Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Two lines of questioning and reasoning to take to any one for more gun regulation

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rd_zzyzx, Feb 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rd_zzyzx

    rd_zzyzx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    Two lines of questioning for those that want stricter gun regulation:

    For those that want to make a list of firearms and accessories that are illegal:

    Instead of describing what an illegal firearm is, please describe a legal firearm. Trying to define something by what it is not is open ended. You can not list the infinite number of things something is not. Therefore describe what a legal firearm is, a firearm that meets your definition of a firearm that upholds the 2nd Amendment.

    (This will take us off of the slippery slope and directly to where they really want to go.)




    For those that want to increase taxes on bullets, have fees for registration, fees for training, and fees for background checks:

    Do you support the 2nd Amendment? Is the 2nd Amendment a right for the poor? Will there be vouchers for the poor to receive bullets relative to their ability to pay, as well as vouchers for registration fees and training fees? Or is the 2nd Amendment only for the wealthy?

    (This will expose the slippery slope of infringement and show that regulation restricts persons by their ability to afford to pay the fees and taxes. How will it settle in the stomaches of the tax payers to know that they are funding low income persons to purchase firearms and ammunition? Especially those against firearms completely.)


    Please spread these questions around so that others can bring them up in town meetings, letters with their elected officials, etc.
    Also, please add your list of questions to this thread so we all can benefit.
     
  2. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,982
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Add some specific Bill numbers, to bring this in line for "on topic" for this forum. Describe particulars to which your points pertain.
     
  3. steelerdude99

    steelerdude99 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    Location:
    Stafford County, VA
    rd_zzyzx,
    I love the thinking on this; it will get an anti to admit outright that they don't want any guns whatsoever. So much for so called "common-sense gun laws" and "compromise".

    chuck
     
  4. rd_zzyzx

    rd_zzyzx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    "We respect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens to have guns for hunting, for sport, for protecting their homes and families. But loopholes in California's tough gun laws have been exploited long enough," state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said Thursday.
    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking...rnias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun


    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...l-introduced-in-california-we-can-save-lives/

    And here are the bills:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_47_bill_20130124_amended_sen_v98.html



    BILL NUMBER: SB 47 AMENDED
    BILL TEXT

    AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 24, 2013

    INTRODUCED BY Senator Yee
    ( Coauthors: Senators De
    León and Steinberg )
    ( Coauthor: Assembly Member
    Dickinson )

    DECEMBER 18, 2012

    An act relating to assault weapons. An act
    to amend Sections 30515 and 30900 of, and to add Section 30680 to,
    the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


    SB 47, as amended, Yee. Assault Firearms:
    assault weapons.
    (1) Existing law generally prohibits the possession or transfer of
    assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase, importation, or
    possession of assault weapons by specified individuals, including law
    enforcement officers. Under existing law, "assault weapon" means,
    among other things, a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle or a
    semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable
    magazine and has any one of specified attributes, including, for
    rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a second handgrip.

    This bill would revise these provisions to mean a semiautomatic,
    centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed
    magazine but has any one of those specified attributes.
    This bill would also define "fixed magazine" to mean an ammunition
    feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm
    in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without
    disassembly of the firearm action.
    By expanding the definition of an existing crime, the bill would
    impose a state-mandated local program.
    (2) Existing law requires that any person who, within this state,
    possesses any .50 BMG rifle, except as otherwise provided, be
    punished by a fine of $1,000, imprisonment in a county jail for a
    period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

    This bill would exclude from those provisions a person who
    possessed an assault weapon prior to July 1, 2014, if specified
    requirements are met.
    (3) Existing law requires that, with specified exceptions, any
    person who, prior to January 1, 2001, lawfully possessed an assault
    weapon prior to the date it was defined as an assault weapon, and
    which was not specified as an assault weapon at the time of lawful
    possession, register the firearm with the Department of Justice.

