Rifles to be Banned Under new California Law on Governor Brown's Desk

[Librarian]

No. New 'features' definition would be

30515.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic
centerfire rifle
that does not have a fixed magazine
with the capacity to accept no more than 10 rounds.

Folks are engaging in a bit of a scavenger hunt identifying uncommon rifles that meet that possible new definition.

 

[Shear_stress]

Obscure guns or not, the important thing is for us to continue writing letters opposing this and the scads of other ridiculous laws awaiting Gov. Brown's signature. Brown, while definitely not a 2A advocate, has vetoed some of the state's more idiotic gun laws in the past, so there's at least some hope. I don't even live in California, but I consider it my civic duty to let them know my opinion anyway.

 

[toivo]

have fun with that 8 round clip in NY

The official line is that the en-bloc clip is not an "ammunition feeding device." It charges the internal magazine, but does not itself feed the rounds into the chamber. We're splitting semantic hairs here, but so far the Garand is legal under the "SAFE" barf Act. This was confirmed by three calls to the NY State Police hotline.

Because the Garand does not have a detachable magazine, it can have "evil features," such as a bayonet lug. M1A1? Not so much ... :banghead:

 

[M1GarandDeerHunter]

I checked with my friend in NY, and he said the M1 was not listed due to the clip loading feature. Also, I was surprised to find out, still legal in Canada too. The Garand is turning out to be a survivor in more ways than one.

 

[armsmaster270]

Same with the SKS 10 shot fixed magazine loaded by a stripper clip

 

[Hacker15E]

Just wait until the Garand starts being thrown around as a "high-powered military-style weapon"...just like with the import ban, I'm sure they'll get around eventually finding that it is evil enough to be banned.

 

[M1GarandDeerHunter]

Yeah, your no doubt right. They are persistent. By then any rifle with a scope with be a "sniper" too. The line of logic is predictable....... and stupid.

 

[bushmaster1313]

but handy to remember that M1 travels to all 50

Only if you have one of the NJ Firearms Purchaser ID cards

 

[rdhood]

The NRA says it sue because it bans "an entire class of weapon" (from the Heller case). Gov Brown has indicated he is hesitant on signing it... for what ever that's worth.

He doesn't want to sign something that will loose in court which may end up restoring 2Z rights to CA residents.

And there it is for all to see. They have seen what overreach has done in DC and in Illinois. There is an invisible line. They won't know they have stepped over it until they find themselves on the losing end of a SCOTUS case.. at which point much of their bans will be struck down.

The thing is, they pass continually oppressive laws over successive years. People accept these laws... though unconstitutional... for fear of imprisonment. If the gun banners reach too far, it all gets wiped away INCLUDING the unconstitutional laws that folks complied with out of fear.

So the action of the gun banners is to push as much unconstitutional law as they can without getting challenged in court.

 

[splithoof]

^^^Exactly. Fear: it is the tool of government, and criminals don't know it personally, or don't care one bit. Only the "law abiding" worry about such laws, and find ways to rationalize their reasons for complying. Bit by bit the state takes more bites, and by the time the law abiding citizen realizes all he has lost, the will to disobey for too many is gone. The socialists are gambling that the makeup of SCOTUS will have changed far enough in their favor by the time they cross that invisible line; hence they pass a continual tide of small bits and pieces until they have completely gutted whatever is left over of the 2nd.

 

[Quiet]

CA Governor Jerry Brown just veto'd SB374.

http://gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_374_2013_Veto_Message.pdf

I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights

 

[ChaoSS]

I wonder if the NRA would still consider joining in on the suit against current AW laws, which still ban a number of weapons by name, and by design.

 

[brody]

The thing to remember in calilfornia is that Democrats have a super-majority in both assembly and senate and can override any veto by brown. Sucks

 

[Quiet]

The thing to remember in calilfornia is that Democrats have a super-majority in both assembly and senate and can override any veto by brown. Sucks

The CA legislative session ended on 09-13-2013.

No one is there to override a veto.

They will need to start over, from the beginning, next year (01-06-2014).

 

[Zoogster]

Glad to see that Brown vetoed this. He deserves his credit. He signed 10 anti gun bills into law and vetoed 7, but in those 7 were many of the worst ones including this one.

 

[barnbwt]

They have seen what overreach has done in DC and in Illinois.

...and Colorado. These days, there's probably more Californians there than in the other two

"No one is there to override a veto."
This may have had a lot to do with it, too. Regardless of whether his decision was popular or not, having it instantly thrown in his face would be a no go --he'd of signed had an overrule been likely. This way, he avoids costly/embarrassing lawsuits, and whatever his decision, it'll be forgotten soon enough (after all, he can still say he signed "reasonable restrictions" while in office)

"He deserves his credit. He signed 10 anti gun bills into law and vetoed 7, but in those 7 were many of the worst ones including this one."
So he deserves credit for signing 10 anti gun bills into law, is what you're saying. The best enemy CA gunowners could ask for, I suppose. Let's not pat them on the back too hard for finding the softest way to annihilate what few gun rights remain there; as you say, they still found 10 acceptable ways to infringe further while not winning all the marbles this go around. I guess it's a victory they can't just pass anti-gun legislation with utter impunity, yet.

TCB

 

[Zoogster]

Context should also be kept on California. While people like to see spreading Californians as the problem with places like Colorado, and there is validity in that, California was one of the more conservative states for most of its history.

Even though San Francisco became a bastion of drugs and alternative lifestyles in the 1960s most of the rest of the state was rather conservative and pro firearm and self defense until the 1980s.
A good majority of the people who changed California for the worst were actually people from other states.
This did include the percentage trying to live lifestyles that would have been deemed unacceptable elsewhere because people kept to themselves in California more and were less inclined to impose morals and standards of living on neighbors (ironic now). That in turn meant California got a lot of the less grounded people.

In fact that was the problem, a large influx of people that wanted to escape where they were from.
A lot of the individuals were from places like the midwest and Chicago area as that was the easiest route to come to California from and as a result more were likely to have family in boht locations who had previously gone that route since it was a prime 20th century migration route.
Many came along route 66 that went from Chicago to Los Angeles and was the prime route other Americans migrated to California for decades. And while others like those during the dust bowl came along that route, the biggest population density to contribute to California on that route was from Chicago.
So you could actually blame Illinois.
So the strange post 60s San Francisco crowd combined with the changing Los Angeles crowd to dominate the politics of the state and change things in a bad way from the 1980s on.

Prior CA actually had better self defense laws for example than the majority of the nation. Castle doctrine and no duty to retreat in the home, and a presumption an intruder is a lethal threat and justification for lethal force going back over a century in California.
Ability to carry concealed or openly on private property, your private business, or your home, no permit required.
Many states have since caught up and surpassed California, but that is a recent thing, as now California now gains more and more restrictions.

 

[ChaoSS]

The CA legislative session ended on 09-13-2013.

No one is there to override a veto.

They will need to start over, from the beginning, next year (01-06-2014).

Also, many of these bills barely passed. Not every Democrat voted for all of these bills.

 

[Torian]

Also, many of these bills barely passed. Not every Democrat voted for all of these bills.

Indeed. Many other bills WERE passed and signed by Brown that attack gun owner rights. It was a measured political move, but still a loss for gun owners in my book.