Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/11/2002 9:07:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2002 4:46:58 PM EDT by 7]
[url]www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2222_bill_20020410_amended_asm.html[/url] For those not following, this was just posted on Biggerhammer. You can now keep the 50 cal but no ammo!
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 9:49:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:03:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2002 10:12:39 AM EDT by FL_BOY]
didn't they do this with 'assault weapons' to compile an owner's list just before they banned them? it looks like they just added the ammo to the bill also?
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:14:02 AM EDT
IIRC, what happened is the DOJ added certain SKS rifles to the list of AWs, and then gave owners 90 days to register them. Following the registration, they were sued by HCI I believe, who stated the 90 day extension was illegal. The DOJ lost and everyone who registered their SKS during that period was required to give it up. This didn't cause a huge stir because the SKS was not real popular. Had they tried that with the AR15, it would have been an interesting outcome (even they aren't that stupid). This new bill seems to be modeled after RR89, but based on caliber, not model. But it's still BS. They force you to register, which means you cannot pass it on to your kids when you die and at the same time do not allow you to own 50 BMG ammo. So, you can keep it but you can't shoot it in California. They can stick it up their collective arses.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:43:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2002 11:44:08 AM EDT by Ikari]
So...I don't own a .50 BMG rifle. But if this passes, I'll be risking spending [i]a year in jail[/i] for possessing [b]one[/b] live .50 BMG cartridge that I have as a 'conversation piece'??? [stick] Bad, BAD Legislator!
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:51:58 AM EDT
WRONG! The ammendment did not take away the "illegality" portion of the .50 cal rifle, it just added the portion about assualt with the .50. I thkn they lined out too much in that ammendment...possibly misdrection?
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 6:31:46 PM EDT
I haven't digested all the changes yet, but the amended bill seems to put .50BMG rifles into the same category as Roberti-Roos and SB23 assault weapons and not in the same category as MGs and SBRs as in the originally proposed bill. Here's a key paragraph:
Except as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 12280, any person who lawfully possesses any .50 BMG rifle prior to January 1, 2003, that is not specified as an assault weapon under Section 12276 or 12276.5 or defined as an assault weapon pursuant to Section 12276.1, shall register the .50 BMG rifle with the department within 90 days pursuant to those procedures that the department may establish. The registration shall contain a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all identification marks, the full name, address, date of birth, and thumbprint of the owner, and any other information that the department may deem appropriate. The department may charge a fee for registration of up to twenty-five dollars ($25) per person but not to exceed the actual processing costs of the department.
View Quote
The ammo bit is a new twist. It only allows lawful (i.e. registered) owners of .50BMG rifles to buy, sell, and posses the ammo. A new way to screw people who don't register that they couldn't do with the AW ban, since the ammo is widely used in non-AWs.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:28:00 PM EDT
The way I read it, you can keep the rifle if you register it (like RR89/SB23), but possession of the ammo is illegal, regardless of if your rifle is registered or not. In fact, ownership of .50 BMG ammo, even of you don't own a .50 BMG rifle, appears to be illegal.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 10:32:51 PM EDT
If they want the ammo so bad, GIVE IT TO THEM AT 2900 FPS.
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:00:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: The way I read it, you can keep the rifle if you register it (like RR89/SB23), but possession of the ammo is illegal, regardless of if your rifle is registered or not. In fact, ownership of .50 BMG ammo, even of you don't own a .50 BMG rifle, appears to be illegal.
View Quote
There's a ton of crap to sift through to figure out what this law means, but, there appears to be an exclusion from the .50 ammo ban for registered .50 rifle owners:
12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:...any .50 BMG cartridge... . . . (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to any of the following: . . . (33) Any person who manufactures, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or gives, lends or possesses any .50 BMG cartridge, if the person may legally possess a .50 BMG rifle as defined in Section 12278.
View Quote
Link Posted: 4/11/2002 11:33:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/11/2002 11:34:13 PM EDT by mattja]
You're right. I missed that new section. So, if you legally own the rifle, you can legally own the ammo. But if you don't own the rifle, you can't own the ammo. That makes a lot of sense. [whacko] Edited to add: They can still stick it up their ass.
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 12:00:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Edited to add: They can still stick it up their ass.
View Quote
That is about the only logical conclusion one can reach after reading this law. [:D]
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 12:08:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mattja: Edited to add: They can still stick it up their ass.
View Quote
Yes. A 750gr suppository at 2900 fps.
Link Posted: 4/12/2002 2:26:42 AM EDT
My suggestion is MOVE OUT. No matter how long you stay and fight, California has been and will always be a liberal haven. California Legislators pass laws that are based on emotion rather than "Common Sense". Normally they like to stimulate the poplulation by making issues out of things that are Non issues such as our firearms. The bottom line is this. No matter how much legislation they pass, the only people that will follow them are law abiding citizens which are the vast majority of gun owners. The real problem is the criminal, not the gun owners. Don't use the tools that people choose for their crime. Punish the person commiting the crime. If we continue to go this route, next thing they will ban are SUV's (OJ's infamous White Bronco for use as a transport for a criminal). Besides that they get crappy gas mileage and are really big and scarry looking. This pisses me off Max
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 4:46:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2002 4:48:52 PM EDT by 7]
[url]www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2201-2250/ab_2222_cfa_20020415_105324_asm_comm.html[/url] Good job, only 41 individuals responded no. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support City and County of San Francisco Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Legal Community Against Violence Physicians for a Violence-Free Society Women Against Gun Violence 1 individual citizen Opposition ArmaLite, Inc. California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc. Citizens of America EDM ARMS Law Enforcement Alliance of America Fifty Caliber Shooters Policy Institute National Rifle Association of America Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of California Safari Club International Second Amendment Sisters, Inc. [b]41 individual citizens[/b]
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 4:53:36 PM EDT
Good. There could have been 100,000 individuals saying "no", but the kaliban does not care what the peseants say. They have the word of the kaliban supreme court backing up that since there is no clause in the state constitution stating a right keep and bear arms, the right does not exist. Woo hoo!
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 5:51:22 PM EDT
From the URL in the post above: "5)Defines a ".50 BMG cartridge" as being : . . . 5e)A center fire cartridge in 50 caliber or .50 BMG." This would seem to define ".50 BMG cartridge" to be "any .50 caliber round". Note that I am not interpreting this literally, which would be a "50-inch round (no decimal point) or .50 BMG". Now, if a .50 BMG is "any .50 caliber round", then this bill would outlaw ammo for the Desert Eagle .50AE, for example, as well. Am I missing something here, or are the brain-dead politicians missing it?
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 10:27:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By marvl: Now, if a .50 BMG is "any .50 caliber round", then this bill would outlaw ammo for the Desert Eagle .50AE, for example, as well. Am I missing something here, or are the brain-dead politicians missing it?
View Quote
If your boy donny "i gots me a ccw to protect me from you" perata had a .50ae DE then that section would have been fixed months ago.
Link Posted: 4/16/2002 10:51:56 PM EDT
Sounds like time to lock and load, almost time to rock and roll. If the bill comes to a vote before the elections I would be surprised, keep those suckers out of office.
Top Top