6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

1
CA Legislative Update: Anti-gun bills flip houses, inch closer to passage
What the bill does: AB 2103 would mandate all sorts of extra requirements for CCW applicants, including proscribing a minimum of 8 training hours with the firearm intending to be carried concealed. Further, the bill would also require live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, as well as a safe handling demonstration with each firearm the applicant intends to carry. FPC, as well as other 2A rights organizations, have argued repeatedly that this bill is redundant, as county sheriffs already require firearms training, and anyone purchasing a firearm must already have demonstrated safe handling of a firearm pursuant to a Firearms Safety Certificate.

However, firearms experts, like those from Everytown and Moms Demand Action, argued CCW instructors, like Sam Parades of Gun Owners of California, don’t know what they’re talking about. They stated that requiring extra CCW training would bring down violent crime, even though there is not a single documented case of a CCW-holder in California causing injury or death in a reckless, illegal manner.
AB 2526 - GVRO.
SB 1346 - Redefines bump stocks as "multiburst trigger activator."
AB 1903 - Prohibit dispensing gift cards to FFLs during gun surrenders. Used to be this: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=46953&p=646352
SB 746 - Rules for transferring for the GVROed, inspections for FFLs.
SB 1382 - Fix for transport of handguns in trunkless vehicle.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

4
Jesus fuck. Even the pro gun guys can't get this stuff right. Probably because the laws are so many and so complex. The linked article says:
SB 1382

What the bill does: This is the one good bill of the bunch. SB 1382 would make it easier for gun owners to transport their firearms in their vehicles. Currently, the law only allows gun owners to transport handguns if they are locked and in the trunk of a vehicle. However, vehicles that do not feature a trunk, such as pickup trucks, did not qualify in the past. SB 1382 would rectify this issue, by allowing gun owners to transport a handgun in a locked tool box or lockbox that’s affixed to the bed of a truck or other trunkless vehicle.
I'm almost certain this is just wrong. The law requires handguns to be transported, unloaded, in a locked container or the trunk. There is no prohibition against transporting an unloaded handgun in a locked case on the seat next to you. It's inadvisable because an officer might take issue, but legal.

From the Attorney General:
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 25610, a United States citizen over 18 years of age who is not prohibited from firearm possession, and who resides or is temporarily in California, may transport by motor vehicle any handgun provided it is unloaded and locked in the vehicle’s trunk or in a locked container. Furthermore, the handgun must be carried directly to or from any motor vehicle for any lawful purpose and, while being carried must be contained within a locked container.

Pursuant to California Penal Code section 16850, the term "locked container" means a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. This includes the trunk of a motor vehicle, but does not include the utility or glove compartment.
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/travel

It would be nice to have clarity on SUV/hatchback/truck "trunk," but let's get the law right when we report on it.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

6
rascally wrote: Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:37 pm And yet you continue to live there...
Yup. Born here. My family all lives here. My friends all live here. My carrer is here. The weather is wonderful. Trump is a dirty word (at least in my part of the state). Veggies are fresh. The Pacific Ocean is 45 minutes away. I guess guns are lower on my priority list. :lol:

(but I do think of leaving from time to time. Then have to go through my "pros" list.)

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

7
An update from guns.com:
8 anti-gun bills advance in California legislature
AB 2888 would expand who can file for one of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, adding coworkers, employers, and school employees to the list that currently includes family members and police. Such orders, largely pioneered by the state, have been derided as “turn in your neighbor” laws as they allow for temporary gun seizures with the accused only able to appear in court after the fact in many cases.

SB 221 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned Cow Palace in Daly City. The historic venue has long been the location of numerous gun shows throughout the years, which has drawn the ire of Democrats from nearby San Francisco. The bill was voted out of committee on Aug. 8.
SB 1177 aims to ration new firearm purchases to one every 30 days. The state currently has such a rule for handgun sales, which the proposal would stretch to include shotguns and rifles. Just the District of Columbia, Maryland, and New Jersey have gun rationing laws on the books, but they, like California’s current statute, are directed at handguns only.

