Updated California bill watchlist, second edition just out, plus links to two others.

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim March

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,732
Location
SF Bay Area
I just published a new version of the CCRKBA Calif bill watchlist:

http://www.equalccw.com/2004bills.html

This neat little critter of an AW reform (AB2218) will be debated 4/20/04 in the Assembly Safety Committee. This is a good sign, that it even got a hearing.

There's other minor changes in the watchlist - all are clearly labeled in red in the index, you don't need to scan the whole thing. Also, there's key committee legislative contacts (Assembly Safety and Senate Safety) at the bottom of that page.

Also: the California NRA system has one up now too:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml

We don't appear to be in conflict in any way. Their legislative contacts system *rocks*, but I've got more detailed committee hearing dates info so far and more bills.

There's yet another one here:

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/bills.html

He's got better direct-links to bill text, something I'm working on for the next release.
 
Excellent, thanks for your hard work on this front, Jim.

PRK members, start your phones, emails, and letters!
 
If you don't know who your representatives are or how to contact them:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp click on "Find My Representative" in the left-hand column.

EVEN IF THEY'RE Democrats, write them!! First and foremost, they're politicians. At the very least, they need to be reminded that a good number, maybe even a mojority, of their constituents do not support more wacky gun laws. Let's at least give them pause before voting against our freedoms.
 
Regarding this AB 2218...

Some pro-gun groups want to pass a law that makes more of our stuff illegal? That is, all my "over 10 round" magazines that I have now (legally) become illegal?

And right now, where someone can have their CA-registered "AW" at the range with all his/her 20 & 30 round mags - but after this bill that SAME person in the SAME situation could then be prosecuted?

And doesn't this implement a REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR MAGAZINES (where we have none now)?

Since when do we support making MORE of our firearms stuff illegal? I could see this EASILY being AMENDED so that both AWs *AND* possession of 10+ round mags are banned.

Folks, as we (the pro-gun community) DEVISE OUR OWN LEGISLATION, let's be careful we don't play into the hands of the anti-gunners and GIVE THEM ON A SILVER PLATTER what they couldn't get for themselves. At best, this bill represents a compromise by OUR side of ENORMOUS proportions. This stuff hgas to be examined from ALL angles.

I'm "agin" it, and I hope NRA stays away from this one.

Mike Haas
http://AmmoGuide.com/
 
Huh.

OK, just looked again. First, the latest text as of today can be found at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2218_bill_20040331_amended_asm.html

It's been through one revision so far but it doesn't appear to be a "worsening" of any sort. For the latest text, go to:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html - punch "2218" into the search window.

AT PRESENT, Mike's fears are unjustified. Granted, that could change, but La Suer is a good guy and if it gets screwed up he can yank it.

Here's why it's an OK bill at present:

1) It's altering the "named assault rifle list" (Roberti-Roos 1988) in Penal Code 12276. Right now, there's a long list of "named assault rifles" such as the "AR series", "AK series", "Cetme Sporter" and what have you. Those are assault rifles now, and if you have a registered AW and standard-cap magazines past 10 rounds, they're still AWs. Nothing has changed for such folks.

What's new is that if ALL you have is 10rd mags with you, it's no longer an AW. If all you have is 10rders at home, it ain't an AW. The good news for existing registered AW owners is that if there's a particular place to shoot that doesn't allow AWs, if they only bring 10rd mags it's not an AW. If they want to transfer the thing to their kids after they die, under existing law they flat cannot - under this, they can so long as the kid only gets 10rders he can still have pop's old rifle.

But none of this hurts your status as an existing registered AW owner! If you want to remain operating under those existing laws, they're not gone, they've been added to.

This is not a ban on existing high-caps.

2) 12276.1 is the "named evil features" section of the law added in during the Davis administration. It's "grammatically tricky". Let's take it apart:

-------------
Old:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

[list of "eeeevil features" BS]
-------------
New:

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon"
shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a detachable magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds and any one of the following:

[list of "eeeevil features" BS]
-------------

In other words, under the new text, if it "has a big detachable magazine" and the "eeeevil features", then it's an AW. And if it's an AW, it needs to be registered and all that crapola. IF IT'S REGISTERED and it's an AW, then yes, it can have a honkin' big mag :).

So Mike, this does NOT screw over existing people who registered their AWs. They're now proud owners and shooters of big mags. Everybody else can own the same guns now, shoot 'em, they're just limited to 10rd maggies.

