California AR15, AK ban and confiscation bill SB249

W

Wallabing

New member
This bill was aimed to ban the bullet button after senator Yee saw the mag magnet (which is illegal anyway) on the local nightly news , but the bill also has wording that could make many parts of the lower receiver illegal and can turn hundreds of thousands of law abiding owners into Felons.

The bill states any "part" (antis call it "conversion kit") that can be used construct to a semi auto with fixed magazines to take detachable magazine will be deemed public nuisance and confiscated.

Owners will not be reimbursed for confiscated rifles.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml?summary=sb249&year=2012

The semi auto ban has already arrived here in California.
 
California needs to fight this as it is unconstitutional, most of Cal gun law is unconstitutional.
How do these states get away with trampling all over out constitution ?
 
I'd be willing to bet that some folks here would trade away all the other amendments in exchange for the 2nd. It is said that if you worded the question in the right way, most folks would say they aren't in favor of any of the bill of rights.
 
If every major gun company that sell's AR's were to refuse to sell California LEO's firearms, much like Barrett already has then laws like this could go away. I think gun companies need to make a political stand WITH gun owners on BS laws like this. I understand they are businesses but if the heads of these companies could get together, put a small bit of profit aside and take a stand they could realize they have the same political power as GM or the Oil Companies. Whats the California governor going to do when he can't get guns for his body guards? or when the LAPD can't get new AR's for their SWAT team? Maybe some eyes on the anti side will finally open.
 
While I agree with the idea, i think its not a reasonable possibility to get EVERY manufacturer who makes AR pattern rifles to not sell to California. There are just too many who no matter what are going to put profit ahead of politics.
 
California needs to fight this as it is unconstitutional
Click to expand...
The Calguns foundation is doing just that. They are responsible for some truly great work there, and I'm disappointed that many California gun owners don't support them.

Heck, I'm on the other coast, and I send them money.

The Heller decision explicitly found bans on entire classes of arms to be unconstitutional, and if it's not stopped at the legislative level, this SB 249 will make for a very interesting lawsuit.
 
There should be no LEO exemption to civilian gun laws. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, here in NY even local and state prison guards are exempt. At the range they have 30 round mags, flash hiders, collapsible stocks etc..
I am a law abiding citizen, are they any better than me or any more trust worthy than me ? I served in the armed forces and did two tours in Viet Nam, carried full automatics, grenades, 1911 and just about every other weapon and now I am treated like I am not trust worthy enough to have a simple semi auto AR 15 with the collapsible stock or any magazine over 10 rounds. I was good enough when the government wanted me, but I am not good enough now. I have an unrestricted CCP, but I am restricted on an AR.
 
The link to the NRA site says, in part:
After NRA explained our concerns about SB249, Senator Yee stated that he would not "move" this severely flawed legislation. However, two members of his staff, Adam Keigwin and Johannes Rognerud decided to proceed with the bill and now the SB249 is in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. To reach these staff members for Senator Yee, call (916) 651-4008 or click on their names (above) to send them an email.
Click to expand...
Can staff members really move bills into committee? Is the California legislative system really that flawed?
 
These two staff member still have jobs, after moving a bill that the senator said would not be moved?

Several words come to mind: Mutiny; insurrection; ...
 
Simpler explanation is a double talking politician. If he did not want the bill submitted and his staff did it behind his back he could always pull the bill or move to have it tabled, if he has not done this he wants the bill to go forward.
 
Simpler explanation is a double talking politician. If he did not want the bill submitted and his staff did it behind his back he could always pull the bill or move to have it tabled,
Click to expand...

There you have it. Wonder why politicians think we do not trust them?

Geetarman:D
 
Most of the stupid ideas start here. Guns, gas cans, whatever. This could be the "Greatest Place on Earth" - we have Disneyland - but "politics" has destroyed it. As MEP Daniel Hannan said, "you have run out of our money" but unfortunately the "bad guys" won't just stop there. And yes, as noted above, some of us would trade a Constitutional right, or two or three if we could just get some decent Second Amendment Rights, it's that bad. This is for sure, "a tale of two states" Coastal vs. Inland, and the wrong team is winning.
 
I've lived here for 56 years, since birth as well and the problem here is and has always been the incredible success of the media propagandists. They've simply convinced too many people that self defense = vigilantism and having a gun in the house will lead to violence and death. We as organized gun owners can a afford to fund a couple of legal campaigns and maybe a few thousand dollar/year public outreach campaign to spread the gun rights = civil rights message but the media fights back with TV propaganda campaigns like the one that brought this on. It's like fighting a propaganda fire hose with a squirt gun.
 
Isn't it frustrating what other people don't see things your way? That's really the problem with democracies. People really can't be trusted with their own government. You just can't tell what they'll do next. A democracy is where you can vote to have a man put to death, you know.
 
Here's where I get puzzled:

Existing law makes possession of an assault weapon a public
nuisance, authorizes the Attorney General, district attorney, or city
attorney to bring a civil action to enjoin possession of the weapon,
authorizes imposition of a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions,
requires disposition of the weapon by sale at public auction or by
destruction.
This bill would, commencing July 1, 2013, make possession of a
conversion kit a public nuisance, would authorize a civil action to
enjoin possession of a conversion kit, would authorize imposition of
a civil fine, and, with certain exceptions, would, similarly, require
disposition of the conversion kit.
Existing law authorizes a person to arrange in advance to
relinquish an assault weapon to a police or sheriff's department.
This bill would authorize a person to arrange in advance to
relinquish a conversion kit to a police or sheriff's department.
Click to expand...
(emphasis supplied)

Now, I'm not an expert on California law. Not by a long shot. And this language comes from some language printed above the actual language of the Act, so it may not reflect exactly what goes on in the staute.

That said, if the above-quoted language is an accurate reflection of the Act's wording, it "authorizes" a person to arrange in advance to surrender an assault weapon or conversion kit to a police or sheriff's department, and authorizes the police or sheriff to dispose of such items, either by destruction . . . or SALE AT A PUBLIC AUCTION?!? :eek:

Am I understanding that right?

Source for quoted material: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_bill_20120621_amended_asm_v95.html
 
Isn't it frustrating what other people don't see things your way? That's really the problem with democracies. People really can't be trusted with their own government. You just can't tell what they'll do next. A democracy is where you can vote to have a man put to death, you know.
Click to expand...
Last I looked, I lived in a republic which had a constitution with written, guaranteed rights to keep a simple vote of the majority from from putting a person to death. It holds the government to a high burden of proof, provides for a group of fair minded jurists to hear the case, guarantees legal representation, and allows a defendant to cross-examine witnesses and put on proof himself.
 
The best I can say is I do my best to not buy any products from [C]alfornia that I can avoid or otherwie do without. Its not always possible to avoid buying a [C]alfornia product as sometimes you dont know where something comes from but I do my best to protest by spending my dollars elsewhere.

I understand many good gun loving people live in the state and figt for gun rights every day until the day it gets more inline with the Constitution of the United States as I see it and understand it I will do everything to protest in my own legal way. Believe it or not , its actually not impossible to grow my own produce..... no Kali...
Click to expand...
Better yet instead of trying to harm innocent hard working people how about just getting involved and help. The NRA and CalGuns need all the help they can get.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top