    This bill would require that any person who, from January 1, 2001,
    to December, 31, 2013, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault
    weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, and including
    those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed
    readily from the firearm with the use of a tool, register the firearm
    before July 1, 2014, with the Department of Justice.
    (4)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.
    Existing law finds and declares that the proliferation and use of
    assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of
    Californians. Existing law generally prohibits the possession or
    transfer of assault weapons, except for the sale, purchase,
    importation, or possession of assault weapons by specified
    individuals, including law enforcement officers.
    Under existing law, a person who lawfully possessed an assault
    weapon before the assault weapon was a prohibited firearm is
    authorized to retain possession of the assault weapon if the person
    registered the assault weapon with the Department of Justice.

    This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact
    legislation relating to assault weapons.
    Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no
    yes . State-mandated local program: no
    yes .


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

    SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature
    to enact legislation relating to assault weapons.
    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 does not
    have a fixed magazine but has 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 does not have a fixed
    magazine but has 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.
    (b) For purposes of this section, "fixed magazine" means an
    ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a
    firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without
    disassembly of the firearm action.
    (b)
    (c) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose
    in exempting from the definition of "assault weapon" pistols that are
    designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events.
    Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International
    Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body
    for international shooting competition in the United States, and that
    were used for Olympic target shooting purposes as of January 1,
    2001, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault
    weapon" pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in
    subdivision (c) (d) .
    (c)
    (d) "Assault weapon" does not include either of the
    following:
    (1) Any antique firearm.
    (2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with
    the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (b)
    (c) :
    MANUFACTURER MODEL CALIBER
    BENELLI MP90 .22LR
    BENELLI MP90 .32 S&W LONG
    BENELLI MP95 .22LR
    BENELLI MP95 .32 S&W LONG
    HAMMERLI 280 .22LR
    HAMMERLI 280 .32 S&W LONG
    HAMMERLI SP20 .22LR
    HAMMERLI SP20 .32 S&W LONG
    PARDINI GPO .22 SHORT
    PARDINI GP-SCHUMANN .22 SHORT
    PARDINI HP .32 S&W LONG
    PARDINI MP .32 S&W LONG
    PARDINI SP .22LR
    PARDINI SPE .22LR
    WALTHER GSP .22LR
    WALTHER GSP .32 S&W LONG
    WALTHER OSP .22 SHORT
    WALTHER OSP-2000 .22 SHORT


    (3) The Department of Justice shall create a program that is
    consistent with the purposes stated in subdivision (b)
    (c) to exempt new models of competitive pistols
    that would otherwise fall within the definition of "assault weapon"
    pursuant to this section from being classified as an assault weapon.
    The exempt competitive pistols may be based on recommendations by USA
    Shooting consistent with the regulations contained in the USA
    Shooting Official Rules or may be based on the recommendation or
    rules of any other organization that the department deems relevant.
    SEC. 2. Section 30680 is added to the
    Penal Code , to read:
    30680. Notwithstanding the meaning of "assault weapon" under
    Section 30515, as amended by the act that added this section, Section
    30610 shall not apply to the possession of an assault weapon by a
    person who initially possessed the assault weapon prior to July 1,
    2014, if all of the following are applicable:
    (a) During the person's possession, the person was eligible to
    register that assault weapon pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
    30900.
    (b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon on January
    1, 2014.
    (c) During the person's possession, the person was otherwise in
    compliance with the then-applicable version of former Chapter 2.3
    (commencing with Section 12275) of Title 2 of Part 4 or this chapter,
    as the case may be.
    SEC. 3. Section 30900 of the Penal Code
    is amended to read:
    30900. (a) Any person who, prior to June 1, 1989, lawfully
    possessed an assault weapon, as defined in former Section 12276, as
    added by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989, shall
    register the firearm by January 1, 1991, and any person who lawfully
    possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an
    assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.5, as added by
    Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended by
    Section 1 of Chapter 874 of the Statutes of 1990 or Section 3 of
    Chapter 954 of the Statutes of 1991, shall register the firearm
    within 90 days with the Department of Justice pursuant to those
    procedures that the department may establish.
    (b) Except as provided in Section 30600, any person who lawfully
    possessed an assault weapon prior to the date it was defined as an
    assault weapon pursuant to former Section 12276.1, as it read in
    Section 7 of Chapter 129 of the Statutes of 1999, and which was not
    specified as an assault weapon under former Section 12276, as added
    by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at
    any time before January 1, 2001, or former Section 12276.5, as added
    by Section 3 of Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 or as amended at
    any time before January 1, 2001, shall register the firearm by
    January 1, 2001, with the department pursuant to those procedures
    that the department may establish.
    (c) Any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2013,
    inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a
    fixed magazine, as defined in Section 30515, and including those
    weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily
    from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm
    before July 1, 2014, with the department pursuant to those procedures
    that the department may establish.
    (c)
    (d) The registration shall contain a description of the
    firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification
    marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the
    owner, and any other information that the department may deem
    appropriate.
    (d)
    (e) The department may charge a fee for registration of
    up to twenty dollars ($20) per person but not to exceed the actual
    processing costs of the department. After the department establishes
    fees sufficient to reimburse the department for processing costs,
    fees charged shall increase at a rate not to exceed the legislatively
    approved annual cost-of-living adjustment for the department's
    budget or as otherwise increased through the Budget Act but
    not to exceed the actual processing costs of the
    department . The fees shall be deposited into the Dealers'
    Record of Sale Special Account.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
  5. rd_zzyzx

