Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-22-2013, 11:32 PM
Markinsac Markinsac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 570
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 2013 CA SB 755 - Wolk - Firearms: used firearms

Adds more misdemeanors to the 10-year prohibition on firearm or ammunition possession.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords=

Quote:
SB 755, as introduced, Wolk. Firearms: prohibited persons.


(1) Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess, or have under his or her custody or control, any firearm. Violation of this prohibition is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine.

This bill would add to the list of misdemeanors, the conviction for which is subject to those prohibitions, misdemeanor offenses of threatening a peace officer, removing a weapon from the person of a peace officer, hazing, transferring a firearm without completing the transaction through a licensed firearms dealer, furnishing ammunition to a minor, possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from having a firearm, furnishing ammunition to a person prohibited from possessing ammunition, carrying ammunition onto school grounds, carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, or if the firearm is not registered, participation in any criminal street gang, a public offense committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang, disobedience to the terms of an injunction that restrains the activities of a criminal street gang. By changing the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2) Under existing law it is a felony for any person who has been previously convicted of any specified violent offenses to own or have possession or custody or control of any firearm.

This bill would additionally make it a felony for any person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of 2 or more crimes within a 3-year period and was found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crimes, if the person has been convicted of possessing any controlled substance for sale, or if the person has violated any protective order that was issue due to a threat of violence. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3) Existing law prohibits certain specified individuals, including a person who has been adjudicated a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness, a person who has been adjudicated a mentally disordered sex offender, a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court, among others, from possessing firearms or deadly weapons.

Existing law authorizes a court to order a person to obtain assisted outpatient treatment if certain criteria are met, including that the person is suffering from a mental illness and is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision.

This bill would prohibit a person who has been ordered by a court to obtain assisted outpatient treatment from purchasing or possessing any firearm or other deadly weapon while subject to assisted outpatient treatment. The bill would require the court to notify the Department of Justice of the order prohibiting the person from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon within 2 days of the order, and to notify the Department of Justice when the person is no longer subject to assisted outpatient treatment. Because a violation of this provision would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by that limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make a legislative finding and declaration relating to the necessity of treating reports to the Department of Justice as confidential in order to protect the privacy of individuals ordered to obtain assisted outpatient treatment.

(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-23-2013, 12:01 AM
kf6tac kf6tac is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,780
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Haze a potential frat brother, lose your right to self-defense for 10 years. Yeah, that's totally fair. /sarcasm
__________________


Statements I make on this forum should not be construed as giving legal advice or forming an attorney-client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:33 PM
Khyber's Avatar
Khyber Khyber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
This bill would additionally make it a felony for any person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of 2 or more crimes within a 3-year period and was found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crimes, if the person has been convicted of possessing any controlled substance for sale, or if the person has violated any protective order that was issue due to a threat of violence. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
So if you commit/committed two or more crimes in a three year period and were not intoxicated are your 2nd amendment rights still taken away? Or is it if you committed two crimes within a three year period they take your rights away?

(example) Lets say if someone got misdemeanor reckless driving + street racing while sober they would essentially loose there 2nd amendement rights? Or is if you were intoxicated at the time of the crime? Then lets also say the reckless driving + street racing charge is dismissed @ a later date; would this law still apply to that person?

I'm just confused about the wording. If its two crimes and your gun rights are stripped then it opens the flood gates for a few people.
__________________
"We're all in the same game, just different levels. Dealing with the same hell, just different devils."

Last edited by Khyber; 03-03-2013 at 7:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:40 PM
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca's Avatar
StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca StuckInTheP.R.O.Ca is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Ca
Posts: 2,188
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

What no prohibition for Traffic violations. Maybe next year.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:50 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ventura
Posts: 10,386
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

they will continue the attack on the 2ndA until we are all slaves...they are nearly there.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:55 PM
freonr22's Avatar
freonr22 freonr22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: San Jose
Posts: 11,816
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

This bill would additionally make it a felony for any person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of 2 or more crimes within a 3-year period and was found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crimes,


