California governor signs stringent gun bills, vetoes others

Been following the circuits and SCOTUS on similar issues? Rather suicidal at this point.

Also, let's skip the libs vs. conservative naming calling, once again.
 
Also, let's skip the libs vs. conservative naming calling, once again
Click to expand...

Why does The Firing Line keep it's head in the sand on this . Sure there are a few out lairs in the parties . As citizens we may not agree fully with the party we most affiliate with . How ever the party lines are drawn , please don't insult us by acting as if they are not . It's quite clear the dems/libs are anti gun and the rep/conservatives are pro gun . I'm putting this out there because it's the representatives that can enact change and they are the ones we are talking about when we comparing one vs the other .

I'd have a lot more respect for The Firing Lines view on this if you all were honest about why you don't want the topic discussed . IMHO it has noting to do with where the party lines are . You all simply don't want the emotional argument . That's fine , just say that then .
 
Metal god, please read the sticky about the L&CR rules. It will answer at least some of your questions.

And if you want to understand why what was decided was decided the way it was, block out some time, and read the archived Legal and Political forum.

If you find the rules here on the harsh side of strict, understand that there IS a reason, and we feel it is a valid one.

In a contentious election year, the old forum was rendered virtually useless by "civil" political discussions that devolved into endless bickering and personal attacks. The forum was closed.

There was a great deal of discussion, and the current Forum AND IT"S RULES was created. We are Americans, we value our liberties, and we speak our minds. We have the right. Our political discussions are wild free for alls, no matter how structured in intent, they very often devolve into the most childish mudslinging and insults. We have that right, too. But, we do not have the right to do it here, without consequence.

Because this is NOT a public place, though the public is welcome. We are all guests here.

There are many places to discuss politics directly. This is not one of them.
 
I understand completely what you are saying . My point was very narrow in scope . Only that The Firing Line when addressing this issue in new threads generally claims they are not allowing this line of discussion because it's not a Dems vs Rep debate . I disagree , are political party's have made it just that .

The point was IF you're not going to allow something . Be honest and say (... Our political discussions are wild free for alls, no matter how structured in intent, they very often devolve into the most childish mudslinging and insults....) That is a very good reason to avoid the discussion in a private forum . Claiming it's not a Dems vs Rep debate is inaccurate IMO .
 
Metal god said:
. . . .I disagree . . . .
Click to expand...
You're free to disagree, but Glenn & 44 AMP were clear. I'll also add that your opinion of TFL rules is not the topic of this thread.

44 AMP said:
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).
Click to expand...
Not exactly. There are Due Process components to both the enactment and the enforcement of legislation. The keystone of Due Process is "notice and an opportunity to be heard." That means adequate, meaningful notice and a reasonable opportunity to contest a legislative enactment, or an enforcement action. (I'm at work and am afraid that I do not have time to dig up citations right now.)

What I've written above is for procedural Due Process, but please bear in mind that Due Process requirements also break down into procedural Due Process and substantive Due Process. Those are really beyond the scope of this thread, so I won't delve off into them, but they are out there.
 
Metal God, the point is that no matter where majority opinions lie in either party, there are, out there in the world, liberals (Democrats, if you will) who support gun rights, and conservatives (Republicans) who don't. There are also Democrats who have never thought that much about the issue and don't feel that strongly about it; some of them are open to reasonable arguments -- not so much to name-calling, etc. People of different political persuasions are members here, and all sorts of other people read our forums.

It does us no good at all to alienate actual or potential supporters. That's why we have the policy we do, and that policy is not open for discussion. (That is a strong hint, and you'd do well to take it.)

ETA: cross-posted with Spats... but he's right.
 
I think Governor Brown is trying to supplant President Obama as the most prolific arms and ammunition salesman. Since those bills were signed I bought $1K in ammunition and $3K in AR rifles - I never owned an AR until these arrive, someday and hopefully soon. (Left-hand Stag Arms 3GL and 6L.)

