5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

1
AB2362
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2362
Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law.
This bill, commencing July 1, 2022, would authorize the Department of Justice to impose a civil fine not exceeding $1,000 for a violation of those prohibitions, and a civil fine not exceeding $3,000 for a violation of those prohibitions when the licensee has received written notification from the department regarding the violation and fails to take corrective action, as specified, or the department determines the licensee committed the violation knowingly or with gross negligence. The bill would authorize the department to adopt regulations to carry out these provisions.
AB2617
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2617
Under existing law, a person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with the knowledge that they are prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having custody or control of, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a 5-year period, commencing upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order.
This bill would specify that this offense also applies to persons who are subject to a gun violence restraining order, as described, issued by an out-of-state jurisdiction.
AB2699
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2699
Existing law imposes certain vehicle storage requirements on specified persons who obtain an unsafe handgun. A violation of those provisions is a crime.
This bill would exempt from the prohibition on unsafe handguns, the sale of a handgun to, or the purchase of a handgun by, additional specified entities for use by sworn members of those entities, including the California Horse Racing Board and the State Department of Public Health. Because the bill would expand the application of the crime of improperly storing an unsafe handgun in an unattended vehicle to additional persons, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
AB2847
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2847
Existing law, subject to exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and technology that transfers a microscopic array of characters from the firearm to the cartridge case when the firearm is fired, known as a microstamp. Existing law requires the microstamp to be transferred to the cartridge upon firing and to be imprinted in 2 or more places on the internal working parts of the handgun.
This bill, effective July 1, 2022, would revise the criteria for unsafe handguns by requiring the microstamp to be imprinted in one place on the interior of the handgun, and would require the department, for every new firearm added to the roster, to remove, as specified, 3 firearms from the roster that are not compliant with current requirements. By expanding the number of firearms the sale or manufacture of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would authorize the department to adopt emergency regulations, as specified, to implement the provisions of this bill.
SB914 Restrictions on loaning firearms
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 20200SB914
This bill would, for purposes of these provisions, define a valid and unexpired hunting license.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
This bill would require the department, for sales of firearms to persons under 21 years of age who are eligible to purchase a firearm based upon their possession of a hunting license, to confirm the validity of the hunting license as part of the background check.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

3
If these get passed the gun owners in California are screwed. I have a question. Where is the microstamp suppose to hit the cartridge? Considering the hammer never really hits the cartridge, it is the firing pin that hits the primer that causes the bang. If that is a correct assumption then the primer is where the mark is placed. What do you do if you have to change the firing pin?

They speak of handguns and that unsafe ones don't have all this extra safety equipment. What about revolvers? They are a handgun but don't normally have chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism or safety. Are they banned?

I just looked I have 8 handguns only my Rugee Mark III even comes close to meeting any of the requirements.

I know I'm not moving to California and it seems many of my neighbors have moved here from there. My wife says it is the descendants of the Dust Bowl Okies and Texans moving here.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

4
The micro-stamp requirement is already law. I don't believe any new semi-auto can be added to the roster without it.

This bill looks like it reduces the micro-stamp to a single place instead of multiple places internally. I'm not sure if that makes any real difference. Revolvers do not require the micro-stamp since they don't eject their cartridges.

Currently firearms only "fall off" the roster if they are not renewed, or if they update them and require a retest (I'm not sure if things like color changes count). However as I am reading it, this change will now require that they remove 3 firearms that don't meet the latest requirements for each new firearm of any type added.

That is a bit frightening. Last I heard no manufacturer was going to comply with micro-stamping, so no new semi-auto handguns have been added since that law went into effect and any firearm that's been changed or updated has been removed. There are currently 818 different handgun sku's on the roster. that includes all variations of the same firearm.
Image


Image
Image

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

9
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pm If these get passed the gun owners in California are screwed.
I'm pretty sure that already was the case.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmI have a question. Where is the microstamp suppose to hit the cartridge? Considering the hammer never really hits the cartridge, it is the firing pin that hits the primer that causes the bang. If that is a correct assumption then the primer is where the mark is placed.
Correct.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmWhat do you do if you have to change the firing pin?
I don't know if there is a law prohibiting it yet, but the firing pin loophole will be addressed at some point.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmThey speak of handguns and that unsafe ones don't have all this extra safety equipment.
"Safety equipment" is a matter of opinion. LCIs and magazine disconnect safeties were meant to appease firearm prohibitionists. Appeasement doesn't work.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmWhat about revolvers?
Do you mean the revolver loophole?
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmThey are a handgun but don't normally have chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism or safety.
Even if something is not technically possible it could be required by California law.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmAre they banned?
Give it time.
TrueTexan wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 6:41 pmI just looked I have 8 handguns only my Rugee Mark III even comes close to meeting any of the requirements.
Then you and your handguns are unsafe at any speed. Children everywhere will drop dead as a result.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

10
leitmotiv wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:09 pm If you'd like to have fun reviewing the roster you can go here: https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certifi ... uns/search

It even includes lists of recently added and recently removed at the bottom of the page.
488 are pistols, and 303 are revolvers. This list likely will only get smaller. Californians voted for a strict firearm prohibition regime over several decades, and they got it.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

11
CA has a $54 billion hole in the state budget, basically 25% of the budget is gone. Raising taxes would be suicide for the legislature so it's cuts to state and local government programs. And priorities should be basic needs of food, shelter and health care services along with unemployment benefits for the 20+% unemployed in the state. Republicans in CA should be arguing that new firearms laws are not a priority when the state economy has tanked.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

