Cali(fornia) Makes Moves to Effectively Ban Most Semi-Autos

[shadowrider]

(GunReports.com) -- If you think it is hard to own and possess a semi-automatic firearm in California now, just wait until Senate Bill 249 gets enacted, NRA-ILA reports.

Senate Bill 249 was amended from an agriculture bill to a serious anti-gun bill to eliminate the ownership and possession of most semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding Californians. SB 249, introduced by state Senator Leland Yee (D-8), would restrict any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing magazine release components in semi-auto firearms (bullet button, etc).

Senate Bill 249, if enacted, would ban the ownership and possession of AR-15s and other magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms that currently use "bullet buttons" or other tools to restrict the removal of the magazine. This anti-gun bill would also authorize civil and criminal penalties for possessing a "conversion kit."

Also, SB 249 would make the possession of a "conversion kit" a public nuisance, authorize civil and criminal penalties and require surrendering the conversion kit. According to this bill, a conversion kit is any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed and intended to convert that firearm into an “assault weapon” as defined in the bill.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Cali-Makes-Moves-to-Ban-Most-Semi-Autos_4223-1.html

And people wonder why Democrats are viewed as an anti-gun party.

[bluestateguy]

1. And what would they have happen to people who posess such guns anyway?

More people rounded up and imprisoned, fined or otherwise put into the already clogged criminal justice system for "weapons charges". And mark my words, the burden of that would fall disproportionately on black and Hispanic people.

Gun controllers seem to think that the laws they advocate will only inconvenience redneck white males. They are wrong.

[shadowrider]

2. Anti's don't care. It's a law that will make them feel good

and smugly go home thinking they did something good. Except they didn't.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Misnomer

"Gun controllers" is a misnomer. They are simply controllers. As Daniel Webster said:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

(Emphasis is mine.)

[Tejas]

17. Chilling post there.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. Agreed.

Here's another:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

...and another...

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

If, in my life, I have the time to read and understand 1% of what the Founders thought important, I will die a rich man.

[Lurks Often]

28. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC

is a very good example of this type of person.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

29. Obviously :)

[Tejas]

3. Senator Leland Yee

"It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee

[shadowrider]

4. - Snort - Gangs are shaking in their boots at that statement. n/t

[Dr_Scholl]

11. What a douche.

People can't have pistol grips and folding stocks on their guns!

Someone think of the children!!

[Tejas]

6. Let's create a new class of criminals!

YUP, let's house them and pay for it from our quickly emptying state coffers too!

[spin]

7. Senator Leland Yee is a well meaning individual but he is hurting our party. ...

We have far more important problems in our nation than banning semi-auto weapons and his bill will attract negative attention for Democratic candidates all over our nation.

[DanTex]

8. The most interesting part is the comments from the teabaggers on "gunreports.com"

It really is a damned shame that the entire state of California is essentially under the boot of the large, left-wing population centers like LA, SF, SD, etc. Once we get away from the cities, California is a beautiful state, with an abundance of game, and is inhabited by nice, sensible people. I fear, however, that the draconian hold of those cities will forever grip the entire state, thus denying its residents the liberty that should accompany American citizenship.

Comment by: canovack | July 2, 2012

California is rapidly collapsing from it's own weight. Soon enough, when the 50% that pays taxes goes elsewhere, California will implode like a black hole, and 50% that doesn't pay taxes will riot, burn down the sanctuary cities, and demand that the rest of the states pay for their benefits.

The Californians who are paying attention have either moved, are moving, or have all of the weapons they need and live outside of the cities.

This is going to be a fun decade.

Gaviota

Comment by: Lee W | July 2, 2012

This is just one reason I moved out of that damn state. I was born and raised there ( I am 62 ) and just couldn't take it anymore! BTW I voted in every election, I wrote letters and made phone calls to NO avail, I even worked with my legislators to try and get some of these laws voted down or repealed, with the current voting block going for the party of handouts ( dems ) nothing will change OR get better! CA is becoming a third world country!!!!

Comment by: MICHAEL G | July 5, 2012

With luck, when the Entitlement Brigade burns most of Cali's cities to the ground, the pols who voted for all this stuff will be trapped in the firestorm. It'll give 'em a taste of what the Bible says awaits such sinners.

Comment by: David C | July 5, 2012

Most of the blog'rs who talk of the Republik of Kalifornia going under financially when the people who think they're "entitled" to taxpayers' money are correct in theory only. What will happen in reality is that as the taxpayers move out, so will the deadbeats... into the other blue states until those states are comprised of 50% takers. The final curtain comes down when the welfare hordes move into the red states and outnumber the taxpayers.

Do any of these nutjobs sound like they would actually vote for Democrats if only the Dems would let them have their AR-15s?

[NewMoonTherian]

9. I have trouble caring what California does anymore.

It used to be the case that California set the pace for the rest of the nation. I don't think that's true anymore, certainly not in the case of gun policy. They've gone so far off the deep end that nobody else takes them seriously anymore. As for the people living there, they're going to have to start fighting back for their freedoms, if it's not too late already.

[Meiko]

10. I used to enjoy

going to San Diego but I don't go into California anymore. LA used to be a great place to visit with lots to see and do, I just don't feel safe there anymore. Not with gang members and the crazy ass LAPD everywhere. It seems that there are some Democratic politicians who continue marching forward with their own agenda all the while doing damage to the party in the eyes of the public.We have enough gun laws, we just need to enforce them. You are never going to get rid of guns in this country and it is a losing crusade for Dem's who insist on fighting this battle. California is in a terrible mess and eventually they will pay the price for their short sightedness..

[Hoyt]

16. I doubt they miss another gun culture member in the area.

Too many guns, so why try to get rid of them - Now that really is a crock.

