California governor signs stringent gun bills, vetoes others

Metal god said:
Your interpretation would also include pellets and BB's...
Click to expand...
This may be a reflection of my ignorance of CA law, but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"? Does CA law define airguns as firearms? :confused:

I'll step back onto the sidelines now. :D
 
My point is that people are here are ignoring obviously wrong things in the bill and only excepting things they agree with . How is a mag anything that can be fired . Yet it's in there to get a background check . So I ask how is a pellet not capable of a deadly consequence . If mags , clips , speed loaders and auto loaders are wrongly included in the bill . Why can't firearm be wrongly interpreted as well .

Are you saying all we need to do is redefine what a pellet is ? Kind of like how the anti's keep redefining what an AW is. ... I'll have no problem shooting pellets from my firearms that remarkable appear very much like a bullet .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"?
Click to expand...

Ah, but they ARE intended to be fired from a firearm, specifically SHOTGUNS!

and sorry, no, you can't really build a case to exempt air gun pellets, due to the wording of the law. "CAPABLE" does not depend on intended use.

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.
Click to expand...

They have indeed written a very inclusive law (as quoted). SO inclusive that one might, if you had the money and the time, take them to court over every truckload (or shovel full) of gravel sold in the state without a background check, because, after all, gravel IS CAPABLE of being fired from a firearm with deadly effect!

Banks and businesses ought to be running a background check on every customer too, because DIMES are capable of being fired out of a 12ga.

The possibilities are virtually endless. My Grandfather once loaded some 12ga with split peas, for a friend, who wanted to teach a dog a lesson, without killing it. Grandpa recommended rock salt, but the friend was insistent, he wanted split peas, so he got split peas. And, it killed the dog dead as a stone!!

Sure, its extreme, and they'll think its foolish, but it is what they wrote into the LAW!!!!

They didn't write "intended for" or "sold for the purpose of", they wrote "Capable of.." and literally everything in the world physically smaller than the bore size is capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence!

they wrote and passed a bad law. If you can't get it tossed, at least make them live with the unpleasant unexpected consequences, if you can.

If I won the lotto mega jackpot, I'd happily toss a few million your way to support the cause. Till then, all I can do is share ideas. Good Luck!
 
Sure, its extreme, and they'll think its foolish, but it is what they wrote into the LAW!!!!
Click to expand...

yes but didn't the affordable care act set precedent that it does not really matter what's in the text . All that matters is the intent . Penalty/tax they're the same thing .

If I won the lotto mega jackpot, I'd happily toss a few million your way to support the cause. Till then, all I can do is share ideas. Good Luck!
Click to expand...

That's a great proposal , unfortunately are legislature would either amend or rewrite a law mooting your suit so fast . It would just be a waist of money . CA with it's anti super majority has gotten really good at passing bills so fast it could make your head spin . These bills were just introduced this year and most were stopped in commit . Then Orlando happened and they gutted and rewrote other bills to become these anti gun bills. Not sure what date Orlando happened but that's how long it took these bills to become law .
 
Last edited:
My point is that people are here are ignoring obviously wrong things in the bill and only excepting things they agree with . How is a mag anything that can be fired . Yet it's in there to get a background check . So I ask how is a pellet not capable of a deadly consequence . If mags , clips , speed loaders and auto loaders are wrongly included in the bill . Why can't firearm be wrongly interpreted as well .
Click to expand...

First, I do not agree with any of this legislation, so forget that for now.

All I did, was post the Statute, you are free to interpret it any way you wish, as am I, but it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what it says.

Read it again.

(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...

This (or) does not mean that the Mag,clips and speed loaders must be fired from a firearm.
 
carguychris said:
...but how would pellets and BB's fit this definition when they're not intended to be "fired from a firearm"?
44 AMP said:
Ah, but they ARE intended to be fired from a firearm, specifically SHOTGUNS!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
<slaps forehead> I shoulda stayed on the sidelines. :o
44 AMP said:
They didn't write "intended for" or "sold for the purpose of", they wrote "Capable of.." and literally everything in the world physically smaller than the bore size is capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence!

they wrote and passed a bad law. If you can't get it tossed, at least make them live with the unpleasant unexpected consequences, if you can.
Click to expand...
Sad but true.
 
Again you are cherry picking how you read the statute . You are doing the same thing the anti's do when they try to separate parts of the second amendment by saying it only includes militia's . Acting as if the part saying the right of the people shall not be infringed only goes to the militia . This statute claims amunition is magazines , clips and speed loaders . It claims those things can be fired from a firearm . Why are you ignoring that inaccuracy and hang on to the rest as if they wrote that correctly ?

I think 44amp showed how little they really thought about how the statute reads .
 
Last edited:
This statute claims amunition is magazines , clips and speed loaders . It claims those things can be fired from a firearm . Why are you ignoring that inaccuracy and hang on to the rest as if they wrote that correctly ?
Click to expand...

It was ridiculous for them to include magazines, clips and speedloaders in the law. It's also irrelevant to the point, which is that bullets - separate loading components - are clearly included in the law, other inaccuracies notwithstanding.
 
