California Senate Passes Comprehensive New Gun Control Legislation

[Eugene]

Source: ABC News

California Senate Passes Comprehensive New Gun Control Legislation

By CATHERINE THORBECKE
May 19, 2016, 3:55 PM ET

The California State Senate passed a comprehensive series of new legislation aimed at curbing gun violence today, according to a press release from Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León.

The package of bills, which de León called "common sense," is now en route to the Assembly, who will vote on the bills as well. If approved, the package will then go to the governor.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

The package of bills the Senate voted on are aimed at tightening gun restrictions in the state that already has some of the strictest gun control in the country. One of the central aspects of the voting today was the issue of the "bullet button loophole."

"This loophole enables a firearm owner to use a bullet or other pointed object to quickly detach and replace a weapon’s ammunition magazine, converting a semi-automatic rifle into an assault weapon. An individual can switch magazines on a gun with a bullet button within seconds, making them especially deadly in a mass shooting situation," State Assemblymember David Chiu of California's 17th District explained in a press release.

Sen. Isadore Hall, III -- who co-authored Senate Bill 880, one of the bills voted on today -- said that the bill "closes the 'bullet button loophole' by redefining assault weapons to include military-style semi-automatic firearms with the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, requiring such weapons to be registered with the Department of Justice and prohibiting the future sale, purchase or possession of such weapons in California."

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/california-senate-vote-today-comprehensive-gun-control-legislation/story?id=39226951

[beevul]

1. Remember folks...

Nobody wants to take your guns:

...requiring such weapons to be registered with the Department of Justice and prohibiting the future sale, purchase or possession of such weapons in California."

"This loophole enables a firearm owner to use a bullet or other pointed object to quickly detach and replace a weapon’s ammunition magazine, converting a semi-automatic rifle into an assault weapon.

Nope. Bullet button rifles were not "assault weapons".

An individual can switch magazines on a gun with a bullet button within seconds, making them especially deadly in a mass shooting situation," State Assemblymember David Chiu of California's 17th District explained in a press release.

No 'bullet button" rifle was ever used in any mass shooting.


Someone, somewhere, please, tell me more about nra fear mongering...

[benEzra]

2. This had nothing to do with "gun violence."

Going after almost-never-misused rifles, once again.

California now bans guns that are legal in most of Europe.

[beergood]

3. fpc petition

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/gunpocalypse-aftermath-10-gun-control-bills-shoved-through-senate/?mc_cid=a78bb0627e&mc_eid=e1cd298f90

[pablo_marmol]

4. More useless feel-good nonsense, while action that could result in change is fumbled!

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf

[Kang Colby]

5. Bullet button loophole...such a phrase makes me sick.

Bullet buttons were required based on the grabbers own requirement to have fixed magazines that required a tool to detach and reload.

Once grabbers have UBCs, this kind of legislation always eventually comes next.

[beevul]

7. Spot on, every word.

[sarisataka]

9. I find it intriguing

That the following the requirements is a loophole and simply obeying the law is getting around it.

To the control mentality I got around the 55 speed limit by using the cruise control loophole

[Duckhunter935]

11. Yep, they got what they wanted

and it never is enough

[pablo_marmol]

14. When I first heard of this legislation, I googled around for more info........

.......and encountered an article I wish that I had saved for it's comedic value. (Though yes --- it really made me sick.)

There was a paragraph dealing with the "bullet button loophole" that was composed in word salad that Sarah Palin would admire. Essentially claiming that the bullet button makes a regular semi-auto rifle comparable to a bona-fide military assault rifle.

The STUPID ---- it scorches Democrats!

[ileus]

6. banners wanna ban.

[sarisataka]

8. Wasn't this legislation started

By Leland Yee who is currently serving time for trafficking full auto weapons?

[beergood]

39. you forgot to mention

the rpgs
"And he acknowledged offering to facilitate a multimillion-dollar arms deal for shoulder-fired missiles and automatic weapons with a source tied to Muslim rebel groups in the Philippines – a particularly bizarre and damaging allegation for the staunch gun-control advocate."
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article25986487.html

[Puha Ekapi]

10. They are out of their...

...fucking minds. Gov. Brown may veto the lot of them, we'll see. However, if they do pass and are signed there could be some ugly backlash, and certainly expensive and protracted court battles the state will have to pay for.

[pablo_marmol]

15. "However, if they do pass and are signed there could be some ugly backlash......."

Indeed. As a Californian, I'm heavily invested here. I have a very close friend who says he'll vote GOP before he votes for The Dishonorable Gavin Newsome. I won't go that far.......but I certainly will not hold my nose and vote for GN.

And as someone on record as having donated heavily to Democrats, I won't be hesitant to send letters expressing my sentiments re. this stupidity.

