Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 3/8/2006 9:11:32 AM EDT
Found this on the "new gun laws" part of the California AG webpage.

It says that a bill was passed as follows.

AB 1288 (Stats. 2005, ch. 702) (Chu)

* Mandates the court presiding over a domestic violence case to issue or consider issuing a firearms prohibition order, where good cause for its issuance exists, even if the court did not issue a stay away order in the domestic violence case. Relinquishment of any firearms owned or possessed by the subject is required if such an order is issued (PC § 136.2).

* Allows law enforcement to advise certain domestic violence victims if the state database reflects that their abuser purchased or possesses a firearm. A victim who received this information could disclose it to others only to the extent that he or she believed it necessary to protect himself, herself, or a third party from bodily harm (PC § 11106).


I read the first part as requiring a firearms disability order even if there's only ALLEGATION's of domestic violence without enough proof to even justify a protective order or "stay away" order. I read the second part as giving the police the ability to "coach" the woman into making allegations of firearms threats based on, you guessed it, California's gun registration system. In other words, get divorced in california and you may permanently lose your guns even if you did nothing wrong. The system will be "hinting" to your S.O. very strongly that your ownership of guns is a threat to them, and if they articulate that threat then you lose the guns.

Yet, most of you guys out there will continue to live under the rubric of such a system because the beaches are nice and the weather is good.

Link Posted: 3/8/2006 9:17:46 AM EDT
Old news, nothing more than many states. And BTW YOU fail the reading comprehension test for leaving 8th grade. Go back and read it again and again until you get it right.

Out of state asshats again.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 10:50:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 10:52:17 AM EDT by nightstalker]
Found these Colorado laws. Jeez leweeeez....

"Aurora ammunition ban: An Aurora ordinances states that any ammunition coated or treated with Teflon or similar synthetic compound is unlawful.

Many target shooters use some types of Federal brand ammunition, which has basic lead bullets. Some more expensive versions of the Federal bullets coated with Teflon. This coating is provided on this readily-available commercial ammunition to keep the pistol from having too much lead build-up in the barrel from higher-velocity bullets. The Teflon reduces the abrasion as the bullet passes through the barrel, and thereby reduces how much lead is abraded off the bullet and deposited in the barrel.

This normal ammunition--which is banned by Aurora--is not the infamous "cop-killer" extremely-penetrant ammunition. Such ammunition is banned by federal law, and the federal definition has nothing to do with Teflon. Rather, "armor piercing ammunition" is a handgun bullet "constructed entirely" from "tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium."27 Code of Federal Regulations § 178.11.

The Aurora "teflon" ban is a perfect example of how local governments lack the expertise to craft appropriate firearms laws. The federal ban (which, by the way, was supported by the National Rifle Association) focuses on the types of bullet materials which give a bullet armor-piercing capability. The Aurora ban does nothing about high-penetration bullets. Instead, the Aurora law merely bans a type of bullet coating.

When the Colorado legislature enacts gun laws, the legislature usually brings in experts of all types to craft technically appropriate legislation. But the Aurora government apparently enacted a law based on little more than what some councilperson had heard from a television program.

Thus, it is now illegal in Aurora to possess ordinary Federal brand ammunition, which has no more penetrating power than any other commercially-available ammunition, and which certainly will not penetrate a police jacket.

The Federal ammunition is perfectly legal in all other areas of the State, and can be purchased over the counter by anyone legally capable of buying pistol ammunition. Yet, if a citizen were to bring such ammunition to a target shooting range in Aurora, he could be arrested.

Englewood forfeiture: The forfeiture ordinance states that "In every case where a person is charged with a violation involving a weapons offense, he/she shall forfeit to the City such dangerous or illegal weapon."This does not say convicted, but simply charged.