I guess you think NY wants you and your guns too.

[Tejas]

18. You are a member of the gun culture too.

[Meiko]

21. I don't take

any guns to California Hoyt, let's be real here OK.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

12. How exactly would the passage of this Bill make it easier to ban most semi-autos in California?

1. As explained by the Legislative Counsel's Digest, existing California law already prohibits the possession of "assault weapons" as that term is defined by California law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_bill_20120627_amended_asm_v94.html

The proposed amendment to the law doesn't change that.

2. The Bill would generally prohibit the ownership and sale of conversion kits that would otherwise allow the conversion of firearms with fixed magazines into firearems with the capacity to accept detachable magazines.

This provision doesn't prohibit the ownership of "most semi-autos" at all. It simply prohibits the ownership and sale of conversion kits.

3. The Bill would also generally prohibit the private ownership of .50 BMG (or .50 Browning Machine Gun) weapons which are used for long-range shooting. Some .50 BMGs are used for the sport of target shooting. This, too, doesn't prohibit the ownership of "most semi-autos".

4. If some people perceive the Democratic Party as being an anti-gun party, it is because there are those who claim that it is an anti-gun party. I am a Democrat. I own multiple firearms, I support gun safety, and I support the private ownership of firearms for self-defense, target-shooting, and/or hunting. I also support the right of those in the Democratic Party who are irrationally opposed to the private ownership of firearms speak their minds. But those in the Democratic Party who are opposed to the private ownership of firearms and who pretend to speak for all Democrats do not speak for me. They also do not speak for all Democrats. The perception that anyone has that Democrats are opposed to the private ownership of firearms is not matched by reality.

[shadowrider]

13. Well,

SB 249, introduced by state Senator Leland Yee (D-8), would restrict any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing magazine release components in semi-auto firearms (bullet button, etc).

If you can't legally release the magazine, what good is a semi-auto?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

14. What good is a semi-auto if you can't convert a firearm with a fixed magazine into a firearm with

detachable magazines?

Whether a rifle is a semi-automatic one has nothing to do with whether the rifle has a detachable magazine or not. As explained in Wikipendia, "A semi-automatic rifle is a type of rifle that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled, automatically ejects the spent cartridge, chambers a fresh cartridge from its magazine, and is immediately ready to fire another shot."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle

What is such a rifle good for? It will send a bullet down a barrel in the direction that the barrel is pointed. It will automatically eject the spent cartridge and re-chamber another cartridge from a magazine.

Does a semi-automatic rifle stop being a semi-automatic rifle if person cannot rapidly switch magazines and fire 30, 40, or additional rounds in succession? No. It is still a semi-automatic rifle.

The Bill, which would generally prohibit the ownership and sale of conversion kits that would otherwise allow the conversion of firearms with fixed magazines into firearems with the capacity to accept detachable magazines, would not make it easier to ban most semi-autos in California.

[sarisataka]

20. The question I would ask

Is why is this law needed? Has there been a sudd en rash of crimes involving rifles with removable magazines?

Or are pro-control politicians upset that AR-15 owners were able to comply with the law that the politicians hoped would effectively ban such guns?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. Do they also bar M1A stripper clips?

[sarisataka]

23. Very good question

Less capacity but reload time isn't much different than a magazine

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. Are those used to refill the M1A's removable magazine?

Isn't the M1A just a military M-14 without full-auto capability? I thought the normal M-14 magazine was already illegal in CA, so the M1A stripper clip would not be very useful.

I wonder if old M1 Garand enbloc clips are legal in CA.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Yes, but only when the magazine is already in the rifle.

At its web site, Springfield Armory sells both a 20-round magazine and a 5-round magazine for the M1A. But Springfield Armory only designates the 20-round magazine as not being legal in California, which would indicate that the removeable 5-round magazines are legal. Although there are 10-round stripper clips for full-size magazines, there are also 5-round stripper clips. These would seem to work.

[Meiko]

30. Just another

rash of political stupidity and ignorance, same as always.

[Hoyt]

15. Makes a lot of sense to me. But those who love lethal weapons capable of maiming scores in seconds

will whine. I hope California is successful in this progressive action.

[Tejas]

19. Saw those 10,000rd clips on MacGyver again, didn't you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. It is scarcely progressive

but then again, you knew that

[Meiko]

31. Me too

California deserves every gun law they get. I am sure the gang members will be the first to comply with the new legislation.

[Hoyt]

32. "Gang members" get their guns from "legal" purchasers and because of tolerance for guns from right

wingers. Let's not forget the "non-gang members" who use guns to intimidate people in public, their spouses, etc.

[Meiko]

33. Of course they

do. There are hundreds of people all over the country buying hundreds of guns at a time reselling them to gang members....

[Starboard Tack]

35. +1

[Starboard Tack]

34. California rocks!

I'd be happy if they declared the entire state a gun free zone.

[gejohnston]

36. and would do what?

You think gang murders and shooting would go down? No. Suicides go down? Come on, get serious.

Do you remember the TV news report that started this? Do find it ironic that the news "investigative report" that started this said nothing about gangs, violent crime, or anything like that. It was entirely about average people going to the range. Anyone with an IQ over Bush's can figure out that it doesn't have anything to do with public safety. It is about control and cultural imperialism (using James Wright's description).

[Starboard Tack]

37. When I say gun free, I mean "no carry" except in designated zones such as ranges and hunting areas.

It isn't going to happen, but it would be my preference, and would have to include routine LE carry.
Gang murders are already way down compared to the 90's.

[gejohnston]

38. Some counties are functioning "shall issue"

others are "will only give to campaign contributors and rich white Anglo people." (Orange and LA counties respectively) So, in a way it is for most people. Some fall someplace in between.
Gangsters mostly kill each other.