California governor signs stringent gun bills, vetoes others

F

FITASC

New member
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ca...gun-bills-vetoes-others/ar-AAhRKw4?li=BBnb7Kz

Gov. Jerry Brown signed six stringent gun-control measures Friday that will require people to turn in high-capacity magazines and mandate background checks for ammunition sales, as California Democrats seek to strengthen gun laws that are already among the strictest in the nation.
Click to expand...

Blaming things as opposed to people will always result in these ridiculous laws as these laws will do nothing to stop crime.
 
Here's a list:

Signed:

AB 1695 (Bonta): AB 1695 makes it a misdemeanor to report to a local law enforcement agency that a firearm has been lost or stolen, knowing the report to be false.

AB 1511 (Santiago) – AB 1511 Limits infrequent lending of guns to specified family members.

SB 1235 (De León): SB 1235 requires background checks for ammunition purchasers, licenses to sell ammunition, and collection of sale information. Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. Bans internet / out of state ammunition purchase.

SB 880 (Hall, Glazer) & AB 1135 (Levine, Ting): SB 880 & AB 1135 would redefine assault weapons to encompass specified guns capable of accepting any type of detachable magazine. (Bullet Button Ban)

SB 1446 (Hancock): SB 1446 prohibits the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity magazines that can hold over 10 rounds.

Vetoed:

AB 1674 (Santiago): AB 1674 would add to the current restrictions that are placed on an individual in regards to how many firearms they can purchase in a 30 day period, including long guns

AB 2607 (Ting): AB 2607 would allow an employer, coworker or mental health worker to file a restraining order on an individual to keep them from owning a gun. This individual would not be allowed to defend themselves until 21 days later. During this period their guns could be confiscated.

SB 894 (Jackson): SB 894 requires the reporting of a lost or stolen gun within 5 days of when a person knows or reasonably should have known of the theft or loss.

AB 1176, (Cooper) AB 1176 would have clarified that stealing a firearm is felony grand theft.

AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms (80% receivers).



The worst that were signed were the ammo ban and the over 10 round magazine ban - first the CA government bans lead ammo for hunting and then they make it as difficult as possible to buy replacement ammo.

The CONFISCATION of all magazines over 10 rounds. The next time a politician says they don't want to confiscate your guns, here's the camel's nose under the tent.

The worst that was vetoed (thankfully):

Restraining orders. Anybody you work with who doesn't like guns could file a restraining order. Your guns would be confiscated and you couldn't even appeal for 21 days.

The Federal government wants to suspend your constitutional rights based on suspicions. The CA government wants to suspend your constitutional rights based on gossip.
 
A few errors/expansions:

AB 1511 bans loans of firearms EXCEPT TO specified family members. So no sharing guns.

AB 1235 requires that names be checked against a database of prohibited persons, but not a full blown background check. Further, although there are required reports of purchases by purchaser, amount and caliber, there are no restrictions on purchases. Internet sales are not "banned," but regulated. Instead of shipping ammo to your home, the seller must ship to a licensed ammunition vendor for the purpose of complying with the "background check" and reporting requirements. Obviously this will likely make internet bulk purchases less economically advantageous, as the licensed vendor will charge a service fee, and will collect state sales tax. Importation of ammo without a license (i.e., in the trunk of your car) is a misdemeanor.

SB 880. The best way to understand this bill is that it bans future purchases of semiauto rifles with detachable magazines and at least one prohibited feature. The purpose and intent is to prospectively ban the California Bullet Button, such that one will have to open the action on an AR in order to be able to reload. "Featureless" rifles such as the Mini 14/30 and the M1 Carbine are exempt. Presumably rifles equipped with a Prince magazine lock are exempt, but the law does not specifically so state. The bill retroactively requires registration of previously legal bullet buttoned rifles as "assault weapons" by January 1, 2018. "Assault weapons" may not legally be transferred, whether by sale, gift or bequeath, in the State of California.
 
In Short-The Lunatics are now running the bin.Confiscation means relinquishing something today they was legal yesterday.I thought that this in fact is against the law-confiscation with no compensation-sounds like legal stealing to me.
 
Dear California Gun Guys (and Girls),
please considering moving to Texas, where the taxes are low, gun ownership is encouraged, and common sense still prevails.
(You may want to avoid Austin though, as you'll find treatment there not unlike what you're trying to leave.)
 
