Covert Mission
New member
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
"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