California passes ammo permit fee, background check

This all boils down to beefing up tax revenue by creative legislation to put more money into confiscation efforts. If ammo licence laws pass I will refuse to buy the permit and purchase my ammo in Nevada when I'm on vacation. Crime will not be reduced and the red tape for dealers will be a nuisance. Gang bangers will traffic ammo with their guns and drugs across state lines. Some of these politicians are frankly stupid. if you all haven't heard the news california courts are ordering criminals to be released due to overcrowding. Politician's don't care about public safety or they would decriminalize petty crimes so there is room in the jails for serious predators. We are creating an institutionalized subculture that hates the system but accepts prison as part of life. People will be railroaded into prison over an illegal ammo transaction and the revolving door will kick out a rapist or robber onto the street due to overcrowding rules. When the person who are sent in for ammo violations come out they will be bitter and more dangerous than when they went in.
 
Unfortunately they do this kind of stuff because the lower courts have been quite willing to let any and every kind of law pass as constitutional as long as its not a total ban. SCOTUS has passed on numerous opportunities to help define the right, leaving the lower courts as guardians(sort of like having the fox guard the henhouse).
 
Hmmmm . . . .
It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.
Click to expand...
So The Mighty Squirrel Assassin (better known as the Ruger 10/22) is now an "assault weapon." :(

Other bills in the package passed by the Senate would have tightened additional laws, including banning a type of trigger known as a button.
Click to expand...
What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author confused? Does she mean the bullet button?

Source for both quotes: http://news.yahoo.com/california-lawmakers-pass-expanded-semi-automatic-weapons-ban-005606155.html
 
Spats said:
So The Mighty Squirrel Assassin (better known as the Ruger 10/22) is now an "assault weapon."
Click to expand...

IIRC, a late change to the bill exempted rimfire.

What is this "type of trigger known as a button?" Is the author
confused? Does she mean the bullet button?
Click to expand...

Yes, if my reading is correct, even bullet-button equipped centerfire rifles are now considered assault weapons if they accept an ammunition-feeding device capable of feeding 10 or more rounds.

Expect a crap-ton of poor reporting. This is the MSM we're talking about here...
 
When does it take effect?

From the article it sounds like existing rifles can be registered? Or is everything covered become illegal?
 
Dr Big Bird PhD said:
What will happen to everyone with bullet buttons?
Click to expand...

We're not supposed to talk about that yet. The bill actually went back to the State Senate (right now, actually) so they can approve the amendments made by the Assembly.

It's of course a formality that the Senate will approve the bill, but they could make some tweaks, so ask me again after Friday.

NWPilgrim said:
When does it take effect?
Click to expand...

Well, first the Governor has a chance to veto it, and that's what we're really working hard on right now. If you know anyone in CA, please have them fill out the form at
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/the-issues/california/2013-2014/askbrown/

Assuming he fails to veto it, it will go into effect next year...I don't remember exactly when, but I can check if you need the specifics.
 
It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.
Click to expand...
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
 
Wreck-n-Crew said:
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
Click to expand...

There is no exemption for caliber.

17090. As used in Sections 16530, 16640, 16650, 16660, 16870, and
17170, Sections 17720 to 17730, inclusive, Section 17740, subdivision
(f) of Section 27555, Article 2 (commencing with Section 30300) of
Chapter 1 of Division 10 of Title 4, and Article 1 (commencing with
Section 33210) of Chapter 8 of Division 10 of Title 4, "rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only
a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of
the trigger.
Click to expand...

Please note the Penal Code does not give a universal definition of a "Rifle." The above definition is only provided in terms of the other referenced sections.

Also note that what is often referred to as an "automatic rifle" is not a rifle under the above definition.

(thanks to RickD427 at Calguns)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wreck-n-Crew
Would a 9mm carbine be considered a rifle? What do they have classified as a rifle?
There is no exemption for caliber.
Click to expand...
That figures. Sad that such a beautiful state can be run by such ugly people.

I really don't how many still tolerate it!:eek:

The one thing that does surprise me about California is that the people have any right to have or carry firearms. How that happened remains a mystery to me.:confused:
Good luck to all of you still in California, I only hope that one day you will get your state back.:(
 
Well, I can't believe this is happening. Being in the military, I have absolutely no desire to register my weapons in a place I will only be staying temporarily. I suppose I'll just have to move them out of state until I'm not in CA anymore.
 