That would make 2 dui's? In 3 years? Or is this in context to #2?
__________________
<img src=http://calgunsfoundation.org/images/stories/San-Benito.jpg border=0 alt= />[IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-3.png[/IMG][IMG]file:///C:/Users/PCMECH%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-4.png[/IMG]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
We will win. We are right. We will never stop fighting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
They don't believe it's possible, but then Alison didn't believe there'd be 350K - 400K OLLs in CA either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by louisianagirl View Post
Our fate is ours alone to decide as long as we remain armed heavily enough to dictate it.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-03-2013, 7:58 PM
Khyber's Avatar
Khyber Khyber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 239
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by freonr22 View Post
This bill would additionally make it a felony for any person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of 2 or more crimes within a 3-year period and was found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crimes,


That would make 2 dui's? In 3 years? Or is this in context to #2?
Is it just DUI's or all crimes?

Also what if those crimes are dismissed at a later date through expungement in California. Are your gun rights still stripped?
__________________
"We're all in the same game, just different levels. Dealing with the same hell, just different devils."
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-06-2013, 7:07 PM
komifornian's Avatar
komifornian komifornian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The PRK
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Two or more crimes and you were drinking or taking something. It’s NOT limited to DUI's – just two or more crimes and under the influence. Doesn't matter what the crimes were.
In my case it was 25 years ago in college. Drinking beer at a party then went ice blocking. Two years an 11 months later drinking beer at party and a bunch of us decided to tp a sorority house - crime number two. Both a long time ago and we're benign. For this I will lose my right to own a firearm if this passes! INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-02-2013, 7:51 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,290
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

This thread deserves a bump. This is a bad bill and is being overlooked IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:19 AM
duesenberg1's Avatar
duesenberg1 duesenberg1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 153
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

If you were to carry ammo onto school grounds you would lose gun rights for 10 years.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:28 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,290
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Yep, or if you got a couple misdemeanors when you were younger that were alcohol or drug related you lose them for life is what i read.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:28 AM
Dark Paladin's Avatar
Dark Paladin Dark Paladin is offline
學者, 羇客, 神戰士
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orange Box
Posts: 1,539
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

This might be semantics. . . but. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB755
carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, or if the firearm is not registered
That was so wordy it is ridiculous, but that ridiculousness is also hiding something very sinister. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB755
carrying a loaded or concealed weapon if the person has been previously convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, or if the firearm is not registered
So. . . carrying your loaded rifle that was acquired before the mandatory registration starts in 2014 = 10 year prohibitive misdemeanor under this bill.

This bill needs to be killed post haste.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:29 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,290
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Also, I assume this bill is retroactive?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:00 AM
VAReact's Avatar
VAReact VAReact is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Hell, eh?
Posts: 1,516
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

I don't understand why this bill is not getting the same amount of attention as most of the others -seems pretty serious to me.
__________________
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member (Defenders' Club)
CCRKBA Life Member
Madison Society Life Member
CRPA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:14 AM
ShooterDK's Avatar
ShooterDK ShooterDK is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,625
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Hazing? You got to be kidding.
__________________
Dave
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:33 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,326
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Their intent is to find a way to make everyone into a prohibited person.....eventually a parking ticket will make you a prohibited person.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-02-2013, 11:49 AM
The Geologist's Avatar
The Geologist The Geologist is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Turlock, CA
Posts: 632
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
Their intent is to find a way to make everyone into a prohibited person.....eventually a parking ticket will make you a prohibited person.
Maybe it would be a good thing. At least that way we could get any firearm we want, just like our "friends" in the hood do, right. California - home of the instafelon laws and happy cows.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:00 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by komifornian View Post
Two or more crimes and you were drinking or taking something. It’s NOT limited to DUI's – just two or more crimes and under the influence. Doesn't matter what the crimes were.
In my case it was 25 years ago in college. Drinking beer at a party then went ice blocking. Two years an 11 months later drinking beer at party and a bunch of us decided to tp a sorority house - crime number two. Both a long time ago and we're benign. For this I will lose my right to own a firearm if this passes! INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not to single you out, but if this bill is signed into law every gun owner with past history like Komifornian will have to surrender their arms to the State.