[Puha Ekapi]

16. I can't see...

.. Gavin Nuisance' little ammo initiative withstanding any judicial scrutiny even if the voters approve it. Something about restricting printer's ink and all.....

[beergood]

40. i agree

bit it will take years to get to the courts. in the meantime we Californians will have to put up with these laws. so its better for us if we can keep them from being passed in the first place.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. Useless security theater, intended to sway low-information dolts.

Your tax dollars at work...

[pablo_marmol]

13. Two thumbs up!!

We're pushing legislation that accomplishes NOTHING in terms of reducing gun deaths, while giving voters PLENTY of reason to vote GOP!

Damn........are we BRILLIANT or what?!



http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_29913590/california-gun-control-senate-passes-first-few-series

[Eleanors38]

17. Culture War writ-large by open-minded California....

and with culture war there is never too much money to spend in court.

[flamin lib]

18. California has long been in the forefront of national changes.

As California goes, eventually so goes the nation.

[Puha Ekapi]

19. Ummmm....

....no. Virtually the rest of the country is moving 180 degrees from California when it comes to the Second Amendment and gun rights. In fact, this latest round is so draconian that some serious backlash is likely.

[flamin lib]

20. It's a mixed bag. Lots of progress on domestic violence gun seizures and UBC as well as some

loosening of gun laws. It ain't all roses for gun fetishists.

Ca is a referendum state and when actual voters get the chance things go poorly for gunz.

[Marengo]

21. Curious choice of words for someone who owns so many guns...

How many before one may be catagorized as a fetishist?

[flamin lib]

22. Not curious at all. Ownership doesn't convey fetishism.

I'd say that a devotion to "gun rights" (a euphemism for gun worship) or the need to have a gun on one's person when in public and insisting that there be unlimited access to guns anywhere, anytime of any kind represents fetishism. Simple ownership not so much. Last time my gun safe was unlocked was January 2015, at the end of 2014 deer season. Didn't go in the 2015 season.

A genuine collector with dozens or even hundreds of antiques, curios or relics is just that, a collector. A bird hunter with a shotgun or a game hunter with his rifle are seldom fetishistic about their guns.

Defining the 2nd Amendment as a God given right and declaring gun ownership necessary to defeat the Govmint or having to have a gun on your person with a round in the chamber "just to be ready" verges on Agoraphobia and Paranoia.

[Straw Man]

23. "Fetishism" is not a legal term.

You're just using it to muddy the waters. And you're failing.

I'd say that a devotion to "gun rights" (a euphemism for gun worship) or the need to have a gun on one's person when in public and insisting that there be unlimited access to guns anywhere, anytime of any kind represents fetishism.

So let's get this straight: "rights" is a euphemism for "worship" in your formulation. Some would say that "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for "abortion worship" -- would you concur?

The "need to have a gun on one's person when in public" is a red herring. Substitute "right" for "need."

As for "unlimited access to guns anywhere, anytime of any kind," that a colossal straw man of your own making.

[Marengo]

33. Speaking of reproductive rights, I wonder how well controllers would tolerate arguments against...

those based on "technical" (biological) ignorance as they do with anti RKBA legislation based on technical ignorance.

[Marengo]

24. Would you be willing to surrender your gun rights and your guns at this very moment?

[flamin lib]

25. I haven't been asked to do so. However, gun rights, like all rights, have limitations.

I am willing to comply with any regulations that work to decrease the carnage of 100,000 shootings a year. Just as I can't walk around with a bull horn shouting obscenities as an expression of free speech gun owners should be willing to surrender unlimited gun access for the safety of society.

[Marengo]

26. Then you have a devotion on some level to the right...

If you are waiting for what I presume to be a lawful authority to tell you the right no longer exists and to relinquish your firearms. As for your contribution to ending the carnage as you characterize it, surrendering your guns now would set a significant example of your devotion to that cause. Others have done this, why can't you? Not having opened your safe since 1/15 would seem to indicate you have little value for you firearms, so why hold onto them? As for the hunting argument, that really doesn't work either as any game in North America can be harvested with archery equipment.

[flamin lib]

27. You bring nothing to this conversation than the usual

OH MY GOD THEY'RE COMING TO GET MY GUNS!1!!!2!

[Marengo]

28. I suppose you can supply a quote where I said such a thing...

or explain how you have extrapolated that? Or is it that you have no effective counter argument?

[flamin lib]

29. If you wanted to have a real conversation you would not have said the things you have. You don't

want a conversation, you want a fight.

In post 21 you stake out a position that I believe mere gun ownership equates to fetishism. I never said that.

In post 24 you asked if I were willing to surrender my firearms and rights as if that were a proposal. Where did that come from?