SB 1487: An act to add Section 2351 to the Fish and Game Code, relating to African species.
This bill would enact the Iconic African Species Protection Act and would prohibit the possession of specified African species and any part, product, offspring, or the dead body or parts thereof, including, but not limited to, the African elephant or the black rhinoceros, by any individual, firm, corporation, association, or partnership within the State of California, except as specified for, among other things, use for educational or scientific purposes by a bona fide educational or scientific institution, as defined.

The bill would provide that any person who violates the provisions of the act is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 or more than $40,000 for each violation. The bill would require that the civil penalties imposed pursuant to the act be deposited in the Fish and Game Preservation Fund. By creating new crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(1) “Iconic African Species” species” means any species or subspecies of the following members of the animal kingdom: African elephant (Loxodonta africana and Loxodonta cyclotis), African lion (Panthera leo), leopard (Panthera pardus), black rhinoceros (Diceros bicornis), white rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), Jentink’s duiker (Cephalophus jentinki), plains zebra (Equus quagga), mountain zebra (Equus zebra), hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), and striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), including this includes any part, product, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof, excluding fossils, whether or not included in a manufactured product or in a food product. product of any species protected by this part.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

11
I wonder if a legal case can be made that, taken individually, CA gun laws do not necessarily "infringe" under Heller but collectively, they most surely do. I'm not aware of a case that has tried this approach.

It's getting ridiculous. The California firearm law summary is 19 pages long. And that was in 2016, likely reflecting only laws through 2015. https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agwe ... fl2016.pdf

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

12
Anytime someone suggests "common sense" gun laws, have them look to California.

As Americans, on both The Left and Right, we really should consider why the continued restricting of individual rights is gaining so much traction.

"Sure, my job was outsourced and my spouse has cancer and we have no healthcare, but at least THOSE PEOPLE are getting their comeuppance."
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

13
I have to be a bit of a doubter here. When similar restrictive laws were proposed (and are now in effect) here in NJ, which are quite draconian, the ANJRPC misrepresented them as far worse, particularly the one the affected everyone instantly: Dropping magazine size from 15 to 10 rounds. ANJRPC said if the law was signed it would INSTANTLY make most of us felons, unless we got rid of them in advance of its signing, and that we couldn't even have them modified permanently.

This was not true. Modifications ARE allowed (although depending on the gun smith it costs $10-$15 per mag to modify) . There is also a 6 month grace period that expires on December 10th, 2018.

Now I haven't looked up the Cal Senate's bills coming out of committee, but the source on the bills makes me think they may have shaded them a bit. I admit: It's speculation.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

14
YT, California's latest bullet button assault weapon registration (register closed end of June 2018) had something like a 2-3% compliance rate. If you didn't register or alter the weapon for compliance, you are now in felony possession of an assault weapon (mind you, these new bullet button assault weapons were perfectly legal prior to this registration and already altered for "safety", requiring the use of a tool to change magazines). California made zero effort to notify gun owners of the new regulations. This law did indeed create tens if not hundreds of thousands of felons in California based on a change in law regarding their legally obtained property. And it solves NOTHING.

A coworker/employer should not be able to obtain a restraining order against you to have your firearms removed. Immediate family member or police officer is sufficient (if an employer/co worker is sufficiently concerned, talk to the police--the process is already codified). Or perhaps we should add acquaintances or internet handles? What's one more layer of character scurrility and erosion of rights, eh? This whole narc your neighbor/see something, say something thing is its own slippery slope that I'm sure you, given all you've reveled about yourself and family, can appreciate.

And exactly what does limiting purchases to 1 gun every 30 days do to someone that already owns firearms? One gun is plenty for a murder or mass shooting, you don't need multiples, as has been demonstrated countless times. All it does is make it difficult for a collector or deal seaker. Same with our 10 day wait list for people who already own a gun. What if you actually need a gun for self defense today because your abusive husband was just released after serving time for beating you nearly to death? I'm sure the restraining order will work while you wait your 10 days. Very comforting.