Lakewood carrying: It is unlawful to carry a firearm where vinous, spirituous or malt liquors are sold, but that this ordinance does not apply to peace officers or proprietors. This would make it illegal for a concealed-carry permit holder even to walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle of wine for dinner that night. It is also illegal for a person with a concealed handgun permit to go into a grocery store, since most grocery stores sell beer. Likewise, it is illegal for a person with a concealed handgun permit to have dinner her spouse in any restaurant which serves liquor--even if the permit holder never drinks a drop. Thus, the average permit holder is in danger of arrest for the perfectly innocent acts of going to a grocery store or going out to dinner.

Thornton carrying: Colorado law currently allows persons to carry a handgun in their place of business for lawful protecting, or in their automobile for protection for lawful protection "while traveling."(C.R.S. § 18-12-105.) Like Denver, Thornton drastically narrows the statewide law, and allows business owners or travelers to carry only when there is a direct or immediate threat! Thus, proprietors of small businesses, or travelers, are deprived of their right to self-protection. Thornton and Denver apparently expect that small business owners will be able to ask robbers to wait a minute with the robbery, so that the owner can lawfully retrieve her handgun.

Denver carrying. Denver Revised Municipal Code § 38-117 forbids the concealed or open carrying of any firearm, any knife with a blade greater than 32 inches in length, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon.

The affirmative defenses to Denver Code § 38-117 are found in Denver Code § 38-118. The affirmative defenses include carrying in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for lawful protection of self or another person or property, when there is a direct and immediate threat thereto, while traveling away from the area of one’s residence or business; being in one’s own dwelling, or place of business, or on property owned or under one’s control at the time of the act of carrying such weapon; or being a collector or licensed dealer displaying or transporting such weapon for display or sale. All firearms so displayed or transported shall be unloaded at all times.

Denver ban on guns which melt at the wrong temperature. It is unlawful for any person engaged in the business of selling handguns to sell, rent, exchange, or deliver any handgun having a melting point of less 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, or tensile strength of less than 50,000 lbs. per square inch, or metal having a density of less than 7.5 grams per cubic centimeter. This ordinance is ostensibly aimed at protecting foolish consumers from poor quality guns. But the ordinance contains an exemption for police officers. There are only two logical implications which can be drawn from the police exemption:

A. The Denver City Council wants police to use inferior firearms;

B. The Denver City Council wants to disarm poor people by making it illegal to sell inexpensive firearms.

The latter conclusion seems more likely.

Denver ban on guns which frightening in pictures. Denver’s "assault weapon"ban is directly copied--even including typographical errors--from a 1989 California statute. The California statute was created by a few people looking through a picture book of guns, and picking out which guns did not look "sporting."The arbitrary list of guns has nothing to do with the gun’s function; one of the guns banned by Denver is a single-shot shotgun.

The Denver ordinance forbids the carrying, storing, keeping, manufacturing, selling, or otherwise possessing any firearm defined as an "assault weapon." It also includes any detachable magazine with a capacity of 21 or more rounds. There is no exemption or affirmative defense for gun shows or exhibits under the ordinance.

Denver juvenile "weapons" ban: Denver’s juvenile weapons ordinance is now touted as the reason for Denver’s recent drop in homicides--although the decline in crime in Denver is no greater than the trend in most other large American cities in the same period. And the statewide juvenile handgun law (enacted three months after the Denver ordinance) would remain in place, and restrict most handgun possession by juveniles, even if the Denver ordinance were repealed.

As detailed in a 1993 Independence Institute Issue Paper, the Denver ban goes far beyond any reasonable form of gun control. In Denver, it is currently illegal to allow someone under 16 years old to even touch a gun, even during a safety training class.

It is even illegal for a father and son to drive to a hunting trip in the Yampa Valley, which an unloaded rifle in the rack of a pick-up truck.

Denver property confiscation law: Denver’s property confiscation law does not create additional gun controls, but does impose draconian penalties on based on the other gun ordinances.

Among other things, put, the ordinances allow the confiscation of the gun and the car of people with concealed handgun permits who travel through Denver.

