California and NY in their newest attempts to whittle down gun rights.

[Gelgoog]

http://kiem-tv.com/node/4668

INTRODUCED MONDAY:

AB 48 (Asm. Nancy Skinner, D- Berkeley) Requires reporting of ammunition sales, requires licensing of ammunition dealers, and establishes other controls on ammunition sales similar to current controls on firearms sales. "When we have safeguards in place for purchasing guns, why is it so much easier to buy bullets--the very thing that makes a gun deadly?" Assemblymember Skinner asked. "It is easier today to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or some cold medicines."

AB 169 (Asm. Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento) People exempted from restrictions on purchasing guns designated as unsafe by the California Department of Justice would be prohibited from selling or transferring ownership of those guns to anyone who is not also exempt. “AB 169 will keep non-rostered, unsafe handguns out of the hands of people who don't have a legitimate and lawful reason to own them. By limiting the guns available for sale we can further protect our families and our communities from gun violence,” said Assemblymember Dickinson.

AB 170 (Asm. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena) - Current law allows individuals and organizations, including corporations and other associations, to be issued permits for assault weapons and machine guns. AB 170 closes this loophole by limiting the issuance of permits for these weapons to individuals only. “This is a responsible measure to ensure that we know who is in possession of these powerful, military-grade weapons,” Assemblymember Bradford said.” In the same way that we prohibit sharing driver licenses, we should not allow dangerous weapons to be passed from hand to hand within an organization. One person, one permit just makes sense.”

AB 174 (Asm. Rob Bonta, D-Oakland)) - Would begin the conversation on ending the grandfathering of existing weapons which are now illegal to purchase but are still legal to possess. “State laws on the books currently restrict the purchase and sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, but almost all laws only apply on a going forward basis and exempted weapons remain on our streets,” Bonta said. “With AB 174 we will closely examine this loophole and do what’s right for the children and people of California.”

AB 187 (Asm. Bonta) Would place a tax on the sale of ammunition in California with proceeds going to a high crime prevention fund that would be used in targeted jurisdictions suffering from high rates of violent crime. “In communities like Oakland and Stockton, parents are afraid to let their children play outside while gun violence ravages the streets,” Assemblymember Bonta said. “We must take swift action to get these communities the resources they need, and in AB 187 I propose to do so through a tax on ammunition.”

EXPECTED TO BE INTRODUCED SOON:

Trafficking (Asm. Luis A. Alejo, D-Salinas) - Would prohibit those individuals involved in gun or ammunition trafficking from possessing firearms or ammunition for 10 years. “If you’ve been convicted of illegally selling or buying firearms or ammunition, you should lose your right to own a gun for 10 years. Individuals can earn back that right by showing a history of respecting the law. It’s just common sense.”

Gun Safety (Asm. Ammiano, D-San Francisco) Would tighten gun safety laws currently in place to protect children. Adds a safe storage requirement when a person prohibited from gun possession is living in the home. Would also allow the Department of Justice to extend waiting period when necessary for background checks. “These two simple measures are common sense extensions of laws already in place,” Ammiano said.

Ammunition Tax (Asm. Dickinson) - Would place a $0.05 tax on the sale of ammunition, and dedicate the proceeds to an existing program to screen young children (grades 1- 3) for mild to moderate mental illness, and intervene with strategies to address their problems. “Screening young children for signs of mental illness and addressing any issues early on is the key to a healthier and more productive adult life. A limited tax on ammunition is a small price to pay for better mental healthcare for children in our state,” said Dickinson.

Pension Fund Divestment (Asm. Dickinson) - Would require CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest any existing pension fund investments from companies that manufacture, sell, distribute or market firearms or ammunition. It would also prohibit future investments in such companies. “Companies who manufacture, sell, distribute or market firearms and ammunition have no business receiving investment funds from the State of California it’s just common sense. There are plenty of other worthy investment options,” said Dickinson.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-massacre?lite

Called the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, New York's law:

- Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

-Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.

-Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state.

- Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.

-Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.

-Tightens the state's description of an "assault" weapon. Previous state law defined an assault weapon as having two "military rifle" features, but the new law reduces that specification to just one feature

- Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

Common sense legislation that is devoid of both.


Stay on topic people, this thread is about these laws in particular, not interpreting the 2nd amendment or the philosophy of an armed society. Any off topic posts will be reported.

[Ciabhán]

Trafficking (Asm. Luis A. Alejo, D-Salinas) - Would prohibit those individuals involved in gun or ammunition trafficking from possessing firearms or ammunition for 10 years. “If you’ve been convicted of illegally selling or buying firearms or ammunition, you should lose your right to own a gun for 10 years. Individuals can earn back that right by showing a history of respecting the law. It’s just common sense.”

