California AR15, AK ban and confiscation bill SB249

This thread is about SB 249, specifically what it might affect and what can be done to stop it.

It is not the place for blanket bashing of the state of California or its residents. This includes the seemingly-clever-but-not-really misspelling of "Kalifornia."

Some folks may notice their posts have been deleted. That should be a warning. Anything more along those lines, and I break out the (metaphorical) riding crop.
 
"This thread is about SB 249, specifically what it might affect and what can be done to stop it."
Nothing - only if Gov. Brown vetos it but the chances of it passing are certain, in my opinion. We will try nonetheless. The votes are there for just about any stupid gun law you can imagine. If only it was like taxes where the legislature needs 2/3 majority, then nothing would get by. The minority here has been pretty consistent on that issue but have no power on the RKBA. With the Governator, he seemed to flip a coin on gun related legislation.
 
I think Jerry Brown could go either way on this one. He's not anti-gun (Arnold was) but he's not all that pro-gun either. He supported gun rights in an amicus brief to the SCOTUS because he felt he was defending a core right. I just don't know if he'll stretch that core rights feeling to AR15s. I think a huge campaign of polite well reasoned and well written letters might sway him.
 
I would think any polite and reasoned letter campaign would want to emphasize the angle of confiscation without compensation. Indeed, I would think this would be a major point in any litigation.
 
Unless the bill has be changed since last time I read it, it's severely flawed(As to its apparent intent). It's designed to prevent usage of parts to convert from fixed magazine to detachable, not the other way around. Particularly since it relies on current definitions already in CA law. By current definitions, an AR, AK or other rifle with "evil" features with a bullet button is completely legal(minus those listed by name in the two separate AWB bills).

The bullet button or similar device by current definitions makes it a fixed magazine. The only things this would prevent would be things like the mag magnet(already illegal anyway as the OP noted), and parts used to enable SKSs and other fixed magazine rifles to accept magazines(It should be noted SKSs with detachable magazines are already illegal, I just used it as an example as it was the first fixed magazine rifle that people convert to accept detachable magazines that came to mind).

Granted this bill is another arbitrary restriction that will hopefully not pass, but it is an amazing example of legislation without understanding.

Although on the non-serious side, if the bill were extremely broadly interpreted
screw drivers and hex wrenches might become illegal, as they are "parts" used to convert firearms from fixed to detachable magazine. :D
 
As goes California so will the rest of the nation. If cali can successfully ban all AR type rifles from their state and then DEFEND it all the way up to the supreme court, what will stop most of the North East and Certain other states from doing the same. Why should you care what happens in California? Because it can happen in your state next. This NIMBY attitude is whats wrong with America as a whole, as long as it is not effecting someone personally they are apathetic at best.

The second amendment must be defended in every corner of every state in this fine Nation or else the antis will just keep trying asinine insane "common sense laws" until they find one that sticks in the courts.
 
The other thing people could do is move out of all these states that crap all over the rights of their "subjects".

When they have no tax revenue and cant figure out why you cant point and laugh.

I myself will never live in California, New York, or Illinois because of their rules and regs that show me right where I stand if I live there.
 
Why should you care what happens in California? Because it can happen in your state next.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Mulford Act had a chilling effect on carry in several areas.

What's more, there are people working very effectively against significant odds to improve things there. Several cases involving the right to carry outside the home have been spearheaded there, and some of that litigation may inform future cases of national importance.

If everyone just moved away, how would that improve things for folks living there? The whole "just move to a free state LOL" thing is just a cop-out, and it's an insult to those who are working hard to improve things there.
 
^^^^ What Tom Said.

Living in Illinois I would not put it past our lovely politicians to try something like this. So my state very well could be next. I could just move away but my family has roots here. This is my home and no one should be forced to move from their home just to exercise their constitutional rights such as the right to keep and bear arms.
 
As goes California so will the rest of the nation.
Click to expand...
Ya know something? I'm getting tired of this old saw. Look on a map, hit San Diego with a finger. Now travel one state line to the right. Yeah, the one with the "A" in front. Since 1994 we have been steadily expanding firearms freedoms here, thanks to tireless grassroots activism,(thank you to the AZ Citizens Defense League), going from no concealed carry to Constitutional Carry in 16 years. We have had lawful open carry for over 100 years, and been next door to California the whole time. Heck California just passed a law known as the " Anti Arizona law" base on our win/loss in SCOTUS. Just from bills passed this last session we can hunt with any size magazine in a semi auto firearm, use a suppressor if we want, or go bowhunting while carrying a firearm for self defense, legally. These take effect August 3rd, BTW.
You guys ask us to stop spelling California with a "K", and stop telling you to move to a freer state, because that's defeatist, OK, no problem, but please stop repeating this - it manifestly is not true. If it was, by now ALL states would have assault weapon bans, may-issue CCW permits, and all major cities would have permits only held by the rich and famous. Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Montana have Constitutional Carry, and with work and luck, you will too.
As to this bill, I would say there was nothing accidental about either the language or the way it's been handled - it seems to be designed to remove firearms from civilian hands, nothing more. I wish you the best, fight long and hard.
 
Comparing California to Arizona is like Comparing Illinois to Indiana just because they touch, I am not talking about geographically I am talking ideologically.

Ideologically you have a lot of states in the NE and some in the mid west who would be in immediate danger of such an AR Ban.
What happens if congress , emboldened by a California AR Ban that is successfully defended in the courts pass a federal AR Ban in the next few years?
Then it sure would effect Arizona wouldn't it? Again, this whole as long as its NIMBY attitude is the problem.

If you are in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Wisconsin or any gun friendly state what happens in the gun-unfriendly states is bound to effect you sooner or later. We had this little thing called the federal AWB in the not to recent past that effected everyone.

The way the courts rule in fights over gun laws effect us all.
If you are a gun owner you need to stand up and be concerned for the rights of gun owners everywhere, not just in your back yard.
 
If you are in Arizona, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Wisconsin or any gun friendly state what happens in the gun-unfriendly states is bound to effect you sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Which is all the more reason to get active, or at least donate to the organizations that are fighting back in places like California.

If we'd said, "fine, leave DC to their gun ban," would we have had a groundbreaking Supreme Court decision in our favor in 2008?
 
On the issue of "as goes California so will the rest of the nation," there's more to it than the question of what kinds of statutory law are enacted. Several years ago, I went to a Continuing Legal Education seminar on §1983 (civil rights) litigation. One of the speakers there was Erwin Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional scholar. He made the comment that, in the civil rights context, where the Ninth Circuit has gone, the rest of the country has followed. Now, I haven't done exhaustive research on this issue, but in the §1983 arena, Chemerinsky is one of the "smartest guys in the room." I have no reason to doubt his claim.

IMHO, it is to our benefit not to encourage gun owners to move out of California (or the other, more restrictive states). We don't need gun owners leaving those jurisdictions. We need them voting in those jurisdictions, and we need to support them in their struggles.
 
Within CA, only the most "liberal" bastions are fighting to avoid issuing CCW's. Some counties are literally shall issue, to include Sacramento, and others are doing their best to get there within the limits of the "may issue" law. The legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat and "liberal" beyond redemption, so we can insane proposals like having the state appoint additional "parents" for a child if it finds the actual parents lacking, and laws like this one.

As Charlton Heston said in the first Planet of the Apes movie. "....it's a madhouse, I tell you!..."

Chermenski is well-known in con law circles, and very leftist in orientation. IIRC, he disagrees with Larry Tribe et. al. that 2A is an individual right. Tribe is reputed to be the most experienced con law prof in the US, and the bulk of scholars agree on the individual rights interpretation. Erwin struggles sadly on with the same collective rights stuff so long debunked.
 
Last edited:
HarrySchell, you may be absolutely right about Chemerinsky's politics. I have to admit that I have not looked at any of his RKBA articles, or even if he has any.
 
"HarrySchell, you may be absolutely right..."
No he is right. if you don't live here, you really have no clue how futile letters and phone calls are. Better than nothing I suppose, but not much. The fact that SCOTUS issued a good decision arising from foolish D.C and Chicago legislation is of little comfort. No one can say what SCOTUS will do and the court is split in half so one more justice for Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Kagan means Heller et al are gone. So I'll place my hope in the fantastic laws passed by the so-called "red states" as opposed to hoping that more foolish laws from California will provide SCOTUS an opportunity to "do the right thing."
 
As goes California so will the rest of the nation.
Click to expand...
More like, As North Dakota goes, so will the rest of the nation.;)

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