Last edited:
I'm presuming the ban on out-of-state ammo sales means no shipping of ammo to Californians from distributors in Oklahoma or the like, but making it a crime to travel out of state, purchase ammo, and bring it home, absent a special tax, that's going to bump against the Interstate Commerce rules and be challenged pretty quickly.

It's like saying I can't travel to another state, buy a bottle of Scotch, and bring it home. I've paid the taxes when I bought it, and have no requirement to pay additional taxes in another state for the same bottle.
 
When the governor signed it, that was due process.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. (legal eagles, correct me, if I'm wrong)

The Gov signs it, it becomes law. Due process is the process of enforcing the law, and it must work in conjunction with other, already existing laws. (meaning it cannot contradict established law).

Or, more accurately, it should not. OF course, that is a matter for the courts to decide. And CA courts are not noted for being what I would consider reasonable or "true" to established legal principles, where guns are concerned.

CA violated the principle of ex post facto decades ago, with their original Roberti0-Roos assault weapon law, by requiring owners of certain guns, guns owned before the law took effect, to be registered. And it has survived legal challenges, and even expanded on, as time went by.

Guns that were required to be registered were, a couple years later, put on the confiscation list. Remember that, when they say "no one is trying to take your guns", because it is a LIE!

Now, they're after those "evil" more than 10 shot magazines.

Kind of takes the hi-cap advantage to the 9mm away. My 1911A1a looking better and better. :rolleyes:

The GOV has signed them, they are law, and stay law until a court says they are not. Sad for CA people, but democracy is a numbers game, and it appears mislead fools are in the majority there.
 
I'm sad to hear more rights are being stripped away from law abiding citizens, I guess all the bad guys will just rush to the local police station and turn in their ...........o ya.......right thats why their criminals. :rolleyes: Keep hammering your guns into plows......
 
At least the over 10 round magazine bill isn't running until 7/1/2017.
Not a lot of comfort but the gendarmes won't be showing up tomorrow.
 
SB 1235 (De León): SB 1235 requires background checks for ammunition purchasers, licenses to sell ammunition, and collection of sale information. Restrictions on ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners. Bans internet / out of state ammunition purchase.
Click to expand...
Components are not ammunition. How will this affect handloaders? I don't live in California but I am wondering.
 
BumbleBug said:
Components are not ammunition. How will this affect handloaders? I don't live in California but I am wondering.
Click to expand...
Sssshhh ...

I have two friends who are FFLs in Connecticut, where they enacted a similar ammunition sales law back in 2014, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook School shooting. My understanding is that the Connecticut law likewise doesn't address reloading components. I've asked if they saw an increase in reloading and, to my surprise, both answered, "No, not at all."

However, the CT law also doesn't address importation, and Connecticut isn't all that far from Vermont and New Hampshire ...
 
Some questions that may or may not be useful to our CA friends...

What are the CA legal restrictions on AOWs?
-Could one legally purchase a NFA AOW with a pistol brace/cheek rest and vertical foregrip, or does that fall under one of the CA AWB definitions? (e.g. Sig MPX with an SB brace and vertical foregrip)


With the CA AWB registry opening for new additions, due to revised laws, can one legally register an AWB that falls under the new definitions, then reconfigure that AWB to have more of the banned features? (e.g. currently CA compliant AR pattern->register due to falling under expanded AWB definitions->remove goofy CA stock, bullet button, etc. once registered.)
 
The libs will call the new laws "reasonable".

Here are some quotes to read than think about;

The opposite of courage is cowardice, but the words "reasonably",
"conformity" or "cooperation" are what cowardice is called most of the
time, because cowards hate the word "cowardice".
......Steve Zihn

"None is more hopelessly enslaved then those that falsely believe they
are free"
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Livestock stays in fenced enclosures because they don't control their
own minds.
They could get out with very little effort but they have been convinced
that they can't.
People also stay in subjection because they have given up control of
their own thought processes.
Cattle and horses are faster and stronger than people but people are
smarter then cattle and horses.
If people get out of their “enclosures” however, it’s only because they are
smarter than those that would like to convince them there there is an
enclosure they need to stay inside, when in fact there is none.
.................Steve Zihn

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man-brave, hated,
and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him for
then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top