In post 25 you accuse me of having right wing leanings which I don't. Further you accuse me of not valuing my collection. Then you wander off into obfuscation about alternate weaponry, which I have and use because ti gives me a 30 day advance on gun season. Why do you do this if not to simply pick a fight where none should be?

In post 28 you say you haven't said THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!1!1!11 when the entire tone of your posts have been exactly that, suggesting I surrender mine as if anyone asked it and then saying I was simply waiting for some authority to do so.

Finally, in true gun nut form, you accuse me of having no counterargument when you have not made an argument in any shape form or fashion, preferring to ascribe things to me that I haven't advocated, don't believe and are made up from whole cloth.

What do want from me other than to pick a fight/

[Marengo]

31. What a flaming joke, as if you desire any discussion beyond the beatification of you positions.

Positions so contorted and contradictory as to cause me to call the authenticity of your entire persona into question. With the considerable time and effort you expend denigration gun owners, I'm left to wonder if this is an Uncle Ruckus or Elmer Fudd routine.

In post 21 you stake out a position that I believe mere gun ownership equates to fetishism. I never said that.

Oh you mean "I'd say that a devotion to "gun rights"...represents fetishism". If you own a gun, isn't that an acknowledgment that the right exists, and the practice of it a measure of devotion? How much devotion equals fetishism?

In post 24 you asked if I were willing to surrender my firearms and rights as if that were a proposal. Where did that come from?

If you don't, you must have some "devotion to gun rights", or you wouldn't possess firearms in the first place.

In post 25 you accuse me of having right wing leanings which I don't. Further you accuse me of not valuing my collection. Then you wander off into obfuscation about alternate weaponry, which I have and use because ti gives me a 30 day advance on gun season. Why do you do this if not to simply pick a fight where none should be?

You authored post # 25, so I have no idea what you are talking about. But, to that point, you own firearms don't you? To some, that's right wing, or worse. As for the hunting issue, you know certainly well firearms are not necessary for hunting, so any argument to the contrary is bullshit.

In post 28 you say you haven't said THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!1!1!11 when the entire tone of your posts have been exactly that, suggesting I surrender mine as if anyone asked it and then saying I was simply waiting for some authority to do so.

Utter bullshit, and as I expected you have nothing. As if a voluntary surrender out of principle is somehow synonymous with legal confiscation. Having no counter argument, you resorted to suggesting I'm paranoid. More of that two dimensional agitprop you were so eager to defend in the other group (my statement was factually correct, and you know. But, the delicate flowers had their way.).

Finally, in true gun nut form, you accuse me of having no counterargument when you have not made an argument in any shape form or fashion, preferring to ascribe things to me that I haven't advocated, don't believe and are made up from whole cloth.

Oh, I think I have you figured out well enough, especially considering the company you keep. You really want to make a difference? Sell those guns you revile so much and donate that money to a control group of your choice. Otherwise, you have no credibility. "Gun nut" eh? How about you define that for me, and provide specific examples of what I've written on this board that leads to that conclusion.

For the record, I've been in the shooting sports four decades and, although I acknowledge this is an association bias, have never encountered a gun owner with your negative attitudes towards gun ownership and owners in general.

Edited to add....

Well, look at this:

Star Member flamin lib (7,464 posts)
3. Yes, but we all must understand that gun rights are sooooo much more important then any other

rights like the right to life.

Yours apparently are, as you value them enough to own multiple firearms.

[pablo_marmol]

34. Game. Set. Match.

[flamin lib]

35. Yeah, if the game is scored on logical fallacies, made up 'facts', misattributed commentary and

general lunacy. In that case, great job!

[pablo_marmol]

36. More than a little projection on your part.

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. Your Uncle Ruckus-isms aside, why should *you* be trusted with guns, and others not?

I've yet to see a explicit rationale from a 'royalist' gun control advocate as to
why *their* gun ownership is more acceptable than another persons, or why their
views on the matter should be encoded into law.

Maybe you'll be the first...

[Puha Ekapi]

50. "Guns for me...

....but not for thee". A more common theme with the controllers than you might expect.

[Marengo]

53. Lunacy, eh? Care to explain that?

[Marengo]

56. Look like you have the time to explain what you meant by "lunacy"

[pablo_marmol]

38. He brings "nothing" to the conversation.........

.......yet you toss around nonsense, emotion-trigger phrases such as unlimited access to guns. Whose unlimited access to guns are you referring to? The general population, which would include criminals and the emotionally unstable, or sane law-abiding citizens? If you're going to dishonorably stuff words into our mouths without links to back up your case you should at minimum be clear with your language!

And then there's the binary strawman favored by so many Controllers:

OH MY GOD THEY'RE COMING TO GET MY GUNS!1!!!2!