"rifle" means
a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be
fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade
to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only
a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of
the trigger.
Click to expand...

I don't suppose the fact we use a propellant rather than an explosive would make any difference to the enforcers? I hate to think of how politicians define "explosive."
 
NWPilgrim said:
I don't suppose the fact we use a propellant rather than an explosive would make any difference to the enforcers? I hate to think of how politicians define "explosive."
Click to expand...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=11001-12000&file=12000-12007

12000. For the purposes of this part, "explosives" means any
substance, or combination of substances, the primary or common
purpose of which is detonation or rapid combustion, and which is
capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and
heat, or any substance, the primary purpose of which, when combined
with others, is to form a substance capable of a relatively
instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat
Click to expand...
 
More bad news

So California now aims to illegalize all rifles with detachable magazines of all calibers in a step to further disarm responsible gun owners.

In other news, California has decided to release 9600 inmates by year's end due to overcrowded prisons.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/02/justice/california-inmates-release/index.html

I am not sure the combination of 9600 freed felons and a disarmed citizenry is a good thing. I guess we are all supposed to believe that the 9600 inmates are hell-bent on being 100% good people now. :eek:

What happens if this example spreads to other states?
 
No exemption for Hollywood? How could they be so thoughtless?:rolleyes:

How does the law apply (if it does)to guns owned by corporations?, as opposed to private individuals?

If there's no exemption, the folks who supply guns to the movie makers are going to be filling out a lot of paperwork!

Thousands of guns used in films are fully working guns, capable of firing live ammo, and thousands more are modified to only be able to fire blanks, but are still legally firearms, and all laws about firearms should still apply.

The way the law defines firearm, it appears there is no provision exempting guns that were originally functional arms, but have been converted to blank firing only.

While I am in no way in favor of any gun control laws, I do believe that no matter what the law, it should be "sauce for the goose", meaning that ALL gun control laws should apply to EVERYONE. Private individuals, corporations, Hollywood studios, AND THE POLICE!!!!

Since the basic premise is that people owning these things are a threat to public safety, and since corporations and the police are made up of people, how is it ethical to have exemptions or loopholes in the law, just for them?

Why do people (and the law) just blindly assume that because a person holds a particular job they are safe and trustworthy with all kinds of weapons, including machineguns and explosives, when that exact same person, not holding that particular job is under the law, NOT trustworthy or safe?

Got new for you people (ok to a lot of us its not news, we knew it already), Cops, military personnel, even private security guards are humans, like the rest of us. And like the rest of us, individuals sometimes flip out or have meltdowns. And if it happens they turn violent, its as bad, or possibly worse than when it happens with an "ordinary citizen".

What cop or solider carrying an M16 on duty ever went through the same back ground check, Chief LEO approval sign off, paid the $200 transfer tax out of his own pocket, and endured the WAIT (months usually) before being approved to have it, the way an "ordinary citizen" has to for the same exact item? None that I ever heard of.

"Don't be ridiculous," they say. "That's different. They need those guns in their jobs!" To which I reply, with the brilliantly erudite,... "SO?"

Like the t-shirt says about dyslexics, Cops and soldiers are "Teople Poo!"

Wearing a certain set of clothes and carrying issued credentials doesn't make one a saint, or incapable of causing harm. The one thing I thought was good about the Lautenberg law was that (for the first time I know of) a rabid gun control law did NOT exempt police and military personnel. While this law had the effect of taking a lot of cops off the street (because under the law they could no longer carry or own a gun), I thought the fact that it applied to everyone was a good thing.

If it is a good law, it should be applied to everyone, equally and fairly. NO exceptions or exemptions. Period.

If it cannot, will not, or should not be applied to everyone without exception, then its a bad law, and we should not have it. Period.

Seems like, on this farm, some animals are more equal than others.....
 
Stupid California!! Their lawmakers have suggested that we (nevada) need to tighten our laws because its too easy for people to come here and buy gun products against their laws. Lol, never going to happen.

I have heard of LEO's hanging out in the cabelas parking lot, during big sales, and stopping people with CA plates when the load up the car with guns. Our cabelas is less than 10 (maybe 5) miles from the stateline. All the bigger stores check ID's though.

California sucks, come across the stateline and you can: smoke inside bars/casinos, gamble, buy a .50bmg, buy (rent) a hooker, and 2 words you will never hear? Last call!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top