I wonder how many AR and AK rifles have been purchased or ordered since 7/1; and how much ammunition has been ordered?

I am still looking for a left-hand AR-10 or equivalent.
 
I'm likely going featureless with one or two and dissembling the rest , not registering anything . As far as ammo , Thank god I reload . I figure that's what the hard core shooters will start doing if they're not already .

I was thinking today about the mandatory registration . CA in 2014 required all firearms to be registered when bought . They had only required hand guns to be registered prior to that . Is there a legal argument to be made that there is no need to register a firearm twice . The DOJ already knows who has what , at least since 2014 .
 
Metal god said:
. . . . Is there a legal argument to be made that there is no need to register a firearm twice . . . .
Click to expand...
As in, "the new law which requires registration is invalid because the State doesn't actually need for me to register a gun twice?" I suppose you could make it, but you'd need to frame it differently. You won't get any traction with it written the way it was. Something along the lines of "the law is an unwarranted burden on the Second Amendment in that it: (1) burdens a core right of the 2A; (2) by requiring lawful gun owners to register guns a second time; (3) while providing no additional benefit to the State (because the guns were already registered)."
 
Last edited:
Bullets also require a background check, so yes, reloaders are affected as well


(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235
 
Who will be doing these background checks?

It is my understanding that the Feds/NICS will not allow individual States to use their system for Ammunition background checks?

If true, how will CA perform these checks?
 
We here in CA don't believe it includes reloading components . If you read the above quote you can see some of those things named can't be fired from a firearm . Namely magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, so I think they were trying to cover all possible ammo . As we all know the law makers here in CA very rarely actually know what they are actually outlawing because they don't understand firearms in general .

As for CA and the NICS system . I believe CA does use it but that's not all they use . CA also has a separate system that follows , covers , more things then the NICS system .
 
Metal god said:
We here in CA don't believe it includes reloading components .
Click to expand...

Maybe not "Components all", but bullets and projectiles are named specifically.

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
Click to expand...

Seems clear to me?
 
So are magazines , clips and speed loaders . Seems clearly wrong to me . Are you saying you read the statute to require a background check on all mags , speed loaders and clips . No one else here does .

Not sure if you reload but how many times have you had to correct someone when they said bullet but really meant cartridge . We as a country often if not most times use the word bullet to mean a loaded cartridge . I believe that's what's meant here .
 
I reload.

Can't count how many times someone miss used the terms Bullet with Cartridge.

This legislation seems to have cleared that up as they used the terms "Bullet", "Cartridge" and even "Projectile".

They covered their bases and made it clear "in my mind" that a bullet is the projectile and not to be confused with a loaded "Cartridge".

Any Bullet, Cartridge, or Projectile
Click to expand...
 
So are magazines , clips and speed loaders . Seems clearly wrong to me . Are you saying you read the statute to require a background check on all mags , speed loaders and clips . No one else here does .

Not sure if you reload but how many times have you had to correct someone when they said bullet but really meant cartridge . We as a country often if not most times use the word bullet to mean a loaded cartridge . I believe that's what's meant here .
Click to expand...
Here's my take, with emphasis added:

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306, “ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine, clip, speed loader, autoloader, or projectile capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
Click to expand...

So if it's capable of being fired from a firearm it's covered, whether you call it a bullet, a projectile, a slug or a red, red rose.
 
Your interpretation would also include pellets and BB's . with a deadly consequence is open to any living thing I guess .

I do understand and agree the statute does appear to include the tips/bullets/projectiles . I guess I'm hoping the fact they got half the wording wrong by including mags , clips and speed loaders that they also wrote the bullets only wrong as well . We shall see :(

I went over to calguns to ask again what everyone thinks but apparently we are no longer aloud to talk about the new laws over there right now . The thinking is that the law makers monitor the site and if we talk about work arounds . The law makers will just pass another law banning the work around . After September first they no longer can introduce new legislation for this year . I guess that's are date we can then talk about these new laws :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top