The ordinances make a mockery of due process; for example the ordinances declare that judges must enforce them "without regard to...the culpability or innocence of those who hold these rights."(Denver R.M.C. § 37-70(a).) In some barbaric countries, courts impose a standard of "guilty until proven innocent."But the Denver ordinance is even worse than this barbaric standard; the Denver rule that "even if you prove yourself innocent, the government will still take your propert
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:00:48 AM EDT
Virtually every "local" ordinance you cite was wiped out with Colorado's preemption law.

A dispute about Denver's AW ban is on appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court and an opinion is due out in the next several months.

But in Colorado, we do not have a state legislature passing a law the purpose of which is to specifically INVITE allegations of firearms apprehension from a woman in a divorce and then on the basis of those invited allegations to impose a disability on all firearms owners.

Do you understand that under the Lautenberg amendment, the key factor is having a protection order issued? They wrote it that way because in FREE AMERICA a hearing on a protective order requires due process and cosntitutional protections. But now in California, the firearms protective order is almost presumptive. And if it comes out, the natural impact under the Lautenberg amendment is that the owner will be forever disabled under federal law from ever owning a firearm ever again. ANd remember, this is in the context of a California law that allows the police to show up at someone' s house and say "Hey, we noticed you're filing divorce from your husband. Do you know he has this list of guns? We think this one is a sniper rifle... any idea why? Does he seem obsessed with cleaning his guns? Does he go shooting a lot? Here's a card on how to get those guns away from him for your own protection."

Show me any other state that has that.

Jeez... focking sheeple.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:12:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GonzoAR15-1:
I read the first part as requiring a firearms disability order even if there's only ALLEGATION's of domestic violence without enough proof to even justify a protective order or "stay away" order. I read the second part as giving the police the ability to "coach" the woman into making allegations of firearms threats ....



This is nothing new. BTDT about a dozen years ago.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:18:29 AM EDT
Let's not bash Kali too much.
We are all in this together.
A gun law anywhere is a threat to gun rights everywhere.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:22:03 AM EDT
This is pretty much old news. But new news, Ahnold is going to have to really work at it to get re-elected this time around, since prior to this he had no political record and he made some terrible political mistakes, ie he lost those 3 ballot propositions. If he doesn't survive, the Dems will revisit various ammo and gun bans that Ahnold vetoes.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 11:42:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 11:52:00 AM EDT by nightstalker]
Gonzo, it's good to hear CO came to their senses.

I believe the 5th Circuit Court case involving Emerson dealt with this. Thus, the elements of what is legal and constitutional are fairly well laid out. Just because CA passed a law doesn't mean it will pass constitutional muster. Just like in CO. things can change and often do.

Emerson was in Texas for god's sake..... so let's hang together and save the bashing for liberals.

Here's an interesting sidebar for you. Looks like NO ONE (nearly) objected to this law. That leads me to believe that this kind of law could easily pass in many other states if it hasn't already. We may have a 2/3 bias towards liberal but we're not 99% by any means.


New vote tracking system (undergoing testing)
Assembly Public Safety - 04/19/05
Motion: Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
Ayes: 6, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1
Assembly Appropriations - 04/27/05
Motion: Do pass as amended, to Consent Calendar.
Ayes: 18, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Assembly Floor - 05/16/05
Motion: AB 1288 Chu Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session
Ayes: 77, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 2
Senate Public Safety - 06/14/05
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.
Ayes: 7, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Senate Appropriations - 08/15/05
Motion: Placed on Appropriations Suspense file.
Ayes: 13, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Senate Appropriations - 08/25/05
Motion: Do pass.
Ayes: 12, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1
Senate Floor - 09/06/05
Motion: Assembly 3rd Reading AB1288 Chu By Kuehl
Ayes: 35, Noes: 2, Abstentions: 2
Assembly Floor - 09/07/05
Motion: AB 1288 Chu Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Ayes: 78, Noes: 1, Abstentions: 1

Top Top