We would love to of had the chance to vote on the SB23 but the bill was signed by Davis and the Kalifornia Senate Approved it with their vote, not the citizen's of Kalifornia. SB 15 will be voted on by the Assembly on August 16, so please call your Assemblymen if you live in Kalifornia and tell him to VOTE NO on SB15.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kalifornia banning Glocks......... whats next?
- Thread starter Dr. D
- Start date
pertainant sections of the bill regarding safeties:
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in
the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation
in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer
to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the
primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns pursuant
to Section 12127.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns
pursuant to Section 12128.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns pursuant
to Section 12127.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns
pursuant to Section 12128.
positive manually operated safety device seems to mean that glocks, sigmas, sigs, decockers without any other safety are going to be banned.
also, certain single action and double action revolvers are going to be banned, and like in sb23, there is no provision for inheritance of firearms that are considered unsafe handguns - but as written, i think that the person who is giving the "unsafe handgun" is the only one penalized and has a penalty, which might be hard to enforce....
i tried to get some gun stores involved in trying to publicize sb 23 and 15 before they got through their committees, but some stores didn't really do more than let me post a flyer that i had to make up to try to let people become aware of these bills. it just seems that some people don't really care until it is just too late.
(a) For a revolver:
(1) It does not have a safety device that, either automatically in
the case of a double-action firing mechanism, or by manual operation
in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer
to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the
primer of the cartridge.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns pursuant
to Section 12127.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns
pursuant to Section 12128.
(b) For a pistol:
(1) It does not have a positive manually operated safety device.
(2) It does not meet the firing requirement for handguns pursuant
to Section 12127.
(3) It does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns
pursuant to Section 12128.
positive manually operated safety device seems to mean that glocks, sigmas, sigs, decockers without any other safety are going to be banned.
also, certain single action and double action revolvers are going to be banned, and like in sb23, there is no provision for inheritance of firearms that are considered unsafe handguns - but as written, i think that the person who is giving the "unsafe handgun" is the only one penalized and has a penalty, which might be hard to enforce....
i tried to get some gun stores involved in trying to publicize sb 23 and 15 before they got through their committees, but some stores didn't really do more than let me post a flyer that i had to make up to try to let people become aware of these bills. it just seems that some people don't really care until it is just too late.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
This is unfair to Rob, as he's on hiatus. However, I just came on the thread and have to express my disagreement with his position.
I have a real problem with the LE exemptions to this law. I hardly thinkthat the exemption makes them "pro gun" or that lack of exemption would make them anti.
Rather, I think the exemption is a bribe (of sorts) to get them to accept or support the law. It serves to divide and conquer. Personally, recognizing that cops are Citizens, they should be treated as such in these matters. To do otherwise is to create Classes of citizen.
Rich
I have a real problem with the LE exemptions to this law. I hardly thinkthat the exemption makes them "pro gun" or that lack of exemption would make them anti.
Rather, I think the exemption is a bribe (of sorts) to get them to accept or support the law. It serves to divide and conquer. Personally, recognizing that cops are Citizens, they should be treated as such in these matters. To do otherwise is to create Classes of citizen.
Rich
I'm with you Rich.
Though it's a *good* thing to allow duly trained retired LEOs to be considered CCW-worthy and "capable" of possessing safetyless guns with Big Brother's approval,
It's also a *BAD* thing to start creating such social classes.
I hate it when all pigs are greated equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
If you haven't yet read Orwell's _Animal Farm_, you MUST do so THIS WEEK!
------------------
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Though it's a *good* thing to allow duly trained retired LEOs to be considered CCW-worthy and "capable" of possessing safetyless guns with Big Brother's approval,
It's also a *BAD* thing to start creating such social classes.
I hate it when all pigs are greated equal, but some pigs are more equal than others.
If you haven't yet read Orwell's _Animal Farm_, you MUST do so THIS WEEK!
------------------
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Remember these jokers who wrote this bill and FIRE them come election time!! You guys in Cal better get it together quickly! And y'all best be writing a STORM of letters and e-mails to the legislature,congressmen,anyone on this now. Seems Cal is just cake walking through bill after bill of anti gun legislation with nary a sign of opposition.........best do something quickly,dudes.....
Gentlemen: I guess those in California had better get this activity to the Supreme Court and fast ! other wise ......
" When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to disolve the bonds which have connnected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....."
The first sentance of the Declaration of Independence says it pretty well ; but the third is the fulcrum of government:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-- that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends , it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....."
So , to this end we are pledged... to reform this out of control government , or to replace it with one more befitting the inherent decency and respect due all of her Citizens..... "And for the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. "
Are you ready?
------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
" When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to disolve the bonds which have connnected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation....."
The first sentance of the Declaration of Independence says it pretty well ; but the third is the fulcrum of government:
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-- that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends , it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it....."
So , to this end we are pledged... to reform this out of control government , or to replace it with one more befitting the inherent decency and respect due all of her Citizens..... "And for the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. "
Are you ready?
------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
I must be missing something here,,,,having more of those prelude's to a senior moment....but does that bill mean that if you have a revolver that dosent have a safety (manually operated), you cant own it?...surely I didnt get that right......some one splain were i went wrong....fubsy.
it is simple they dont want anyone to have guns but them...... Am I wrong but dont they also exempt legislator from the laws that they make also....... I heard that the most antigun person in californis, the one who sponsor most of this crap .... fienstien even gets to carry on board aircraft..... what kind of a hipocrite is she..... why does she need a gun, if she doesnt believe in them ........ I hate a two face like that.