You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CA SB 23 passed Assembly
- Thread starter DC
- Start date
Ewok:
The final version says "a forward pistol grip". For all the details, check out http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B
Corbon91
The final version says "a forward pistol grip". For all the details, check out http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B
Corbon91
KAM_Indianapolis
New member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/gunfight/gunfight.htm
Well, it looks like some of you Californians will have a chance to make a stand soon. The way the article reads except for revolvers, just about any handgun could be considered a "assault weapon" since just about every one of them has "the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition". Well guess what, even my little Kel-Tec P11 with its 10 round magazine can hold 11 rounds.
When will they learn that criminals don't follow the law.
------------------
Peace...
Keith
If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited July 14, 1999).]
Well, it looks like some of you Californians will have a chance to make a stand soon. The way the article reads except for revolvers, just about any handgun could be considered a "assault weapon" since just about every one of them has "the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition". Well guess what, even my little Kel-Tec P11 with its 10 round magazine can hold 11 rounds.
When will they learn that criminals don't follow the law.
------------------
Peace...
Keith
If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."
[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited July 14, 1999).]
Keith,
They already know that. Besides, it's no longer about the criminal, it's about making criminals and ultimately confiscation.
------------------
John/az
"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!
Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)
Ants UNITE!
They already know that. Besides, it's no longer about the criminal, it's about making criminals and ultimately confiscation.
------------------
John/az
"They come, they eat, they leave...
"They come, they eat, they leave...NOT!!
Bill Clinton (aka: Hopper) Al Gore (aka: Molt) Janet Reno (aka: Thumper)
Ants UNITE!
Keith, the person who wrote that article is an idiot. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are banned, not pistols that hold more than 10. Here's a summary of the part about pistols:
D. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any of the
following:
(1) A threaded barrel
(2) A second vertical handgrip.
(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially
or completely encircles, the barrel that allows
the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his
or her hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(4) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine
at some location outside of the pistol grip.
E. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that
has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds.
D. A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine and any of the
following:
(1) A threaded barrel
(2) A second vertical handgrip.
(3) A shroud that is attached to, or partially
or completely encircles, the barrel that allows
the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his
or her hand, except a slide that encloses the
barrel.
(4) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine
at some location outside of the pistol grip.
E. A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that
has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds.
Geez............I think I gotta puke, after reading this Bill/Law !! I feel for all you folks out there in California.
If I read this right the Hammerli target pistol that has its magazine forward of the pistol grip is now categorized as an "assault pistol/ weapon". And what about the Benelli MP90 Match pistols ? Any doubts where all this is heading should be put to rest from those that doubt that "anti gunners" are after total bans on **ALL** firearms.
Rob
------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------
[This message has been edited by Rob62 (edited July 14, 1999).]
If I read this right the Hammerli target pistol that has its magazine forward of the pistol grip is now categorized as an "assault pistol/ weapon". And what about the Benelli MP90 Match pistols ? Any doubts where all this is heading should be put to rest from those that doubt that "anti gunners" are after total bans on **ALL** firearms.
Rob
------------------
It's amazing what a large group of stupid people can accomplish.
-----------------
[This message has been edited by Rob62 (edited July 14, 1999).]
There are some weasel words in the bill that would let them selectively prosecute.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It was the original intent of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 to ban all assault weapons, regardless of their name, model number, or manufacture.
It is the purpose of this act [SB 23] to effectively achieve the Legislature's intent to prohibit all assault weapons.
[/quote]
If you tried to make a test case where the only firearm in question was a Hämmerli target pistol, they would probably just claim that it wasn't an "assault weapon" because they didn't intend for it to be. Simply put, they can't define what an assault weapon is, because there is no such category of weapon.
[This message has been edited by Ewok (edited July 14, 1999).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It was the original intent of the Legislature in enacting Chapter 19 of the Statutes of 1989 to ban all assault weapons, regardless of their name, model number, or manufacture.
It is the purpose of this act [SB 23] to effectively achieve the Legislature's intent to prohibit all assault weapons.