And why should I have to buy ammo through a licensed dealer and be subjected to a background check? I already did that shit to buy the gun. All this does is preclude one from buying lower cost bulk ammo on-line which means one shoots less and is thus less proficient. Heaven forbid you're poor and value the sport or the idea of being proficient with the weapon you keep for self defense in your low-income home.

Individually, some of California's gun laws make some sense and some will likely withstand a constitutional challenge. Collectively, they are a steaming shit pile restricting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I'm fine with some regulation but this is just fucking ridiculous and it never ends. Every fucking year there are 5-10 new gun laws. Try to keep that straight, will ya. :) (not shitting on you here, just venting in general)

Edited a couple typos.
Last edited by featureless on Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

15
YankeeTarheel wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:52 amNow I haven't looked up the Cal Senate's bills coming out of committee, but the source on the bills makes me think they may have shaded them a bit. I admit: It's speculation.
This article from post #7 contains links to each of the bills--four from the assembly and four from the senate. The one guns.com probably distorted the most was SB-1487.
https://www.guns.com/2018/08/20/8-anti- ... gislature/

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

16
featureless wrote: Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:26 pm YT, California's latest bullet button assault weapon registration (register closed end of June 2018) had something like a 2-3% compliance rate. If you didn't register or alter the weapon for compliance, you are now in felony possession of an assault weapon (mind you, these new bullet button assault weapons were perfectly legal prior to this registration and already altered for "safety", requiring the use of a tool to change magazines). California made zero effort to notify gun owners of the new regulations. This law did indeed create tens if not hundreds of thousands of felons in California based on a change in law regarding their legally obtained property. And it solves NOTHING.

A coworker/employer should not be able to obtain a restraining order against you to have your firearms removed. Immediate family member or police officer is sufficient (if an employer/co worker is sufficiently concerned, talk to the police--the process is already codified). Or perhaps we should add acquaintances or internet handles? What's one more layer of character scurrility and erosion of rights, eh? This whole narc your neighbor/see something, say something thing is its own slippery slope that I'm sure you, given all you've reveled about yourself and family, can appreciate.

And exactly what does limiting purchases to 1 gun every 30 days do to someone that already owns firearms? One gun is plenty for a murder or mass shooting, you don't need multiples, as has been demonstrated countless times. All it does is make it difficult for a collector or deal seaker. Same with our 10 day wait list for people who already own a gun. What if you actually need a gun for self defense today because your abusive husband was just released after serving time for beating you nearly to death? I'm sure the restraining order will work while you wait your 10 days. Very comforting.

And why should I have to buy ammo through a licensed dealer and be subjected to a background check? I already did that shit to buy the gun. All this does is preclude one from buying lower cost bulk ammo on-line which means one shoots less and is thus less proficient. Heaven forbid you're poor and value the sport or the idea of being proficient with the weapon you keep for self defense in your low-income home.

Individually, some of California's gun laws make some sense and some will likely withstand a constitutional challenge. Collectively, they are a steaming shit pile restricting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I'm fine with some regulation but this is just fucking ridiculous and it never ends. Every fucking year there are 5-10 new gun laws. Try to keep that straight, will ya. :) (not shitting on you here, just venting in general)

Edited a couple typos.
I'm not defending the laws, merely that they MAY be misrepresented as they were misrepresented in NJ. Cali has even stupider laws than NJ--like the impossible-to-comply-with microstamp on new weapons' firing pins.
Disposition Matrix indicated that at least one may be (unless I misread him).
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

19
A related article from CBS Sacramento:
California Legislators Consider Tightening State Gun Laws
California lawmakers are looking to pass even tougher gun control laws like the following:
  • Increase the purchase age for all firearms from 18 to 21
  • Ban the sale of more than one gun per month
  • Implement a lifetime gun ban for a person admitted to a mental health facility
  • Implement a lifetime ban for anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence
“The legislature, you’ve got to give them credit,” Kennedy said. “They’re trying to justify their existence.”

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

20
Latest of what is known, I guess.
California lawmakers bump gun age to 21, ban gun show, enact long arm rationing
A series of four anti-gun bills were approved late this week and are heading to Gov. Jerry Brown for signature. The measures — Assembly Bill 2888 and Senate Bills 221, 1100, and 1177 — passed the state legislature and now head to the state’s Democratic governor for further consideration.

