button” to be used to slow down the reloading process. That definition took almost a year for DOJ experts to finalize, after considering tens of thousands of public comments, including multiple letters submitted by lawyers for the NRA and CRPA. Now, sensing an opportunity to get attention she can use in her senatorial campaign, she doesn’t like it. But if she was serious about reducing gun violence, she would clean up her own messes. Not one but two California Auditor reports confirm that Attorney General Harris has failed miserably to maintain the databases and records that she claims are critical to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. [See Kamala Harris: Another Gun Control Hypocrite by C.D. Michel.] Her support for these bills is an effort to distract attention away from her abysmal failures, rather than a legitimate effort to protect us from violent felons and determined suicidal terrorists who can get any gun they want.

Needless to say, the passage of any one of these bills would be disastrous for millions of California gun owners. Are you registered to vote and to permanently vote by mail? You will get a chance to show some politicians what you think of these bills in the June 2016 primary. The critical November election will then follow. With the stakes this high in the legislature, and with anti-gun initiatives looming, shame on any gun owner who isn’t. DEMAND that your gun owning friends register and vote! The state has made it easy: Register on line RIGHT NOW at www.sos.ca.gov/elections

Assembly Members David Chiu, Marc Levine, and Phil Ting and Senators Hall and Glazer must hear from all of California’s Second Amendment supporters opposing these erroneous bills. It is IMPERATIVE for you to forward this CRITICAL alert to your family, friends, fellow sportsmen, gun owners, and Second Amendment supports to contact the authors of these bills NOW.


Contact information can be found below:

Assembly Member David Chiu (D-17)
(916) 319-2017
Contact page
[email protected]

Assembly Member Marc Levine (D-10)
(916) 319-2010
Contact page
[email protected]

Assembly Member Phil Ting (D-19)
(916) 319-2019
Contact page
[email protected]

Senator Isadore Hall, III (35th District)
(916) 651-4035
Contact page

Senator Steve Glazer (7th District)
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Contact page

http://crpa.org/category/legislation/"
 
The first thing that comes to mind is the low percentage of people who registered their modern sporting rifles here in CA back in 1989.

By the CA DOJ's own estimates, less than 10% were registered. If such hideous legislation should become law, I suspect most Californians simply won't follow it.

Given the fact that there are MILLIONS of modern sporting rifles here in CA that are legally not registered, this could really set the scene for some lawsuits that will impact not only CA but the entire USA.
 
New York gun owners seem to be cheerfully ignoring the SAFE act. If I lived in CA I would probably do the same with this patently unconstitutional tyranny.
 
As I once read any law made which is unconstitutional is not law and to be ignored with impunity. Not verbatim. Just repeating something stated by one much wiser than myself, and I'll do just this as soon as our gov't. realizes their mistakes as I'm certain those in cali shall do.
 
Other people ignoring the law won't help the individual who is arrested and prosecuted under it.
 
I won't bet one of these won't pass. As to non-compliance, it just makes felons waiting to be caught. A non-compliant owner is just one law enforcement encounter away from jail.
 
True, but if the ignoring became overwhelming, fewer might be arrested in the first place...

Fewer being arrested doesn't help you when you are getting raped in prison and your family goes without you.

I dislike when people marginalize or write-off these laws with things like "but so many people ignore it".

Don't worry, with the laws on the books, sooner or later, you're going down. Step 1, pass the laws. Step 2, enforce the laws only as add ons to other things so people are okay with it (IE, well he was already doing X so ha). Step 3, enforce the law on people not harming anybody else.
 
gotmine said:
As I once read any law made which is unconstitutional is not law and to be ignored with impunity...
And that is drivel.

In the real world the courts give deference to legislative acts and presume statutes valid and enforceable, until unconstitutionality is determined. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....

And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....

So in the real world a statute is valid and enforceable unless and until it is found invalid by a court having appropriate jurisdiction. You might think the law is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but no one cares. Your belief in the unconstitutionality or invalid of a law keeps no one out of jail, nor does it have any effect on the lives and property of real people in the real world.

The Founding Fathers assigned to the federal courts the authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States to decide, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution,...​

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed.
 
Fewer being arrested doesn't help you when you are getting raped in prison and your family goes without you.

I dislike when people marginalize or write-off these laws with things like "but so many people ignore it".

Don't worry, with the laws on the books, sooner or later, you're going down. Step 1, pass the laws. Step 2, enforce the laws only as add ons to other things so people are okay with it (IE, well he was already doing X so ha). Step 3, enforce the law on people not harming anybody else.

You state that as if it were fact and it's not...

As just one example, this last summer I got a call from a friend whose WWII veteran father had passed. He had a number of full-auto "bring backs" that were never registered during the amnesty period. In essence, his father lived most of his adult life enjoying these guns (both shooting and static) and he never "went down."
 
Fewer being arrested doesn't help you when you are getting raped in prison and your family goes without you.

I dislike when people marginalize or write-off these laws with things like "but so many people ignore it".

Don't worry, with the laws on the books, sooner or later, you're going down. Step 1, pass the laws. Step 2, enforce the laws only as add ons to other things so people are okay with it (IE, well he was already doing X so ha). Step 3, enforce the law on people not harming anybody else.

It does if it's a product of the gov't not enforcing the law...
 
Aragon said:
....In essence, his father lived most of his adult life enjoying these guns (both shooting and static) and he never "went down."
The is s different between getting away with committing a crime and being law abiding. When one commits a crime he is betting his freedom, his future, and his fortune on not getting caught.

When one commits a crime he is a criminal. Criminals get caught in all sorts of random and often unpredictable ways. There are plenty of folks in prison who thought they'd "get away with it."

And note this well: At THR we support complying with the law. It is never okay here to condone, encourage, suggest, or promote not following the law.
 
Legislation like this, if enacted, basically makes criminals out of many people who would otherwise not so much as jaywalk.

I will seriously consider moving out of state if the no-detachable-magazines one passes, even though I'm currently only a handgun shooter. I'm very upset that our government seems to be going out of its way to encourage all flavors of people who want to hurt innocents while at the same time further and further restricting our means of defending ourselves.
 
Legislation like this, if enacted, basically makes criminals out of many people who would otherwise not so much as jaywalk.

For what it's worth many laws of that type exist, whether most people realize it or not. For example, here in GA, having a knife with a blade over 2" long on a college campus or at a college sporting event (think every pocket knife every, basically) has made a whole hell of a lot of people felons many times over...and they don't even know
 
For what it's worth many laws of that type exist, whether most people realize it or not. For example, here in GA, having a knife with a blade over 2" long on a college campus or at a college sporting event (think every pocket knife every, basically) has made a whole hell of a lot of people felons many times over...and they don't even know
Well, technically speaking, they aren't felons until convicted.
 
Registered “assault weapons” may never be sold or passed down in the family in California.

Does this mean they can't be sold, even if the firearm goes out of state? Or can't be sold to an FFL in California? Or just can't be sold from private party to private party? I know this isn't necessarily the language of the law, but that phrase needs a lot of clarification.
 
Well, technically speaking, they aren't felons until convicted.

Well, I chose to use the word felon vs convicted felon, but you can all it whatever you want...many people who would not even jaywalk have committed many felonies, all over the country, all the time
 
So rather than tackle all the genuine causes of violence with guns in their big cities, CA legislators once again go after the low hanging fruit, legitimate gun owners.

Spending too much time and money in an effort to root out the actual criminals wouldn't be PC, not to mention difficult. Easier to form a new, better class of criminals who won't physically resist or shoot at officers when they come to take their guns.

A large percentage of lawmakers are often attorneys, and this new class of working citizen/criminals will probably have to hire their own lawyers, as opposed to free legal counsel. Win, win.

All the while they will trumpet how much they've done to make CA a safer place. It will be years before actual stats refute this, but by then they will be off to bigger and better things. Gotta' love American politicians. :(
 
Has anyone in the gun rights lobby out there contacted some lawyers? I guess people in CA have essentially abandoned fighting these things in court as being unconstitutional?
 
Well, I chose to use the word felon vs convicted felon, but you can all it whatever you want...many people who would not even jaywalk have committed many felonies, all over the country, all the time
Well I won't call somebody who is pre adjudicated with the presumption of innocence still on their side a felon. You call them whatever you want.
 
Well I won't call somebody who is pre adjudicated with the presumption of innocence still on their side a felon. You call them whatever you want.

I am specifically, explicitly, and directly referring to people who have committed and are committing felonies.

I will absolutely refer to somebody who has committed felonies as a felon that wasn't caught. I will also refer to the many people I have personally witnessed committing a felony first hand as a felon who didn't get caught.
 
It seems our various levels of government can violate the Constitution with impunity, yet we have no recourse when our judicial system, and politicians are corrupt. I do not advocate breaking the law, and would not do that, but I do feel that people in restricted states like CA, NJ, NY, MD, MA, RI, HI, IL, CT, etc should get a pass.
 
from post #2, my underlined...

The first thing that comes to mind is the low percentage of people who registered their modern sporting rifles here in CA back in 1989.

By the CA DOJ's own estimates, less than 10% were registered. If such hideous legislation should become law, I suspect most Californians simply won't follow it.

Given the fact that there are MILLIONS of modern sporting rifles here in CA that are legally not registered, this could really set the scene for some lawsuits that will impact not only CA but the entire USA.

Are you suggesting the ''powers to be'' in CA who know (fact) that the vast majority of 1989 firearms were not registered could be basis for suit, if, they attempt to formulate & enforce a new law vs. enforcement of existing law?
 
I am specifically, explicitly, and directly referring to people who have committed and are committing felonies.

I will absolutely refer to somebody who has committed felonies as a felon that wasn't caught. I will also refer to the many people I have personally witnessed committing a felony first hand as a felon who didn't get caught.
With or without regard to motive and intent?

Yes, some people unknowingly commit felonies without ever knowing it. Some people commit felonies in direct disregard of the law.

I'm drawing the distinct delineation between the two.

But I'm still supporting the presumption of innocence, and the definition of felon being one who has been convicted of a felony.

Some may consider it semantic, but one who has not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers is.not.a.felon.

Even those acting in direct defiance of a law have rights protected by the Constitution. And they will be the ones who eventually challenge the constitutionality of these ridiculous laws.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top