Had a bad night and got charged with two separate misdemeanors? Game over. Say hi to Corporal Jim, California DOJ weapons confiscation unit.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:24 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,552
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Notice the law says "furnishing ammunition to a minor". So I take my son to the range or hunting??
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:25 PM
sholling's Avatar
sholling sholling is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,098
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Traffic violations, parking violations, and being late on your taxes will be next. Naturally LEOs as well as current and former elected officials will be exempt.
__________________
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." --FREDERIC BASTIAT--

Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

Disappointed Life Member: California Rifle & Pistol Association
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:26 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"if the firearm is not registered"

Um, not all firearms are required to be registered, so how does that work?
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran

—
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-02-2013, 12:34 PM
Regulus's Avatar
Regulus Regulus is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tustin Ranch, CA
Posts: 1,162
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
This bill would add to the list of misdemeanors, ... or if the firearm is not registered...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Paladin View Post
So. . . carrying your loaded rifle that was acquired before the mandatory registration starts in 2014 = 10 year prohibitive misdemeanor under this bill.
Let's not forget those that purchased handguns before 1/1/91 and did not voluntarily register them, and those who have completed their 80%'s but did not register them. They would also meet the criteria for the 10 year prize.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-02-2013, 1:17 PM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,591
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShooterDK View Post
Hazing? You got to be kidding.
245.6. (a) It shall be unlawful to engage in hazing, as defined in this section.
(b) "Hazing" means any method of initiation or preinitiation into a student organization or student body, whether or not the organization or body is officially recognized by an educational institution, which is likely to cause serious bodily injury to any former, current, or prospective student of any school, community college, college, university, or other educational institution in this state. The term "hazing" does not include customary athletic events or school-sanctioned events.
(c) A violation of this section that does not result in serious bodily injury is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100), nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or both.
(d) Any person who personally engages in hazing that results in death or serious bodily injury as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (f) of Section 243 of the Penal Code, is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(e) The person against whom the hazing is directed may commence a civil action for injury or damages. The action may be brought against any participants in the hazing, or any organization to which the student is seeking membership whose agents, directors, trustees, managers, or officers authorized, requested, commanded, participated in, or ratified the hazing.
(f) Prosecution under this section shall not prohibit prosecution under any other provision of law.
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-02-2013, 2:42 PM
kalimus's Avatar
kalimus kalimus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 339
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not...
Quote:
This bill would add to the list of misdemeanors, the conviction for which is subject to those prohibitions...
Where is the list of the original misdemeanors? I am reading some of you talking about boozing and parking tickets and speeding tickets and all that... are those some of the original misdemeanors?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-02-2013, 4:26 PM
advocatusdiaboli's Avatar
advocatusdiaboli advocatusdiaboli is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Rural Central California
Posts: 5,309
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Isn't it interesting that she wants to ban the hazers when it is usually the hazed who use a firearm criminally such as at Columbine?
__________________
Benefactor Member NRA, Life Member CRPA, CGN Contributor, US Army Veteran

—
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
-- John Dean "Jeff" Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:45 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,159
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus View Post
Where is the list of the original misdemeanors? I am reading some of you talking about boozing and parking tickets and speeding tickets and all that... are those some of the original misdemeanors?
See http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/prohibcatmisd.pdf
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-02-2013, 8:54 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,598
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

If this is a state bill, and one fits this criteria, is s/he subject to it if they no longer resided in the state?

What if my relative from KY fits this criteria and comes to visit? We go shooting on BLM, we get checked and s/he goes to jail - what then?

This proposed legislature =
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-03-2013, 5:42 AM
kalimus's Avatar
kalimus kalimus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 339
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Link didn't work Librarian. I've been trying to find a clear cut list, but I haven't found speeding tickets and parking tickets anywhere...
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-03-2013, 9:32 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 33,159
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus View Post
Link didn't work Librarian. I've been trying to find a clear cut list, but I haven't found speeding tickets and parking tickets anywhere...
Worked perfectly for me.