[/quote]
If you tried to make a test case where the only firearm in question was a Hämmerli target pistol, they would probably just claim that it wasn't an "assault weapon" because they didn't intend for it to be. Simply put, they can't define what an assault weapon is, because there is no such category of weapon.
[This message has been edited by Ewok (edited July 14, 1999).]
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
According to the article I read, http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-07/14/115l-071499-idx.html
the law "would ban semiautomatic rifles and pistols with the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition. Semiautomatic rifles less than 30 inches long would be prohibited, as would all semiautomatic firearms that have detachable magazines and other parts, such as threaded barrels, second handgrips or folding stocks. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition could not be manufactured or sold.
Law enforcement officers in the state would be exempted from the law. State residents who already own weapons covered by the bill would have a year to register them with police."
Would someone who knows the law (state of california) please tell me what is up with LEOs being exempt from the law? Someone once told me that they don't have any more rights than the average citizen when it comes to certain things.
I tend to believe that most police officers are good people who wouldn't intentionally violate my rights without good reason. I believe that some gun owners are extremist when they worry about jack-booted thugs and weapons confiscation. I believe that the United States Government would never dare violate the constitution and infringe on my rights to KBA.
But now...I am totally rethinking my beliefs.
the law "would ban semiautomatic rifles and pistols with the capacity to hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition. Semiautomatic rifles less than 30 inches long would be prohibited, as would all semiautomatic firearms that have detachable magazines and other parts, such as threaded barrels, second handgrips or folding stocks. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition could not be manufactured or sold.
Law enforcement officers in the state would be exempted from the law. State residents who already own weapons covered by the bill would have a year to register them with police."
Would someone who knows the law (state of california) please tell me what is up with LEOs being exempt from the law? Someone once told me that they don't have any more rights than the average citizen when it comes to certain things.
I tend to believe that most police officers are good people who wouldn't intentionally violate my rights without good reason. I believe that some gun owners are extremist when they worry about jack-booted thugs and weapons confiscation. I believe that the United States Government would never dare violate the constitution and infringe on my rights to KBA.
But now...I am totally rethinking my beliefs.
In most cases where gun control laws exempt LEOs, it's only in their official capacity. They can't go around flashing the badge and collecting all sorts of contraband, unless they have purchase authorization from the chief executive of their department, and only with the intent of purchasing items for use in their official capacity. That's the way it is here in WA.
Covert Mission
New member
Re: SB-23... read the bill (enrolled version, 7/12/99) at: <A HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B]www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B[/URL" TARGET=_blank>
UPDATE: SEE POST BELOW FOR FURTHER INTERPRETATION... ALL MIGHT NOT BE LOST. Hi-caps not TOTALLY BANNED)
-------------------
NRA Alert --- This Friday (the 16th) is the last day for policy committees (e.g. Public Safety) to meet and report on bills. This Friday is also the day the legislature adjourns for four weeks for their summer recess, before returning for the final four weeks of session. This means that there is a lot of action taking place and it is hard to track everything at once.
MAKE SURE YOUR REPS AND GOV. DAVIS HEAR FROM YOU IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS
•••FOR ALL THE LATE BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.CALNRA.ORG</A> or <A HREF="http://www.gunownersca.com/]http://www.gunownersca.com/[/URL" TARGET=_blank>
----Our politician locator is at [URL=http://www.calnra.org]www.calnra.org</A>
YOU MUST ACT NOW!! Your messages can be very simple like
Dear Senator X
I oppose gun control and urge you to vote no on sb15, sb-23, ...etc.
Yours truly,
John Jones
---------------------------
***** AB-202 One Gun A Month passed the Assembly and Senate. Only Gray Davis Can STOP it Urge him to veto this bill ASAP!!!
***** SB-23 Semi Auto and Magazine ban passed the Assembly and Senate.
only Gray Davis Can STOP it Urge him to veto this bill ASAP!!!