13
highdesert wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 10:04 am CA has a $54 billion hole in the state budget, basically 25% of the budget is gone. Raising taxes would be suicide for the legislature so it's cuts to state and local government programs. And priorities should be basic needs of food, shelter and health care services along with unemployment benefits for the 20+% unemployed in the state. Republicans in CA should be arguing that new firearms laws are not a priority when the state economy has tanked.
featureless wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 10:19 am New firearms laws should not be a priority when we have plenty and many of them are in litigation...
There is _always_ time for more firearm laws when the priority for legislators is the appearance of doing something.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

14
Two points:

1 There are no "Safe" handguns in CA. There are handguns that have been designated as "Not unsafe". LEO, and other members of the privileged, can obtain handguns not on the roster.

2 Microstamping has been challenged in the courts due to the fact no manufacturer offers it, nor can figure out how to microstamp to meet the regulation. The court ruled that doesn't need to be a consideration in passing the law.

3 Bonus! :clap: To get on the "Roster" the manufacturer has to apply. Once on the Roster they only need to pass regulations of the initial application but the certification expires and they need to re-apply. If the manufacturer goes out of business there is no one to apply for renewal. If the specific model is no longer made there is no motivation for the manufacturer to continue to incur costs to keep that handgun on the roster. When the Roster was started there were over 1,500 handguns on it. Now there are just over 800. There haven't been any new guns listed since the microstamping regulation was added (2015?)

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

18
AB2847 has been signed into law.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 0200AB2847
Existing law, subject to exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and technology that transfers a microscopic array of characters from the firearm to the cartridge case when the firearm is fired, known as a microstamp. Existing law requires the microstamp to be transferred to the cartridge upon firing and to be imprinted in 2 or more places on the internal working parts of the handgun.
This bill, effective July 1, 2022, would revise the criteria for unsafe handguns by requiring the microstamp to be imprinted in one place on the interior of the handgun, and would require the department, for every new firearm added to the roster, to remove, as specified, 3 firearms from the roster that are not compliant with current requirements. By expanding the number of firearms the sale or manufacture of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would authorize the department to adopt emergency regulations, as specified, to implement the provisions of this bill.
In latest clash with NRA, Newsom signs bill to help police trace guns
The new law, which takes effect July 1, 2022, also requires the handguns to be equipped with safety measures including chamber load indicators and magazine disconnect mechanisms.

“This is a bill that will assist law enforcement in solving gun-related crimes via using micro-stamping technology and reduce the number of accidental gun deaths and injuries,” said Assembly member David Chiu (D-San Francisco), who introduced the bill.

California tried forcing gun makers to make firearms more trackable 12 years ago, but the industry said technology made it difficult to comply with a rule requiring two micro-stamps on each weapon.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

20
CDFingers wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm It's not like the lege doesn't have anything else to do, you know.

CDFingers
Let's see, there is a huge state budget deficit that even the rainy day savings won't cover; we have major wildfires that even federal assistance won't fully pay for; there is a huge pandemic and even Newsom admits we're about to go into another surge; the pandemic put a huge hole in the state's revenue; there is a huge housing and homeless problem that the pandemic only exacerbated; and many people are out of work or working less hours or are trying to live on unemployment. And California's unemployment department is a mess.

But gun restriction bills are always popular, the joys of a one party state.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

21
highdesert wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:50 am
CDFingers wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm It's not like the lege doesn't have anything else to do, you know.

CDFingers
Let's see, there is a huge state budget deficit that even the rainy day savings won't cover; we have major wildfires that even federal assistance won't fully pay for; there is a huge pandemic and even Newsom admits we're about to go into another surge; the pandemic put a huge hole in the state's revenue; there is a huge housing and homeless problem that the pandemic only exacerbated; and many people are out of work or working less hours or are trying to live on unemployment. And California's unemployment department is a mess.

But gun restriction bills are always popular, the joys of a one party state.
Yup. Nice work, California. Solving nonexistent problems at the expense of a constitutional right and ignoring things that could make the state better for everyone. This is why I'm always holding dem politicians' feet to the fire around here and bitch so loudly about them. I want something better. Obviously, the Repugs ain't it.

Re: 5 firearm-related bills advance in California legislature

22
featureless wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:03 pm
highdesert wrote: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:50 am
CDFingers wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 8:14 pm It's not like the lege doesn't have anything else to do, you know.

CDFingers
Let's see, there is a huge state budget deficit that even the rainy day savings won't cover; we have major wildfires that even federal assistance won't fully pay for; there is a huge pandemic and even Newsom admits we're about to go into another surge; the pandemic put a huge hole in the state's revenue; there is a huge housing and homeless problem that the pandemic only exacerbated; and many people are out of work or working less hours or are trying to live on unemployment. And California's unemployment department is a mess.

But gun restriction bills are always popular, the joys of a one party state.
Yup. Nice work, California. Solving nonexistent problems at the expense of a constitutional right and ignoring things that could make the state better for everyone. This is why I'm always holding dem politicians' feet to the fire around here and bitch so loudly about them. I want something better. Obviously, the Repugs ain't it.
And to top it off dems want to export the California model to every other state. Oh, the joy of success, this is reminds me of “winning”.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests