good news & bad news on CA gun control bills...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quiet

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
3,114
Location
bouncing between the 909 & the 702
Today (10-11-2013)...

CA Governor Brown signed into law the following gun control bills:
AB 48 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Firearms: large-capacity magazines.
AB 170 by Assemblymember Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) – Assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles.
AB 231 by Assemblymember Philip Y. Ting (D-San Francisco) – Firearms: criminal storage.
AB 500 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – Firearms.
AB 538 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Firearms.
AB 539 by Assemblymember Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) – Firearm possession: prohibitions: transfer to licensed dealer.
AB 711 by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) – Hunting: nonlead ammunition.
AB 1131 by Assemblymember Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) – Firearms.
SB 363 by Senator Roderick D. Wright (D-Los Angeles) – Firearms: criminal storage: unsafe handguns: fees.
SB 683 by Senator Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Firearms: firearm safety certificate.


CA Governor Brown veto'd the following gun control bills:
AB 169 by Assemblymember Roger Dickinson (D-Sacramento) – Unsafe handguns.
AB 180 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) – Registration and licensing of firearms: City of Oakland.
SB 299 by Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D-Concord) – Firearms: lost or stolen: reports.
SB 374 by Senator Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) – Firearms: assault weapons.
SB 475 by Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) – Agricultural District 1-A: firearm sales at the Cow Palace.
SB 567 by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) – Firearms: shotguns.
SB 755 by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) – Firearms: prohibited persons.
 
While people can look them up a brief summary might be helpful:

AB 48:
The magazine ban bans all existing grandfathered magazines.
As of July 2014 all grandfathered magazines are supposed to be destroyed or transferred out of state.
It also outlaws purchase of kits to build such a magazine, or rebuild kits to repair existing magazines (which will cease to be legal and so wouldn't need to be rebuilt.)

AB 170 changes the BMG rules as a prior loophole let corporations that owned BMG rifles do things the state didn't like. The BMG ban becomes more encompassing.

AB 237 changes the punishment of storing a firearm in a manner that allows a minor (anyone under 18) to obtain and misuse that firearm. From a misdemanor to a felony.


AB 500 changes how a dealer transfers a firearm if they don't hear back from the CADOJ within 10 days. Previously it could go back to the seller who legally owned that firearm and was trying to legally transfer it through an FFL as required by law, now it must be held an additional 7 days and cannot go to the seller or buyer and must remain in FFL inventory.

Additionally it creates a new law that makes it a crime to possess an unlocked firearm in a residence if any prohibited persons reside within that residence. So a legal firearm owner can be charged if a prohibited adult (already a crime if a child can obtain it) can obtain access to the firearm, while previously it would have been a crime for the prohibited person but not the firearm owner.


AB 538 makes small changes to a variety of things and must be read in entirety. It changes exemptions to when unloaded handguns and long guns may be carried, and also creates new exemptions to firearm transfers for law enforcement representatives.

AB 539 requires a record be maintained of storage of someone temporarily prohibited from owning firearms when an FFL etc temporily stores those firearms until the expiration of the prohibited period.



AB 711 requires all hunting with firearms done in the state be done with non-lead ammunition.
Lead ammunition is banned for game or non game animals.


AB 1131 changes firearm prohibition from 6 months to 5 years for anyone that tells a therapist about a desire to hurt someone.
It also creates new procedures for confiscation and for someone trying to reobtain firearms they can legally possess.
Requires notification within 2 days and state records be kept on such things.

SB363 is similar to AB 237 and AB 500 and creates felonies for storage of firearms that prohibited person can obtain, expanding existing law that made it a crime to store in a manner a child could obtain.


SB 683 changes the current handgun saftey certificate requirement to purchase a handgun into a firearm safety certificate required to purchase any gun.
This means people will need to pay a fee to take a test to pass a series of California defined questions to legally buy a gun.
(For example instead of the simple and easily understood 4 rules of safe gun handling, California has a similar one of 8 or 10 rules that you will probably be unable to remember after a month which may be one of the questions.)
 
God Bless Texas!!! i can only hope kaliforistan breaks off the US and becomes their own commie state and all the fruits and nuts can live happily ever after before we all hear about the "common sense" new laws the rest of us should have...
 
Thanks for the summary.

Sad to think that 12% of the population of this country is subject to that crap.

Any expected to be challenged in court? Specifically the removal of grandfathered mags and the license/safety cert?
 
Zoogster

Ditto, thanks for the summary.

Will check later to see more from you on these laws. Lots of us have questions.
 
JohnnyK, I'm afraid it's increasingly likely that Texas will be the one to break off. I don't want that to happen, but if it does, I hope we can persuade Oklahoma to come along with us. College ball wouldn't be the same without 'em.

I just can't get behind laws that make more THINGS (objects) illegal and more people defined as criminals... especially when the state is already so demonstrably unable to address actual crime.
 
Zoogster said:
AB 48:
The magazine ban bans all existing grandfathered magazines.
As of July 2014 all grandfathered magazines are supposed to be destroyed or transferred out of state.
It also outlaws purchase of kits to build such a magazine, or rebuild kits to repair existing magazines (which will cease to be legal and so wouldn't need to be rebuilt.)

AB48 as signed into law only effects magazine parts kits (all the unassembled parts needed to make/repair a magazine).

It bans the transfer (buy, sell, loan, gift, etc), making & importing of magazine parts kits starting on 01-01-2014.

The language banning possession of magazine parts kits and large capacity magazines were null/voided and are no longer part of the laws created by AB48.
 
AB48 as signed into law only effects magazine parts kits (all the unassembled parts needed to make/repair a magazine).

It bans the transfer (buy, sell, loan, gift, etc), making & importing of magazine parts kits starting on 01-01-2014.

The language banning possession of magazine parts kits and large capacity magazines were null/voided and are no longer part of the laws created by AB48.
This is correct and an extremely important point for prior owners of these magazines
 
I'm confused. The text of the bill that was enrolled still includes verbiage for the banning of existing >10-rd mags. The last amended bill stripped out the ammunition registration verbiage but left in the banning of existing mags.

per http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ab_48_bill_20130918_enrolled.htm

CHAPTER _______
An act to amend Section 32310 of, and to add Section 32311 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 48, Skinner. Firearms: large-capacity magazines.
(1) Except as specified, existing law makes it a crime to manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine, and makes a large-capacity magazine a nuisance. Existing law defines “large-capacity magazine” to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds but excludes, in pertinent part, a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that the magazine cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed 6 months, or by both that fine and imprisonment, to knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor or a felony to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 396 that would become operative if this bill and SB 396 are both enacted and this bill is enacted last.
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.
Section 32310 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
SEC. 1.5.
Section 32310 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
32310.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(b) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2014, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person who, prior to July 1, 2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2014, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

(d) For purposes of this section, “manufacturing” includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine.
SEC. 2.
Section 32311 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
32311.
(a) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing January 1, 2014, any person in this state who knowingly manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large capacity magazine conversion kit is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This section does not apply to a fully assembled large-capacity magazine, which is governed by Section 32310.
(b) For purposes of this section, a “large capacity magazine conversion kit” is a device or combination of parts of a fully functioning large-capacity magazine, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.
SEC. 3.
Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 396. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2014, (2) each bill amends Section 32310 of the Penal Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 396, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
SEC. 4.
No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
 
When the state cannot do anything to affect overt acts that are malum in se (murder, assault, rape, robbery), it multiples its impotence by increasing the list of things that are malum prohibitum.

Except examples like New Zealand and Canada abandoning ineffectual long gun registries, Tennessee abandoning the ridiculous fifteen day waiting period and discretionary carry permit system, etc.
 
The Verbiage related to the grandfathered magazines was contingent on the passage of another bill, which did not pass.
 
With regard to the prohibition of lead ammunition, does this mean only solid lead projectiles or does it include lead-core?

If it were to include lead-core bullets, that means steel core or something more exotic, but still basically then a FMJ bullet.

If it's just lead bullets, that really screws the black-powder hunting crowd.

But, just because you can't hunt with lead bullets ... apparently you can still shoot lead bullets ... just not at animals.

Boy, I really just don't understand these people ...:banghead:
 
With regard to the prohibition of lead ammunition, does this mean only solid lead projectiles or does it include lead-core?
CA's current lead ban in the supposed condor areas states projectiles have to be less than 1% lead. I suspect this will be the statewide standard.
 
Nobody knows what AB48 actually means. The person that wrote it must have English as a second language. You can read it ten times and it still makes no sense. This one is heading to court.
 
Please document where
(b) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2014, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(c) Any person who, prior to July 1, 2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:
(1) Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state.
(2) Prior to July 1, 2014, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.
(3) Destroy the large-capacity magazine.
(4) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

was removed. As I would not like to find out next year on a DOJ funded door kicking session I funded with DEROS fees!
 
Gordon,

Covered in post 11. See section 3 of the Bill:
Section 1.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 32310 of the Penal Code proposed by both this bill and Senate Bill 396. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2014, (2) each bill amends Section 32310 of the Penal Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Senate Bill 396, in which case Section 1 of this bill shall not become operative.
SB396 Failed passage.
 
Romeo 33 Delta said:
Boy, I really just don't understand these people ...
Well, the idea is that the condors are eating kills (guts, I guess) that were shot with and have lead in them, and thus getting lead poisoning. Still, a lot of us worry that it will be the basis for a ban on all lead ammo everywhere in California, on the basis that the lead from shooting is getting into the water supply (or could get into the water supply).


Ken70 said:
Nobody knows what AB48 actually means. The person that wrote it must have English as a second language. You can read it ten times and it still makes no sense. This one is heading to court.
You think that one is good, try reading the failed assault weapons bill, especially the part about magazine size.... Something about "that does not have a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds".... I still can't figure out what it was trying to say, although I know what it was meant to say.
 
You have to love how the Second Amendment is the only one that you have to jump through hoops in order to execute and even then, you can't fully execute your Second Amendment right. Just imagine the uproar if we did the same thing with say, freedom of speech... before you write a book, you have to submit a copy to the government, pay a $200 tax, and wait a year. Oh you want to give a speech, you have to attend a speech-giving class first. Oh you want to hold a protest with signs, you need to submit a form to the government to determine if the sign is appropriate or not.

That is not the way the rights were supposed to be. They were either supposed to be all or none.
 
giggitygiggity said:
...Just imagine the uproar if we did the same thing with say, freedom of speech...
Well we're getting a bit off track, but in reality the rights protected by the First Amendment are subject to regulation in a variety of ways.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion and in effect states that such right shall not be abridged. Yet we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:

  1. Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do abridge the freedom of speech.

  2. If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regular enforced.

  3. Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit and pay a fee in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours.

  4. In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion.
 
To be fair, an equivalent restriction on 2A would be laws against brandishing, laws against shooting in a dangerous manner, and possibly registration of munitions above a certain size (say 500 lb bombs).
 
ChaoSS said:
To be fair, an equivalent restriction on 2A would be laws against brandishing, laws against shooting in a dangerous manner, and possibly registration of munitions above a certain size (say 500 lb bombs).
Not necessarily and really irrelevant. There is no reason why regulation sustained by courts of rights protected by the Second Amendment need correspond or be analogous to regulation sustained by courts of rights protected by the First Amendment.

The legal principles by which a court will decide whether a regulation of a constitutionally protected right is permissible are fairly well settled and are based on consideration and balancing of the nature of the governmental interest intended to be furthered by the regulation and the extent the right is materially impaired. Of course it's a bit more complicated than that in practice; but there is no reason that application of the process to rights protected by the Second Amendment need yield permissible regulations similar to those which have been sustained in connection with the First Amendment.

A discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence here merely serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit narrow regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts. We can not expect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment; but we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts.
 
My point is that the "narrow regulation" of rights such as the first amendment involve things that aren't necessarily "free speech". The examples you gave are primarily those of using the printed or spoken word to mislead about medical information, investment information, etc.


On the other hand, you are correct in the issue of protests, where the right is directly infringed by requiring a permit, so perhaps my point is invalid.

However, I think it is entirely valid to point out that to my knowledge, the Courts have never upheld any ban on a particular religion, nor banned any one type of free speech. They aren't the same, but I think there are parallels. Or, perhaps, should be. I don't like using what the courts have upheld as an indication of what they should be able to uphold, however.
 
However, I think it is entirely valid to point out that to my knowledge, the Courts have never upheld any ban on a particular religion, nor banned any one type of free speech.
Did you miss Reynolds v. United States (1879), where they held that the Morrill Act could indeed limit the First Amendment protections in the practice of a religion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top