-----------------------------
REMEMBER TO CONTACT GRAY DAVIS IF THE BILLS PASS THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
Gray Davis,
State Capitol Building, Sacramento 95814;
Ph. (916) 445-2841, Fax (916) 445-4633.
Local office: 1350 Front St., Suite 6054,
Sixth Floor, San Diego 92101; Ph.(619) 525-4641.
THE WORST BILLS ARE SB-15, SB-23, AB-17, AB-491, AB-863, AB-1204
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited July 16, 1999).]
UPDATE: SEE POST BELOW FOR FURTHER INTERPRETATION... ALL MIGHT NOT BE LOST. Hi-caps not TOTALLY BANNED)
-------------------
NRA Alert --- This Friday (the 16th) is the last day for policy committees (e.g. Public Safety) to meet and report on bills. This Friday is also the day the legislature adjourns for four weeks for their summer recess, before returning for the final four weeks of session. This means that there is a lot of action taking place and it is hard to track everything at once.
MAKE SURE YOUR REPS AND GOV. DAVIS HEAR FROM YOU IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS
•••FOR ALL THE LATE BREAKING NEWS VISIT WWW.CALNRA.ORG</A> or <A HREF="http://www.gunownersca.com/]http://www.gunownersca.com/[/URL" TARGET=_blank>
----Our politician locator is at [URL=http://www.calnra.org]www.calnra.org</A>
YOU MUST ACT NOW!! Your messages can be very simple like
Dear Senator X
I oppose gun control and urge you to vote no on sb15, sb-23, ...etc.
Yours truly,
John Jones
---------------------------
***** AB-202 One Gun A Month passed the Assembly and Senate. Only Gray Davis Can STOP it Urge him to veto this bill ASAP!!!
***** SB-23 Semi Auto and Magazine ban passed the Assembly and Senate.
only Gray Davis Can STOP it Urge him to veto this bill ASAP!!!
-----------------------------
REMEMBER TO CONTACT GRAY DAVIS IF THE BILLS PASS THE ASSEMBLY AND SENATE
Gray Davis,
State Capitol Building, Sacramento 95814;
Ph. (916) 445-2841, Fax (916) 445-4633.
Local office: 1350 Front St., Suite 6054,
Sixth Floor, San Diego 92101; Ph.(619) 525-4641.
THE WORST BILLS ARE SB-15, SB-23, AB-17, AB-491, AB-863, AB-1204
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited July 16, 1999).]
Jeff Thomas
New member
I haven't finished reading the entire bill, but I am impressed.
As I scan this, it looks like I can't visit my family anymore if I want to stay out of CA jails. It appears that if I travel to CA, have an unloaded pistol in a locked container and a loaded hi-cap mag in the center console, I'm toast. It appears that someone cannot legally bring a hi-cap mag into CA.
IMHO, I hate to think I may go to jail because I didn't make sure I'm using emasculated mag's for the trip.
As I scan this, it looks like I can't visit my family anymore if I want to stay out of CA jails. It appears that if I travel to CA, have an unloaded pistol in a locked container and a loaded hi-cap mag in the center console, I'm toast. It appears that someone cannot legally bring a hi-cap mag into CA.
IMHO, I hate to think I may go to jail because I didn't make sure I'm using emasculated mag's for the trip.
Covert Mission
New member
EWOK, I think you are right. I studied the bill at length last night. Here's my new opinion. I have e-mailed A lawyer who publishes a book on CA gun laws each year, and asked for his analysis.
**********************
Hi-cap possession might not be banned (if you already legally own them) according to my further interpretation here of SB23. My reading of the analysis of the bill by the Senate, and of the actual amendments of the bill to PC12020 (rather than just the intro to the bill), indicate that POSSESSION of Hi- cap magazines ALREADY owned legally will NOT be banned. Earlier versions of the bill DID say "keeps or offer for sale".
Although the INTRO to the official Bill SB23 cites that:
“ This bill would make it a misdemeanor or a felony, beginning January 1, 2000, for any person, except as provided, to manufacture,import into the state, KEEP or offer for sale, give, or lend any large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine would be defined to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. By expanding the definition of, and increasing the penalty for, a crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program.”...