As a bonus to the existing AW owners, they can load up their car with their registered AW, leave the big mags at home, take small mags on the road and even though it's registered as an AW, they've "temporarily" turned it into a normal gun for the purposes of a gunsmith visit, hunting trip, out-of-state and back trip or whateverthehell. AND they can transfer it for the first time, just not with the big mags...we've gone from destroying the whole gun on the owner's death to destroying big mags.

Ain't perfect, but...hey, we're in California. NRA is WAY, way behind the curve on this one.
 
I just fired off an email to the Assembly Public Safety Committee asking them to approve this bill. I would ask that everyone else do the same thing... send a short, polite note (remember that some of the committee members are our friends, and the ones who aren't are more likely to be affected by sugar than vinegar!) asking that this bill be approved without being watered down.
 
I am not sure that an AR-15 would be able to slip under the radar with a 10 rounder, because it still has the evil pistol grip.

However, other then that, I think the revision is a good one, and that Jim's reading is proper, and I support it.
 
I don't follow you either, Sven. Unless...

Jim: just be sure, have you had this interpretation double-checked? I mean, an AR-15 "has" magazines with >10 round capacity, in that such magazines do exist and will fit into an AR-15. It's not abundantly clear to me that this new definition specifically means that the weapon and magazine have to be combined together to qualify as an AW. Under this reading, any rifle for which >10-round magazines exist could be suspect.
 
Huh. IF you squint right maybe...

Tell ya what. I can have Gorski and Karalash look at it tonight, and then check with Jay La Suer's people monday, see if the legislature's law office has scoped it out.
 
I am not a lawyer, however the term 'has' would apply as it does to the rest of the prohabition, that is to say if the rifle also 'has' a pistol grip, or 'has' a grenade launcher.

The term that would kill us would be 'capacity to accept' a mag of >10rounds. That was not chosen here, so I belive we are in the clear.

Mike- THIS DOES NOT AFFECT ANY LEGALLY REGISTERED AWs! They are still merely ASSAULT WEAPONS!


What it does mean is that you can now buy a new Bushmaster (and if the federal AWB sunsets, with a flash hider, and bayo lug, and tele-stock), and 10 round mags for it. As long as you never sitck a >10 round mag in there, you are perfectly legit.


It also seems that one could streatch this into being able to legally own 30 rounders and 10 rounders and this new Bushmaster. However, as soon as you clicked a >10 round mag into your new Bushy, you'd be illegal. UNTILL YOU DO however, I read it as though the Bushy is now considered a plain 'ol rifle.
 
artherd- Ok, excellent points; you're correct. It's just that when we have a former President who tried to argue the meaning of the word "is", I get a bit paranoid. :eek: Thanks for checking things out, Jim.

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
 
I think that Jim March's reading on this is correct. I'm sure that Mike Haas has reservations about it, and it could be amended to be worse than how California assault weapon owners have it now, but as it stands, its an improvement.

Remember how SB1805 was good when it was first presented by Senator Larry Craig, and then it got amended with all sorts of poison pill amendments? Right now, its a good bill. The trick is to keep the bill a pure bill. Once it gets poison pill amendments, then we can kill it.

I think the NRA in California thinks that all gun bills are like gremlins. If they get amended by anti-gun politicians, then they do turn into gremlins. I think that gun bills proposed by pro-2A politicians are mogwais. The trick is to stop the Democrats from feeding them after midnight. :uhoh:
 
You know, I took a fresh look just now. I think the key is to go back to the earlier bit added in the "named bad guns" area.

Right, here's that part:

----------------------
12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the
following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles when equipped with
a magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds or when
both the rifle and a large-capacity magazine are in the immediate
possession of the same person:
(1) All AK series including, but not limited to, the models
identified as follows:
(A) Made in China AK, AKM, AKS, AK47, AK47S, 56, 56S, 84S, and
86S.
[lots more specified "eeeevil guns" we need not list...]
----------------------

I've italicized the bit that is added in.

As y'all can see, the term "has" is here defined VERY clearly as "the owner of the gun HAS a big magazine in the gun or nearby".

It would be quite squirrelly to define the same term "has" as "something the GUN "has" available somewhere on the commercial market" in the OTHER section of the bill related to "eeevil features".

I'll still check with La Suer Monday and EMail this to attorneys Gorski and Karalash tonight. But I'm now 100% sure my reading is correct and Mike Haas has it wrong.

No flames intended for those skeptical however.
 
What it does mean is that you can now buy a new Bushmaster (and if the federal AWB sunsets, with a flash hider, and bayo lug, and tele-stock), and 10 round mags for it. As long as you never sitck a >10 round mag in there, you are perfectly legit.
Click to expand...

