CA SB 23 passed Assembly

This is the reply from the gun law book author/lawyer:

"Hi P------,

You are correct in your interpretation. Mere possession will not be banned. But you will not be able to keep them for sale, or offer them for sale. My understanding is that the language "keep or offer for sale" is traditional California Penal Code language intended to prevent sales.

People have probably tried to weasel out of such prohibitions by not overtly offering to sell a banned item, or by otherwise claiming that items actually being kept for the purpose of sale were not intended as such. This makes the prosecutor's job harder. Thus, the "keep or offer" language was instituted at some point. I don't have time for a research project on this right now, but there are a number of other provisions in the penal code with this same language. Maybe you can search for "keep or offer for sale" to compare this bill with current statutes.

For the provision to ban possession, it would have to add a comma, as in "keep, or offer for sale".

This doesn't mean that once the bill takes effect that the Calif. DOJ might not try for the other interpretation. I don't think they will, and if they did I don't think it would hold up in court, but there's always the possibility.

It's a very, very bad bill in any case.

Regards,

John
 
Thats all well and good, however....

One can get into a legal nightmare if one is stopped, detained,questioned at a range or out hunting with hi-caps as you'd have to prove you owned them prior to Jan, 1, 2000. As has been noted, what if you didn't keep the receipts?
Don't forget how often the law is used to as a tool of cohersion.
SB 23 dries up the supply and transferance of hi-caps....however, the grandfather clause also requires proof of prior ownership. Also realize, that an arrest is an arrest regardless of outcome....we've all heard the stories of weenies things in folk's backgrounds preventing NICs ok or CCW ok, etc.
As the anti-gunners get more bold and the politicos follow suit, do you not think they won't trump up stuff to disqualify more and more people from owning firearms?


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
DC:

I absolutely know what you mean. I've tried to keep as many receipts as I can, although in the case of SB23, it doesn't state anywhere that you have to have proof of date of purchase. Since the mags aren't LEO only or serial #'d, it's up to them to prove I've done something illegal (which I haven't and won't). Innocent until proven guilty. Of course, we know that doesn't stop "Big Brother" from trying. And most of us cannot afford the legal bills which go along with some of these nightmares, so we're screwed. I'll use mine at the range, and otherwise at home they'll stay. Now, gotta go xerox those receipts (anyone want a copy ? JUST KIDDING!)

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited July 16, 1999).]
 
A lot of the danger of law is in the various interpretations. I can see where the law could male a 1911 illegal. It can, for example accept a 25 or 30 round magazine and some portion of it will be at a place outside the pistol grip.
At some point the law will be used against all pistols.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top