The problem with the law, and nearly every law today is that while it is written in English, it is not written in English.

Call it legalsese or any other name, it is the equivalent of computer basic IF, THEN, GOSUB... and worse. Basic, I can figure out. :rolleyes:

(b) As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306,
Click to expand...
“

ammunition” includes, but is not limited to,
Click to expand...

How about this phrase?? What is an open ended phrase without a definition doing in ANY LAW??? Oh, wait, it IS a definition, of something in a different section...

The problem is an old one, it is the law making definitions for use in law that do not "match" the definitions in general use.

You could write a law that included Blue Whales as ammunition, you can include ANYTHING you want, and if passed, and signed, that what it legally becomes.

The use of "and", "or", "includes but is not limited to" and other things are used so the law can "say" or not say anything, and requires a court (lawyers and Judges) to tell us ordinary folk what it actually means.

On the other hand, if they wrote laws in plain easily understood English, a lot of people would be out of work.....:rolleyes:
 
Bad law, bad language, whatever you wish to call it, "it" is now the law and it specifically spells out bullets and projectiles.

The bad language has placed the "bullet" a key component in reloading ammunition, on the list of items that one must go through a background check to purchase.
 
steve4102 said:
The bad language has placed the "bullet" a key component in reloading ammunition, on the list of items that one must go through a background check to purchase.
Click to expand...
True, but I think the sloppy language could make a very good case for throwing the whole thing out on the grounds that it's unconstitutionally vague.

The "capable of being fired from a firearm with a deadly consequence" language not only encompasses items smaller than bore diameter in a shotgun, it could also encompass items stuffed into the muzzle of pistols and rifles by accident. Recall stories of troops being killed on 18th and 19th century battlefields by ramrods that enemy soldiers neglected to remove from their muskets before firing!
 
That will take time, a lot of time. Until then I'll be willing to bet that places like Midway USA and Cabelas will not be shipping "bullets" to CA.
 
I'll be willing to bet that places like Midway USA and Cabelas will not be shipping "bullets" to CA.
Click to expand...

shipped direct to you, at home? forget it. There is NOW a law prohibiting it.

Many of the big retailers/distributors already refuse to ship ANYTHING (or anything gun related) to CA. And that, I think, is one of the selling points of the CA law to its supporters.

Some companies have made a calculated decision, weighing the loss of the CA market against the constant cost of keeping in line with CA law, (keeping track of what is, and is not allowed in CA, and other states with similar laws), ensuring they don't accidentally ship something that was legal last week, and illegal this week. Also they figure in the estimated legal costs they will face is they do accidently break the law.

Some have decided it simply isn't worth it to do business in CA anymore.
 
True, but I think the sloppy language could make a very good case for throwing the whole thing out on the grounds that it's unconstitutionally vague.
Click to expand...

I agree, but until that happy day you won't be able to buy bullets in CA without a background check once the law takes effect.
 
So i've been over on Calguns all morning trying to get clarification on this issue . It appears the

“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.
Click to expand...

Only applies to prohibited persons.

Full text here
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB1235


16150. (a) As used in this part, except as specified in subdivision (b), “ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.
(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...

30306. (a) Any person, corporation, firm, or other business enterprise who supplies, delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of, any ammunition to any person who he or she knows or using reasonable care should know is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under custody or control, any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 30305, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Any person, corporation, firm, or other business enterprise who supplies, delivers, sells, or gives possession or control of ammunition to a person who the person, corporation, firm, or other business enterprise knows or has cause to believe is not the actual purchaser or transferee of the ammunition, with knowledge or cause to believe that the ammunition is to be subsequently sold or transferred to a person who is prohibited from owning, possessing, or having under custody or control any ammunition or reloaded ammunition pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 30305, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Still pretty confusing but does appear to specify prohibited person only . As said before , I could easily see out of state vendors not wanting to take a chance on violating the law and just no longer sell here .
 
Last edited:
Whoa what wait a minute. So the ammo law from what I understand is saying there will be background checks..so is that once, once a year, everytime you buy? Will the law only apply to people with criminal records? Can these moronic laws ever be voted out. This is so rediculous for those who live in CA. This is infringing on the rights of the 2nd amendment. So, little by little just gonna let them chip away at our rights? This is the beginning of a very uncertain future.
 
For every sale!

The idea is to make it too expensive to buy. This way they take away the right without banning it. They think this will not be overturned by the courts.
 
What my big issue is here in CA and not sure how much this happens in other states . It seems the legislature keeps passing more and more anti gun saws that survive the left coast courts . Each one alone is bad for us but as an individual law seems to find it's way to being constitutional according to our courts here . How ever the cumulative effect should show any reasonable person that the right in being infringed .

How do we stop a state from nickle and dimming us to infringement ? Is there even a way to argue in court that taken as a whole the gun laws are infringing and causing the so called chilling effect . Can a case be brought taking on all the anti gun laws as a whole or must they be fought one at a time . If only one at a time then I don't see how this is winnable here in CA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top