Gun Safety (Asm. Ammiano, D-San Francisco) Would tighten gun safety laws currently in place to protect children. Adds a safe storage requirement when a person prohibited from gun possession is living in the home. Would also allow the Department of Justice to extend waiting period when necessary for background checks. “These two simple measures are common sense extensions of laws already in place,” Ammiano said.

Ammunition Tax (Asm. Dickinson) - Would place a $0.05 tax on the sale of ammunition, and dedicate the proceeds to an existing program to screen young children (grades 1- 3) for mild to moderate mental illness, and intervene with strategies to address their problems. “Screening young children for signs of mental illness and addressing any issues early on is the key to a healthier and more productive adult life. A limited tax on ammunition is a small price to pay for better mental healthcare for children in our state,” said Dickinson.

These three I'm good with.

Pension Fund Divestment (Asm. Dickinson) - Would require CalPERS and CalSTRS to divest any existing pension fund investments from companies that manufacture, sell, distribute or market firearms or ammunition. It would also prohibit future investments in such companies. “Companies who manufacture, sell, distribute or market firearms and ammunition have no business receiving investment funds from the State of California it’s just common sense. There are plenty of other worthy investment options,” said Dickinson.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. But in that vein they should also divest fast food companies, processed food companies, tobacco companies, brewers, and anyone who produces violent media.

AB 170 (Asm. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena) - Current law allows individuals and organizations, including corporations and other associations, to be issued permits for assault weapons and machine guns. AB 170 closes this loophole by limiting the issuance of permits for these weapons to individuals only. “This is a responsible measure to ensure that we know who is in possession of these powerful, military-grade weapons,” Assemblymember Bradford said.” In the same way that we prohibit sharing driver licenses, we should not allow dangerous weapons to be passed from hand to hand within an organization. One person, one permit just makes sense.”

I don't believe this is California's decision to make. This is BATFE territory because it affects arms manufacturers and importers who do business with the miltiary and law enforcement. It would effectively prevent any companies in those businesses from having any assets in California.

[Gelgoog]

These three I'm good with.

.05 cents tax on a box? on ever round?

.05 on every round would pretty much kill the .22 LR market. Also you tax people enough and they are going to go out of state to buy their ammunition, like they do with cigarettes and alcohol in certain states.

Is there any tax that doesn't?

At least call it what it is...a Sin Tax.

AB 174 (Asm. Rob Bonta, D-Oakland)) - Would begin the conversation on ending the grandfathering of existing weapons which are now illegal to purchase but are still legal to possess.

This one is the real kicker, if it passes then you will see some blood in the streets. They promised that this would not happen during the installment of the last AWB and people are not going to willingly give them up.

- Bans possession of any high-capacity magazines regardless of when they were made or sold. Only clips able to hold up to seven rounds can be sold in the state. Clips able to hold seven to 10 rounds can be possessed, but cannot be loaded with more than seven rounds. If an owner is found to have eight or more bullets in a magazine, he or she could face a misdemeanor charge.

This part of the new york law that just got enacted is really going to piss off a lot of people. It was basically designed to kill off semi-automatic handguns and rifles.
A) It's baiting people into breaking the law since only a couple handguns actually exist with 7 round mags.

B) It allows officers the power of a god, they allow 10 round mags but if you load 8 rounds your now a felon. Pretty easy for the cops to say you have 8 rounds in that mag with a 10 round capacity when you only had 7 if they want to convict you. They do not even have to plant a dime bag, because it is the cops word against yours.

C) The industry is mostly likely not going to make 7-round mags specifically for new yorkers, because it is a relatively small market and the magazine makers like brownells already have a 2-3 year backlog of orders to fill for non-ban states.This means that you effectively disarmed just about everyone of their magazine fed weapons.

These are not common sense laws, they are punitive laws designed to give the state broad powers to disarm the public.

[Ciabhán]

.05 cents tax on a box? on ever round?

.05 on every round would pretty much kill the .22 LR market. Also you tax people enough and they are going to go out of state to buy their ammunition, like they do with cigarettes and alcohol in certain states.

I was assuming per box $.05 per round would indeed be the end of anyone buying .22LR in California. Then again it's a nice boost for neighbouring state's business.

If I were a company selling ammunition to California law enforcement I'd be tacking on an extra $.05 per round as a fee.

[Gelgoog]

I was assuming per box $.05 per round would indeed be the end of anyone buying .22LR in California. Then again it's a nice boost for neighbouring state's business.

If I were a company selling ammunition to California law enforcement I'd be tacking on an extra $.05 per round as a fee.

True, but as you notice they pretty much exempt law enforcement for any of those laws, just like always.
"Do as I say, not as I do"

Maybe what they mean is with private seller is gun show seller?

The amount is debatable not really important, can be set as high as possible, it's there just to making sure that no one can buy it in bulk and resell it to other person who can't buy because they can't pass the background check. It's part of this more important passage "Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers". If you already pass the background check when buying gun, it shouldn't matter much for you. But it can be used to target/caught and make harder for someone who got their gun illegally to buy more ammo.

Whats bulk mean to you? If I buy 1,000 rounds do you consider that bulk? Do I suddenly have to police up all of my brass to prove that I am not selling it to someone unauthorized? They could do just about anything with that law. You do not realize how much power that gives the police and state to intimidate gun owners.

[Ak1980]

Whats bulk mean to you? If I buy 1,000 rounds do you consider that bulk? Do I suddenly have to police up all of my brass to prove that I am not selling it to someone unauthorized? They could do just about anything with that law. You do not realize how much power that gives the police and state to intimidate gun owners.

That's why i said it's debatable, but at same time if someone keep buying 10k-100k round every year, that should raise a question, i doubt ordinary person can used that much ammo every year, except if he resell it to other who can't buy legally.

[Matthias]

This one is the real kicker, if it passes then you will see some blood in the streets. They promised that this would not happen during the installment of the last AWB and people are not going to willingly give them up.

Yeah, this is about par for the course argumentation with gun nuts. If a democratic society passes a law they don't like, there will be "blood in the streets". I mean, violent threats come second nature in these discussions. Makes you wonder what rationale the gun nuts are operating under, if any.

[TheDarkKnight]

Yeah, this is about par for the course argumentation with gun nuts. If a democratic society passes a law they don't like, there will be "blood in the streets". I mean, violent threats come second nature in these discussions. Makes you wonder what rationale the gun nuts are operating under, if any.

And the rationale of the hardcore anti-gun nuts is any better?

[Raubritter]

And the rationale of the hardcore anti-gun nuts is any better?

Well in the end you have the "let me alone" position versus the "i wanna tell others how to live and let police thugs enforce my will on those i let even pay for it!" position.

[Matthias]

And the rationale of the hardcore anti-gun nuts is any better?

Yes, because it's not based on fear and paranoia. Gun control advocates are not the one saying there will be "blood in the streets" caused by them if they don't like a law.

You know what gun advocates could do if they don't like a law? Oh, I don't know, engage in the democratic process? But for many, threats come to mind first, and it illustrates what their reasoning is really about and how they truly view society.

Not a threat, a reality that confiscation will not come about peacefully for the entire gun owning population.

Your opinion is not a reality. It's just a threat, and why wouldn't you resort to that when you have no other argument?

Let's say, hypothetically, these laws pass. Gun advocates can always get it overturned. They can go to courts if they want, which still haven't drawn any clear line on how much guns can be regulated (thanks SC), or you can go to the legislature and the people. They certainly have the resources and organization to do both easily. So why all these threats? Do they not believe in democratic governance? Just mob rule?

Well in the end you have the "let me alone" position versus the "i wanna tell others how to live and let police thugs enforce my will on those i let even pay for it!" position.

Who knew the "let me alone" position meant being able to have the right to access the most dangerous weapons around. If you live in a democracy, you will indeed engage in a process that tells other people how to live within limits. We don't live in anarchy I'm afraid. And, believe it or not, allowing dangerous guns to be widely available doesn't just impact the people who buy guns. So much for "let me alone".

[hellheaven1987]

The ammunition tax sounds like one more government trick to rob the cash from civilians.

[Raubritter]

The ammunition tax sounds like one more government trick to rob the cash from civilians.

Is there any tax that doesn't?

[Ak1980]

-Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
- Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.
-Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
- Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

All of this sound normal and important, after all you don't want some insane person buying gun from private dealer....

[Gelgoog]

-Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup.
- Requires any therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat of harming others to report the threat to a mental health director, who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her, as well.
-Stipulates that stolen guns should be reported within 24 hours.
- Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private dealers -- except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family.

All of this sound normal and important, after all you don't want some insane person buying gun from private dealer....

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a private dealer. If you are classified as a dealer you must have an FFL. If you are selling something and it crosses state lines it must go through an FFL. They may mean private transfers from one individual to the other, but they used improper terminology there which can be exploited.

Also why is it the state's business to know how much ammunition I am buying? They going to start putting limits on how much I can buy? Are they going to report me to my insurance agency saying that X-amount of ammunition is a fire risk so now my premiums go way up? Are they going to use X-amount of ammunition to put you on a watch list or justification for a search warrant?