What about SB23? A Bushmaster in preban configuration would still be illegal. :(
 
Jim: Bookmarked all those sites. Thanks again to all.

So, it comes down to, we can own ARs, but can't use those mags? We are all supporting that?

What does:

"in the immediate possession of the same person" mean, by the letter of the law? So, I can't have the magazine and rifle... what.... within 10 feet of each other? Physically attached to each other or to me? Can I think about putting them together?

And Jim said: "This is not a ban on existing high-caps." But can those people still use their 'grandfathered' mags?

Re: Highpower. I forgot about the exception the Service Rifle rules has, and I quote: "In all courses and in all positions the 20-round box magazine or a reduced capacity magazine of the same external dimensions will be allowed." (my emphasis)
http://www.tngbbs.com/rifle/nra/hp/
 
And my head hurt too...

Not to mention my eyes, from all the reading. But what a joy to have a Kali gun bill that might turn out to be GOOD for a change!

Again you have earned a big THANK YOU JIM MARCH!

I'll be writing letters & faxes to all the asst. critters, and I'll make real nice to them too, especially Senators Mark Wyland and Bill Morrow, who are both on our side (so far as I know, anyway) and whom I am lucky enough to have in my district.

What's happening in the world?!! Just recently I read that Babbling Boxer was actually supporting the arming of pilots against the TSA, and now it looks like I may (prayer time here!) actually be allowed one day to buy one of the eeevil 'assault weapons' so cordially hated by Feinswein, right here in California.

Am I dreaming or what? (pinch: OW! well, I guess not)

Whatever it is, it's enough to give me hope for the future, and has inspired me to get a life membership in CCRKBA. (That costs less than ONE GUN, for those who haven't yet made the move, and the inestimable (and, thank God, irrepressible) Jim March is once again right there fighting for us - check it out.)

Esky
who would much rather be shooting than writing, but apparently it's against the law to shoot congressional parasites (dunno why tho)
 
SVEN ol' buddy:

And Jim said: "This is not a ban on existing high-caps." But can those people still use their 'grandfathered' mags?
Click to expand...

YES! They can!

OK, lookit: what La Suer has given us is a blueprint for getting OUT from under the current AW rules. But it does NOT get rid of those rules! IF you have a registered AW right this minute, you'll still have a legal AW after AB2218 passes. Your registration is still good. Based on that registration, you can still USE your AW gun when combined with high-cap mags making it an AW.

With me now?

It gets even better. You can TEMPORARILY turn your gun into a non-AW by travelling with it without taking high-caps along. That makes it a whole bunch easier to leave at a gunsmith, for example. You can also leave the gun to your kids or sell it, so long as no high-caps are part of the deal.

So it ain't perfect. But it does NOT screw over existing registered AW/highcap owners at all. It gives them a good bit of extra flexibility for some situations, purely at their option. If this passes, all current AW owners should pick up at least one 10rounder for those situations when a non-AW is legally useful.
 
What about SB23? A Bushmaster in preban configuration would still be illegal.
Click to expand...

WRONG! This ammendment *addresses* SB23! If you look carefully it applies to all Category 1(first series ban) Category 2 (second Roberti-Roots Series Ban) AND Category 3 ban (ban by features.)

So this means that I WOULD be able to purchase a stamped "Bushmaster XM-15", or stamped "Colt AR-15" or what have you.

I just have to use it with 10 round mags.

Existing AW owners are basically unaffected, except for gaining the ability to turn their AWs into plain long-guns with just the addition of a 10-rounder.
 
OK. If we're all basically on the same page here:

http://www.equalccw.com/AB2218.pdf

This is a PRELIMINARY, draft copy of a CCRKBA letter of support for AB2218. (Note: the formatting on page one is funky to fit CCRKBA letterhead. Ignore that.)

Since the bill is set for committee on 4/20/04, I've got to have this done and in by...4/15/04 would be best. So we've got that much time to fine-tune and otherwise tweak both the document and the basic approach. I'll also be running this past the more experienced CCRKBA lobbyists such as Dave Workman and Joe Waldron, and Alan Gottlieb of course.

Meanwhile, comments on this welcome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
California Legislative Watchlist - FIRST edition 2004
Replies
3
Views
512
Jim March
J
J
  • Locked
California Safety Committees (Assembly/Senate) report 4/13/04:
Replies
7
Views
448
Pendragon
P
G
  • Locked
No hunting in California
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Shalako
S
S
  • Locked
CA: SB489 will be heard tomorrow!
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Telperion
T
J
  • Locked
Calif: AB1044, the CCW coverup bill, TIME TO ACT!
Replies
9
Views
838
Jim March
J
Back
Top