Anyone disagreeing with you is automatically a member of the far right in fear of "having their guns taken". Here's a news flash - persons with integrity understand that the burden of proof falls on those advocating for restricting a right.......NOT those wishing to preserve the right. In this......as in so many other departments......you fail miserably.

[beevul]

58. Thats an unknown demographic...

persons with integrity

Thats an unknown demographic, in anti-gun circles.

[pablo_marmol]

59. Clearly! NT

[beergood]

42. "Just as I can't walk around with a bull horn shouting obscenities as an expression of free speech"

except you can. alex jones spews all kinds of crazy racist shit as do many other assholes on youtube, and none of them have ever been detained, fined or punished in any way. the only restriction on speech involve false accusations, and inciting violence. other than that you can say/print anything you want. you don't even have to be a member of the press to do so, the right to speak freely belongs to the individual. just as the RKBA belongs to the individual.

[flamin lib]

43. That is beyond ignorant. Past the obscenity part are noise ordinances, harassment and a host of

other restrictions on public and private speech.

[beergood]

45. the aclu

disagrees "Over the years, the ACLU has frequently represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone."
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech

[beevul]

57. " Just as I can't walk around with a bull horn shouting obscenities..."

Just as I can't walk around with a bull horn shouting obscenities as an expression of free speech gun owners should be willing to surrender unlimited gun access for the safety of society.

First, yes you can walk around with a bull horn shouting obscenities as an expression of free speech.

On your own property.

Second, your "unlimited gun access" is a myth, and you know it.

[beergood]

41. "when actual voters get the chance things go poorly for gunz."

no they don't, the 2014 midterm election proves otherwise.

bill clinton is quoted as saying "And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443_Page2.html#ixzz49bgCJGD8
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

then you have the Colorado recall election, 2013
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_recall_election,_2013

[flamin lib]

44. The Colorado recall was reversed in the next election. nt

[beergood]

46. and yet

no new gun law have been passed in Colorado.

[flamin lib]

47. The laws passed are still on the books. nt

[beergood]

49. for now

[flamin lib]

51. For ever. nt

[beergood]

52. forever times infinity

there i win

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. In which the GOP won control of the CO Senate- but you still have the gun laws you wanted

You may very well be happy about that, I sure as hell am not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=176675

"And the Pubbies *still* hold the majority in the CO Senate. Thanks, Bloomie!"


http://www.denverpost.com/election2014/ci_26898316/gop-win-colorado-senate-democrats-vow-hold-party

GOP win Colorado Senate, Democrats vow to hold party accountable

Republicans are officially in charge of the Colorado Senate, ending a decade-long drought where they painfully watched Democrats win the majority in five straight elections...

...Gun activists then attempted to mount a recall against Sen. Evie Hudak of Jefferson County but before they turned in signatures to force an election she resigned her seat to ensure the Senate stayed in Democrat hands. A vacancy committee elected Arvada City Councilwoman Rachel Zenzinger to Hudak's seat.

In Tuesday's election, Herpin lost to Democrat Michael Merrifield and Rivera lost to Democrat Leroy Garcia, which came as no surprise to either party considering the voter registration makeup in both districts.

But Zenzinger lost to Republican Laura Woods, backed by the strident gun group Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. Hudak had won re-election in 2012 so her seat wasn't even supposed to be on the ballot in 2014.

[beergood]

48. you use fetishists as if its a bad thing

there are many type of fetishes and none of them are illegal, as long as its safe, sane and consensual.

[pablo_marmol]

30. Ha ha ha......you keep thinking that!

As a native Californian, I wouldn't dream of making an egotistical comment like that.

[beergood]

32. Law Enforcement Union Joining the Opposition of Newsom’s Ballot Initiative

The CCPOA is the latest law enforcement organization to stand against Newsom’s proposal. The nine organizations represent thousands of officers, prosecutors, sheriffs and other officials on the frontline of public safety. Groups opposing Newsom’s proposal so far include:

Association of Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Fish and Game Wardens’ Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California State Sheriffs’ Association
Law Enforcement Action Network
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
San Francisco Veteran Police Officer Association
Western States Sheriffs Association

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160511/california-coalition-for-civil-liberties-announces-largest-law-enforcement-union-joining-the-opposition-of-newsom-s-ballot-initiative

[beergood]

55. A variety of diverse organizations have joined the fight against Gavin Newsom’s unconstitutional

ballot initiative.

CalGuns Shooting Sports Association
California Rifle & Pistol Association
Congress of Racial Equality
FFLGuard
Gun Owners of California
Jews Can Shoot
Law Enforcement Alliance of America
NRA Members’ Council
Pink Pistols
San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association
Women Against Gun Control
National Wild Turkey Federation

who knew jews, gays, and women were bunch of ammosexual gun nuts.