A version - might not be exactly the same as that .pdf, which is why I used the DOJ link - is here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Fi...s_prohibitions

And speeding/parking tickets are NOT on the list.
__________________
Calguns Wiki, Magazine Qs, Knife laws

Unless there is some way to amend a bill so you would support it,
the details do not matter until the Governor signs or allows the bill to become law.

Ask CA law questions in the How CA Laws Apply to/Affect Me Forum
- most questions that start 'Is it legal ...' go there.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:45 PM
norcal77's Avatar
norcal77 norcal77 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 3,443
iTrader: 62 / 100%
Default

So does this stand a chance of passing? It seems like this would take guns out of a lot of peoples hands...why isn't more attention being paid to this?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:15 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,290
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by norcal77 View Post
So does this stand a chance of passing? It seems like this would take guns out of a lot of peoples hands...why isn't more attention being paid to this?
These are my questios as well.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:31 AM
Dutch3's Avatar
Dutch3 Dutch3 is online now
Dirt Farmer
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Butte County
Posts: 11,616
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

"transferring a firearm without completing the transaction through a licensed firearms dealer"

So doing an intrafamilial transfer of a long gun will make both parties into prohibited persons?
__________________
Assembly Public Safety Chair Reginald Jones-Sawyer:
..."and with that I'd like to turn it over to my colleague Loni Hancock, Senate Public Safety Chair, and as I like to say, my partner in crime."

Senate Public Safety Chair Loni Hancock:
"Yeah, we do that quite a lot, actually..."

- Joint Legislative Informational Hearing on Firearms - Newsom Initiative #1756 - May 3rd 2016
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-04-2013, 6:46 AM
kalimus's Avatar
kalimus kalimus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 339
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Worked perfectly for me.

A version - might not be exactly the same as that .pdf, which is why I used the DOJ link - is here: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Fi...s_prohibitions

And speeding/parking tickets are NOT on the list.
It worked today. Maybe their website had a hiccup when I tried to open it.

i figured speeding/parking tickets were not there. Nor alcohol (except for impared by chronic alcoholism).

Point being, that there are some innaccurate statements being made. DUI is a misdemeanor, not on the list. Reckless driving, misdemeanor, not on the list. Unless of course either results in injury or destruction of property. Tickets, misdeamors, not on the list.

And not to diminish this bill proposal (hazing? really?), but if you read the list of qualifying misdemeanors, most of them are pretty reasonable.

Threatening *certain people*
Intimidating witnesses/victims
Attempting to take firearm from an officer
Assault/battery/sexual assault
Armed criminal action

and the list goes on. There are only a couple of questionable qualifying crimes in there, and the rest of them are nothing that no normal law abiding citizen has anything to worry about. MOST of the ones added in are for gang-related/drug related activities. Don't get me wrong, there are a couple things in there that need to be stricken out completely... but...

There is some statements in this thread that are blatently false, and just spread misinformation. If there is something I'm just missing... please feel free to tell me. I'm not the best at reading some of these bills tbh.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-04-2013, 7:41 AM
jmonte35's Avatar
jmonte35 jmonte35 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Shiloh, IL
Posts: 1,470
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Lois Wolk....has been generally a decent democrat...she voted no on a couple of issues that were very democratically favored...such as the houndsmen bill that was put on the table to ban dogs for bear and cat hunters. I need to do a little more research on this bill. I don't like any bills that remove guns from law abiding citizens but I think strengthening punishments for continuous offenders is a good thing. Adding to the list I think is wrong. I would like to see stiffer penalties for people that can't follow the law and make gun owners continuously look bad.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-04-2013, 8:43 AM
desertjosh's Avatar
desertjosh desertjosh is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Diego
Posts: 5,290
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus View Post
It worked today. Maybe their website had a hiccup when I tried to open it.

i figured speeding/parking tickets were not there. Nor alcohol (except for impared by chronic alcoholism).

Point being, that there are some innaccurate statements being made. DUI is a misdemeanor, not on the list. Reckless driving, misdemeanor, not on the list. Unless of course either results in injury or destruction of property. Tickets, misdeamors, not on the list.

And not to diminish this bill proposal (hazing? really?), but if you read the list of qualifying misdemeanors, most of them are pretty reasonable.

Threatening *certain people*
Intimidating witnesses/victims
Attempting to take firearm from an officer
Assault/battery/sexual assault
Armed criminal action

and the list goes on. There are only a couple of questionable qualifying crimes in there, and the rest of them are nothing that no normal law abiding citizen has anything to worry about. MOST of the ones added in are for gang-related/drug related activities. Don't get me wrong, there are a couple things in there that need to be stricken out completely... but...

There is some statements in this thread that are blatently false, and just spread misinformation. If there is something I'm just missing... please feel free to tell me. I'm not the best at reading some of these bills tbh.
Well the misdemeanor dui do matter if you have two or more in any 3 year period(or any alcohol/drug related offenses). That results in a lifetime ban from firearms. I dont understand how non violent misdemeanors that have already been committed years ago can all of a sudden result in losing your rights. Thats like watching someone drive thru an intersection, then put up a stop sign and give them a ticket for not stopping.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:02 AM
kalimus's Avatar
kalimus kalimus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 339
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by desertjosh View Post
Well the misdemeanor dui do matter if you have two or more in any 3 year period(or any alcohol/drug related offenses). That results in a lifetime ban from firearms. I dont understand how non violent misdemeanors that have already been committed years ago can all of a sudden result in losing your rights. Thats like watching someone drive thru an intersection, then put up a stop sign and give them a ticket for not stopping.
Are you referring to this portion?

Quote:
This bill would additionally make it a felony for any person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of 2 or more crimes within a 3-year period and was found to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the commission of the crimes
I originally read that to intend that if you committed two of the crimes/misdemeanors listed within 3 years AND were under the influence...

However re-reading it makes it look like it might be any crime while under the influence, in which DUI would could. Interesting and unclear wording. If that's the case, you'd be right for DUI. Also could be public intox, disturbing the peace, and countless other silly reasons...

On a side note... if you get two DUIs in a 3 year period, you'll be selling all your guns to pay for the legal expenses anyway haha.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-04-2013, 9:57 AM
BomberJosh BomberJosh is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 18
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

for everyone thinking their college drunken escapades are going to get their guns taken away you need to learn up a little on your Constitution.

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

Pretty sure it would be spanked down immediately if it didn't have exemption for previous offenses.

Anyways I can't wait to get home from Afghanistan and pack my family up and move back to Texas, I havent seen but 1 month of California in 2 years and I still hate the place haha. Shoulda done it when I got out of the Marines but didn't have time before deploying.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:05 AM
chuckdc's Avatar
chuckdc chuckdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston,TX (Formerly, Fresno,CA)
Posts: 1,772
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BomberJosh View Post
for everyone thinking their college drunken escapades are going to get their guns taken away you need to learn up a little on your Constitution.

The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10.

Pretty sure it would be spanked down immediately if it didn't have exemption for previous offenses.

Anyways I can't wait to get home from Afghanistan and pack my family up and move back to Texas, I havent seen but 1 month of California in 2 years and I still hate the place haha. Shoulda done it when I got out of the Marines but didn't have time before deploying.

refer to the Lautenberg law on firearms possession. Ex post facto, and yet still in place.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-04-2013, 10:37 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Given what qualifies as misdemeanor assault/battery, I'm not sure that should be on the list. One of the most common examples I see is somebody blocking a door, and being pushed out of the way. The pusher gets a misdemeanor assault, while the pushee, having technically committed kidnapping, is almost never charged (especially if they're female).

The real problem with this is that if the DA is pushing to hang you, not because he thinks you're a danger and deserve it, but because he can hang a gun ban on you, he's a menace to society. The side effects of law matter.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-04-2013, 4:16 PM
Uhtred Uhtred is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Will the law be retroactive?

I currently have 2 misdemeanors that meet this criteria that occurred in a 3 year period. They both happened 6 years ago.

Are they going to raid my house for PR?

If someone could give me some input, it'd be well appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.