THIS is not the actual legal amendment to 12020 itself, just the intro to the bill.
***********************
The actual Senate analysis AND the text of the bill regarding the amendment of PC12020 do NOT indicate that KEEPING a hi-cap magazine will be a crime. Here is the text of the actual amendment to 12020, from page 10 of the Acrobat version of the bill, as downloaded from:
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B
***********************
In the text of the bill, it says: “SEC. 3. Section 12020 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:...
...(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, KEEPS FOR SALE, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
***********************
Below is the Senate’s analysis of the bill, which agrees with the above paragraph. It also apparently DOES NOT prohibit the mere possession (KEEPING) of hi-caps... only KEEPING FOR SALE of them.
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 23|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
Bill No: SB 23
Author: Perata (D), et al
Amended: 7/12/99
Vote: 21
SUBJECT : Firearms: assault weapons
SOURCE : Handgun Control
DIGEST : This bill:
1.Provides that it is a crime, punishable by an alternative misdemeanor/ felony ("wobbler"), commencing January 1,2000, for any person to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state, KEEP FOR SALE, or offer to expose for sale, or give, or lend any large-capacity magazine (i.e., any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds), as specified.
*********************************
This points to a contradiction between the bill’s opening paragraphs, which are a summary of the bill, and the actual amendments made to the law further into the text of the bill, and the analysis of the bill by the Senate. By saying KEEPS FOR SALE, rather than KEEPS OR OFFERS FOR SALE, it leads me to believe that legally owned hi-caps bought before the law takes effect can still be POSSESSED.
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited July 16, 1999).]
**********************
Hi-cap possession might not be banned (if you already legally own them) according to my further interpretation here of SB23. My reading of the analysis of the bill by the Senate, and of the actual amendments of the bill to PC12020 (rather than just the intro to the bill), indicate that POSSESSION of Hi- cap magazines ALREADY owned legally will NOT be banned. Earlier versions of the bill DID say "keeps or offer for sale".
Although the INTRO to the official Bill SB23 cites that:
“ This bill would make it a misdemeanor or a felony, beginning January 1, 2000, for any person, except as provided, to manufacture,import into the state, KEEP or offer for sale, give, or lend any large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine would be defined to mean any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds. By expanding the definition of, and increasing the penalty for, a crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program.”...
THIS is not the actual legal amendment to 12020 itself, just the intro to the bill.
***********************
The actual Senate analysis AND the text of the bill regarding the amendment of PC12020 do NOT indicate that KEEPING a hi-cap magazine will be a crime. Here is the text of the actual amendment to 12020, from page 10 of the Acrobat version of the bill, as downloaded from:
www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_23&sess=CUR&house=B
***********************
In the text of the bill, it says: “SEC. 3. Section 12020 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:...
...(2) Commencing January 1, 2000, manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, KEEPS FOR SALE, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any large-capacity magazine.
***********************
Below is the Senate’s analysis of the bill, which agrees with the above paragraph. It also apparently DOES NOT prohibit the mere possession (KEEPING) of hi-caps... only KEEPING FOR SALE of them.
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE SB 23|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
Bill No: SB 23
Author: Perata (D), et al
Amended: 7/12/99
Vote: 21
SUBJECT : Firearms: assault weapons
SOURCE : Handgun Control
DIGEST : This bill:
1.Provides that it is a crime, punishable by an alternative misdemeanor/ felony ("wobbler"), commencing January 1,2000, for any person to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state, KEEP FOR SALE, or offer to expose for sale, or give, or lend any large-capacity magazine (i.e., any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds), as specified.
*********************************
This points to a contradiction between the bill’s opening paragraphs, which are a summary of the bill, and the actual amendments made to the law further into the text of the bill, and the analysis of the bill by the Senate. By saying KEEPS FOR SALE, rather than KEEPS OR OFFERS FOR SALE, it leads me to believe that legally owned hi-caps bought before the law takes effect can still be POSSESSED.
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited July 16, 1999).]