AB 2888 would expand who can file for one of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders, adding coworkers, employers, and school employees to the list that currently includes family members and police. Such orders, largely pioneered by the state, have been derided as “turn in your neighbor” laws as they allow for temporary gun seizures with the accused only able to appear in court after the fact in many cases. After making it through the Assembly on a 48-25 vote in May, the Senate approved it this week 25-12.

The second measure, SB 221, would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the state-owned Cow Palace in Daly City. The historic venue has long been the location of numerous gun shows throughout the years, which has drawn the ire of Democrats from nearby San Francisco, a city that regulated its last gun shop out of business in 2015. The bill passed the Assembly in a contentious 44-31 vote before navigating the Senate Thursday, 26-13.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

21
FPC:
https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oppose_sb_1177
Senate Bill 1177 – just a few months ago an Education Code bill – would make it a crime to apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally protected firearm more than once a month. This bill is a case study of what happens when opportunistic legislators don’t have any real rules (or ethics). SB 1177 would create an artificial market cap on the very enumerated instruments protected by the United States Constitution.

What’s next—a criminal statute to limit Californians to buying no more than one book per month? While illustrative, it’s not very funny to think about; with dozens of authoritarian legislators like and including Senator Portanino, that 1984-esque scenario is plausible. Indeed, that ideology presents itself in this very bill.

The bottom line is that SB 1177 would not improve public safety—but that’s not what the bill is about in the first place. The sky is blue, the sun sets in the west, and SB 1177 is yet another ego and animus-driven bill to put Senator Portanino’s name in bold print on yet another bill to attack the right to keep and bear arms.

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

22
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it harder for Californians to obtain concealed gun permits, but he vetoed a proposal that would have expanded the number of people who could petition the courts for an order removing firearms from those thought to be dangerous. State law currently allows police officers and immediate family members to ask a judge for a “gun violence restraining order” that temporarily removes weapons from people deemed a risk to themselves or others.

On Wednesday, Brown vetoed a bill by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) that would have also allowed teachers, college professors, employers and co-workers to petition for a court order. Ting said he proposed the measure in response to the February shooting that killed 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Fla. The legislator noted some school officials had concerns before the shooting about the behavior of the gunman. But the governor said Wednesday in a veto message that the expansion of the restraining order program is unnecessary. “All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today under existing law by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual,” Brown wrote. “I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.”

Brown signed a bill that sets tougher standards for Californians to get a county sheriff’s permit to carry a concealed weapon. The new law will require applicants to complete at least eight hours of gun safety training and demonstrate competency with a live-fire exam. The measure was introduced by Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego), who said after the signing “we are increasing public safety across California.” Brown also signed a bill Wednesday that will strengthen a law prohibiting multi-burst trigger devices called bump stocks, used in 2017 by a gunman in Las Vegas who killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. Another measures signed by the governor establishes procedures for handling ammunition that has been seized by law enforcement.

Brown vetoed a bill to require the state Department of Justice to study creating a system that would allow gun owners to voluntarily sign up for a lifetime ban on possessing firearms. Brown said the mandate is unnecessary to look at the idea.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/essenti ... story.html
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 6 gun-related bills advance in California legislature

25
highdesert wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:28 pm
Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed a bill that will make it harder for Californians to obtain concealed gun permits, but he vetoed a proposal that would have expanded the number of people who could petition the courts for an order removing firearms from those thought to be dangerous. State law currently allows police officers and immediate family members to ask a judge for a “gun violence restraining order” that temporarily removes weapons from people deemed a risk to themselves or others.

On Wednesday, Brown vetoed a bill by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) that would have also allowed teachers, college professors, employers and co-workers to petition for a court order.
I like Brown's principle re: the restraining order that "not every problem needs a law." I think he thought that the existing law is enough. Time will tell, but I agree here with Brown.

With respect to the added training and quals for CCW, as mentioned above about TX, this is an OK thing to have. I'd prefer that people with permits have demonstrated competence, eh, and learned some things.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests