Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/5/2002 8:13:47 AM EDT
[url=www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2580_bill_20020221_introduced.html]You are screwed[/url]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:29:35 AM EDT
Thanks for the post...concerned one.
This bill would require, in regard to those devices, that the Department of Justice would, for every person, firm, or corporation to whom a permit is issued relating to the device, annually conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile the inventories of the devices. The bill would also provide that for a person, firm, or corporation with an inventory of fewer than 5 devices that require any Department of Justice permit, the department would conduct an inspection for security and safe storage purposes, and to reconcile inventories, once every 5 years, or more frequently if determined by the department.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 8:32:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 8:34:38 AM EDT by NOVA5]
why do Sections 1,2,3 read almost the same? cali poli intel? couldnt they put short barrles, MGs, and AW on the same one? or is that to broad for one section?
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 9:14:55 AM EDT
"or more frequently if determined by the department" Hmm, sounds like weekly to me!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 9:24:23 AM EDT
Nothing that comes out of that state, even remotely, shocks me anymore.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:00:07 AM EDT
I wish you people in Kaliban would get your SHIT together!!!! It looks like it passed. [url]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2551-2600/ab_2580_vote_20020402_000001_asm_comm.html [/url] Y`all need to quit setting precedence!
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:10:35 AM EDT
[xx(]
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:20:53 AM EDT
It didn't pass yet. It will be in 'committee' for a while. When this goes to the floor for the official vote, it will get wasted. There is no way in hell that funds for this will be appropriated. The DOJ could not possible inspect every single assault weapon owner in the state every year. The travel expenses alone would bankrupt them. It's not gonna happen.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:34:06 AM EDT
Damage ... Try this on for size, what if they mod the bill slightly so that you have to get an independent entity (security firm) to come check your storage provisions and a notary public to certify visually that the serial numbers you have registered are actually in your possession. And they include a provision that has you include $25 processing fee each year to make sure they enter your data or the could conviently forget and the BATF show up at your door. [:O] Gun owners in CA need to wake up and get rid of the idiots who write this trash. Ryan
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:37:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 10:44:24 AM EDT by Diss_ipator]
The wording went something like this. [i]Fee not to exceed application cost.[/i] This application fee will probably include the cost of raiding your home. Or the cost could be covered by the sale of confiscated firearms to Texas residents.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:40:16 AM EDT
This will be the future for all of us for all our guns should registration ever come to pass.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 10:58:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:14:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 12:11:28 PM EDT by eje]
Just wanted to point out that this bill does not authorize home inspections of persons who registered AWs. This bill applies only to businesses such as gun dealers and movie prop companies who have permits for machine guns, AWs, destructive devices etc., that are renewable annually. The permit regulations ([url]http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/regs/dwann.pdf[/url]) have been on the books for at least 14 years. The regulations contain explicit provisisions for the businesses' safe storage of machine guns, AWs, destructive devices, etc. (There are no comparable provisions in the AW registration legislation.) Also, mandatory safety inspections for permit holders have been around since at least 1988. (See regulation 974.) The only new thing this bill does is specify how often the gun dealers and movie companies should be inspected. The bill is contingent on the legislature appropriating funds for the business inspections in the budget act. Given the gazillion dollar deficit in Cal., how likely is it that will happen? This is a weak and tentative bill that does not make any radical change to existing law and does not apply to anyone except business who have machine gun permits, short barreled rifle permits, etc. When I pointed out on another board that this bill did not mean what the poster thought it meant (i.e., home inspections for registered AW owners), I got a lot of crap about how I was not able to see the "slippery slope," how I was part of the problem, etc. That's fine with me if you think that. I would just ask that everyone read the legislation, the permit provisions in the Penal Code, and the DOJ "dangerous weapons" reason to do home inspections.regulations, and make your own decision about what this bill really does. I personally don't think this bill does much of anything at all and I don't see this particular bill as part of a slippery slope where there have been mandatory inspections for businesses/permit holders and it's taken 14 years to say they should happen once a year or once every 5 years. Ed
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:18:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:19:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:22:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By reidry: ... and a notary public to certify visually that the serial numbers you have registered are actually in your possession. Gun owners in CA need to wake up and get rid of the idiots who write this trash. Ryan
View Quote
The ONLY thing a notary public does is verify signatures. They ask for ID when they witness a signature. That's it. Fully agree with the second snip from your quote.
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:50:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 11:54:03 AM EDT by reidry]
Ok .. the notary public thing was just a joke ... give me a little license here when I'm trying to be facetious. As to how ... I'm definitely not advocating voting from the roof tops here, but you gotta do more than sit at home and bitch to the rest of us here on AR15.com. I noted in other thread that the individual in question should move out of the state into a gun friendly state and help solidify the conservative cause. While I still agree with that idea I also realize there are quite a few pro-2nd folks who aren't interested in moving out of CA. The pro-2nd folks that are staying need to get something happening. Liberals aren't genetically different than the rest of us ... deep down there really is some common sense in there somewhere. The NRA talks about the Eddie Eagle program like it's the second coming or something, what about the adults that are today shaping the tomorrows for our youth. Why not organize some real world education in your area. Why not have a day at your local shooting range (indoor or outdoor) where every member brings in some liberal acquantances - have a safety orientation, let these people realize that we aren't "gun nuts" then a little shooting time (maybe .22 rifles and balloons) afterwards invite in some notable person (preferably pro-2nd attorney) to speak about gun control and public safety. Edited to note that I mean how gun control erodes public safety ... had to avoid any flames that might inadvertently be directed my way. How about a trap and skeet event where you have to shoot with a non-gunowner. How about more of those public gatherings CA is so noted for ... why not a parable of a University Sit In at the governer's office next time he's ready to sign one of these outrageous bills. Man you CA folks need to fight (politically and socially) for your rights. Ryan
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:57:33 AM EDT
eje, I gotta say that you're going a little blind. Regardless of the legislation's intent the CA legislature had proven time and time again that they are creating a slippery slope. I can definitely see a piece of legislation that requires the same checks on personally owned arms coming from that group of wackos. Ryan
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 12:16:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/5/2002 12:17:05 PM EDT by eje]
reidry, I agree; I would be a lot more concerned about legislation that imposed comparable safety and storage requirements on personally owned AWs. Then the legislature will have created a reason for home inspections. I just don't think this particular bill is part of the slippery slope scheme. Ed
Link Posted: 4/5/2002 11:13:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By eje: reidry, I agree; I would be a lot more concerned about legislation that imposed comparable safety and storage requirements on personally owned AWs. Then the legislature will have created a reason for home inspections. I just don't think this particular bill is part of the slippery slope scheme. Ed
View Quote
Don't worry. As soon as the legislature is alerted to the difference between "assault weapon" permit and "assault weapon" registration, the bill will be rewritten to include both. Good old Donny "I need my CCW" Perata will make sure of it. Then the GOP will counter with a bill allowing for inspections only every other year.
Top Top