[Ak1980]

To my knowledge there is no such thing as a private dealer. If you are classified as a dealer you must have an FFL. If you are selling something and it crosses state lines it must go through an FFL. They may mean private transfers from one individual to the other, but they used improper terminology there which can be exploited.

Also why is it the state's business to know how much ammunition I am buying? They going to start putting limits on how much I can buy? Are they going to report me to my insurance agency saying that X-amount of ammunition is a fire risk so now my premiums go way up? Are they going to use X-amount of ammunition to put you on a watch list or justification for a search warrant?

Maybe what they mean is with private seller is gun show seller?

The amount part is debatable not really important, maybe can be change or can be set as high as possible, it's there just to making sure that no one can buy it in bulk and resell it to other person who can't buy because they can't pass the background check. It's part of this more important passage "Requires ammunition dealers to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers". If you already pass the background check when buying gun, it shouldn't matter much for you. But it can be used to target/caught and make harder for someone who got their gun illegally to buy more ammo.

[Ciabhán]

"Anti-gun" people are not anti-gun for the most part. That is, they just want more regulations on guns, not a total ban of them.

Which is why there will be "blood in the streets" if they don't get their way. Kind of epitomizes extremists right there. Gun control advocates don't threaten violence if they don't get their way.

So now you are comparing the most rabid of one side against the moderate of the other? That's one way to slant things in your favour in a debate but it's also risible.

People who are for the banning of dynamite from civilian use, much less atomic weapons, are not afraid of everyone, they are afraid of the destructive power of that tool in the hands of just anyone. Same with guns.

This is an evasion. You can't fear the destructive power of an inanimate object without fearing someone wielding it. That means you fear the wielder not the object.

the government far surpasses what a citizen can carry.

This is also the case in places like Afghanistan or Columbia. While I understand what you're saying you are looking at things on paper only. I very much doubt that all the militia types and 'oh noes the government' types would be planning on a stand up conventional fight. Do I think they'd win? No. Do I think they might hold out long enough to see a change in regime? Quite possibly.

democratic process is not legitimate

In theory it should be. In practice it often isn't. We all know this it's nothing new.


I'm all for common sense control. As of now the statistics don't support any real need to ban assault rifles. They cause an insignificant amount of the deaths from firearms yearly. They are however scary looking and an easy target. Perfect for making people think something has been done without doing anything real. A politicians dream.

[Ciabhán]

Seat belts? Fire/flood insurance?

At what statistical level does preparation turn to paranoia, who sets that standard?

I've never said people really need assault rifles. Then again I'm also aware that an assault rifle is no more lethal than a deer rifle. Nor are they commonly used in crimes. Nor do cosmetic features make a weapon more deadly.

Like I said common sense rules, good. Reactionary 'we did it vote for us' feel good rules, not good.

[The spartan]

Seat belts? Fire/flood insurance?

At what statistical level does preparation turn to paranoia, who sets that standard?

I've never said people really need assault rifles. Then again I'm also aware that an assault rifle is no more lethal than a deer rifle. Nor are they commonly used in crimes. Nor do cosmetic features make a weapon more deadly.

Like I said common sense rules, good. Reactionary 'we did it vote for us' feel good rules, not good.

Seat belts (certainly) and flood/fire insurance are both reasonable safety precautions. You are right that where the line is exactly is up for debate, but there is obviously a line. These people who buy weapons to shoot criminals who bust down their door are very much on the paranoid side of the line, though. I am guess where they live, the chance of such an event happening to them is so absurdly low...

[Ciabhán]

Seat belts (certainly) and flood/fire insurance are both reasonable safety precautions. You are right that where the line is exactly is up for debate, but there is obviously a line. These people who buy weapons to shoot criminals who bust down their door are very much on the paranoid side of the line, though. I am guess where they live, the chance of such an event happening to them is so absurdly low...

So we agree that the chance exists. We agree that the line between paranoia and preparedness is fluid and subjective. We disagree on whether we should judge others based on our own subjective view and make assumptions about who they are or where they reside.

I see nothing wrong with being prepared for any possible eventuality as long as that preparation isn't obsessive(the definition of paranoia being an obsessive fear of something/everything).

Hell I've never been in a motor vehicle accident, never had a fire or flood, but I've been shot at. More than once. Personally I have the same(or more) reason to carry than I do to wear a seat belt. I however understand that the reasons I do something don't apply to others. Nor do I see any particular reason one might need an M4 and a dozen mags for fending off robbers.

However I see no reason to take the option away from responsible citizens if they feel it's prudent. As to laws better regulating the requirements to own them, enforcing current laws and buffing mental health laws among others make more sense legislatively to me.

[Angrychris]

A massacre happens at a school and everyone's up in arms now. Kids get shot daily and that's not including other forms of murder. I blame white people.