    rd_zzyzx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    33
  6. rd_zzyzx

    rd_zzyzx Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Messages:
    33
    I guess I got the cart before the horse, but now you have in front of you the news I was reading, the statements from those proposing new law, and one of the actual bills.

    :)
     
  7. CarolinaChuck

    CarolinaChuck member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2013
    Messages:
    65
    First off, vote with your feet and get out of California. The best way to not have the argument, is to elect officals who won't start the argument in the first place.

    The 2nd question is outright Tyarrny and should be spoken out against for what it is. Taxing something to keep you from your Rights is Tyarrny.

    All one needs to do is look at the Declaration of Independence and understand our Rights come from God, and not from men or their Governments, in order to grap onto the idea that all of the arguments they make are false.

    For some reason, people want to give creadence to the idea that there is some legitiment argument to be made for more gun laws then we have now; and there isn't any. They either can't, or won't, enforce the laws that are on the books right now; what in Heavens name makes you think we need more, or that they will somehow get it right this time?

    Reject the premise and ask the idiot making the claim to explain him or herself... Why in the world would you want to make a 1/2 idiotodical idea and argue it is somehow better? The world is a place that has evil in it; removing guns from it ain't going to change that.

    Chuck
     
  8. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,982
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Carolina Chuck, when you're dealing with people for whom your views are irrelevant, you're better off to throw the load on them: Request that they name even one law which has reduced the rate of violent crimes with firearms in the U.S. Just name one.

    They can't.
     
  9. bergmen

    bergmen Member.

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,319
    Location:
    Ukiah, California
    Will you, and everybody else who says this, PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF?

    Born here 63 years ago, gonna die here. The elections here have been rigged for years with jerrymandered districts that lock in their power base, they have nothing whatsoever to lose by taking the positions they do. Solidifying power, immune to the will of people in rural areas, is what California politicians do, better than most in the country.

    We can holler all we want to, their positions are not at risk because we do not have the votes to get rid of them. PERIOD.

    These nut cases are elected from the densely populated megalopolis' around San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento, the rest of us matter nothing to these idiots.

    Dan
     
  10. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,273
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Bergmen I understand not wanting to leave your "home". And if you are willing to live with the corrupt government, then by all means. But it would seem there are so many advantages to leaving that state it doesn't make sense to stay. Just go visit from time to time. Between the gun laws, taxes, fuel prices, and illegals, you honestly couldn't pay me to live there (well, maybe a cabin in the north country). I have been to California many times. It used to be a place that was the envy of the country. And there are still plenty of good, honest, hardworking people there. And I wish all of them would move east and let California collapse. Then move back and repopulate. Truth is, only the die hards would move back. But what do I know. We still ride horses and live in tepees where I'm from (I actually was asked that by a person in Cali once).....amazing.
     
  11. DeadMoneyDrew

    DeadMoneyDrew Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    265
    Of all of the silliness in these various "assault weapons" bans, the part that I understand the least is: what is it about a shotgun having a telescoping stock and a pistol grip that makes it more deadly than a shotgun with a fixed stock and a standard grip?

    I find it easier to refute or counter someone's argument when I understand the reasoning behind it. This one I just don't get. What is it? Concealability?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page