CA SB23 amended...worse than ever!

  • Thread starter Thread starter DC
  • Start date Start date
Interesting that to know that in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia, they feel that one "deadly weapon" is apparently not as deadly as another... I loved the charges for one weapon as opposed to another.

Has anyone asked OJ what he thinks..?
 
DC,

I just read the text of this. Got a little bogged down but think I got most of it. WOW.
You have my sympathy for having to face this type of legislation, at this time, in your state.

This will be the model for the Gun Control Advocates all over.

I'm at a loss to express what I believe this means about the state of mind of the voting majority and of the legislators. It appears the legislators have no integrity and the majority of voters has no personal belief in responsibility.

WOW,

in shock and dismay,

Noel
 
DC

for those of us who are illiterate, can you summurize what had been added since the Senate Passed it?

thanks


------------------
It ain't mah fault. did I do dat?
 
Chink...its almost twice as big for one.

2) They've gotten into all sorts of other weapons(and things that could be used as a weapon) and muddled the definition of dirk/dagger to include any knife...thereby expanding a cop or DA's latitude in charges.
3) They have greater penalties for using a semi- vs a bolt action in crimes
4) Open the door for further re-defining assault weapons and bans.
5) Incremental defacto gun registration, for each new gun they decide to call an assault weapon...including double sets of finger prints, registration, background check and you pay for it
6) Redefined a gun as loaded if you have immediate possession of ammo....ex. Your single action revolver is unloaded but if you have ammo in your pocket, the gun is "loaded"
7) Expands the definitions of crimes and increases penalties accordingly..this results in more money spent and requires mandated local programs increasing bureaucracy
8) Also does not preclude a pistol from being called a short-barreled rifle or shotgun...thus allows an increased penalty

There is too much to list here, like I said, its almost twice as big as it was in the Senate

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited July 01, 1999).]
 
Most of what you see there is already on Cals law books. They simply modify the existing law with add-ins.

The original proposed version was much worse, it originally defined any weapon a assault weapon if it had a high capacity magazine attached to it. Which meant anything...ruger 10/22 with 25 rounder, beretta 92f with 15 rounds, etc. Nevertheless it still is a hard pill for us Californians to swallow...at least the law abiding ones.
 
Gymco...
Still does.

One of the main differences is that revenue gathering is included: under certain conditions, 1st time offenders can be charged with an infraction...$500

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I'm all for longer sentences if you use guns in crimes. thats not a problem for me, cuz I don't intend to commit any crimes with my guns.
and I thought 4 was in the proposal passed by the senate.
do the senate and the assembly have to pass the same bill?
cuz if it passed one way in the senate and the another way will more crap tacked on in the assembly, some senates my change their minds and then we get a short repreive. maybe, but then again mayeb not
 
I know I've said this before, but we (gun owners) often plead for stronger enforcement of current (20,000) laws - too frequently without knowing what these laws are! (I surely don't!)

Likewise, before asking for stronger punishment for crimes with guns, remember they can pass legislation that makes ALL of us criminals, eg CA SKS law.

Our legislators can declare almost anything they want to be "crimes of violence or intended violence or potential violence", etc.

They don't have the same moral standards we have.
 
Chink...

You miss the point...why is it worse to rob a 7-11 with a glock or a Mini-14 or a Rem 1100 than with a Ruger Blackhawk, bolt action rifle or dbl barrel shotgun?
Because of the potential damage you may do? C'mon, thats a weak rationale. You used a gun, thats all that should matter, period. Anything else belies the underlying intent to disarm us.
Consider that all laws are always added to, then we can see that later there will be gradiated penalties for "illegal" transport: you come back from the range and forgot toseparate the ammo from the gun according the law. Your gun happens to be a 1911A1. You'll get a stiffer penalty than if I did the same with my Blackhawk.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Back
Top