|
California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
2013 SB 567 - Jackson - Firearms: shotguns
Redefines a shotgun to remove that it be primarily used from the shoulder, and allow for either a smooth or rifled bore.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...arch_keywords= Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
That still won't be an option unfortunately - revolving cylinder. But perhaps certain other AOWs would be reclassified as shotguns in CA though. Don't think it would change the process to get them as their status federally won't have changed, but still...
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Let's just say Young wins in a happy world and the Ninth delineates between a shotgun and rifle. Let's say they give a definition of both which is different than this proposed definition. Would this affect this law?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sounds like they broaded...broadened?widened, the definition of shotgun, so a circuit judge turns into a shotgun, and not a "rifle" anymore. Because a shotgun can have a rifled bore now? and still be the definition of a shotgun in california.
The fired from the shoulder bit sounds like they get scared of franklin armory csw. Or nipping arguments that pistol grip shotguns, are not "shotguns" in california because they were not designed to be fired from the shoulder? I don't know... can't be good right? putting my tinfoil hat on here: Maybe they are one step closer to making everything to be considered a shotgun, and need an 18inch barrel...or linking the "snakeshot" ammo to shotgun shell ammo....dun dun You think the brady campaign, would manufacture a .223 shotgun and shell. Then they could prove 16 inch .223s are sbs? blahhh..then again most .223's are not designed to fire whatever shotgun shell they want to "make up"...but if it chambers...it is right? Tracer ammo for use in a shotgun?
__________________
__________ Now happy with my muzzelite ruger 10/22 bullpup stock. Last edited by IncVoid; 02-23-2013 at 4:46 AM.. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
"...By changing the definition of an existing crime, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program..."
Its not changing the definition of an existing crime, its changing the definition of an existing definition. There is no mention of a crime in 17190.
__________________
Just taking up space in (what is no longer) the second-worst small town in California. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
No.... I read it differently.
It would turn any gun into a shotgun. Including handguns and rimfires. Not meant to be fired from the shoulder, smooth or rifled bore...... with one or multiple projectiles... Everything under the sun would be classified as a shot gun. Though I cant figure out the *reason* for this at all. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Custom made Tail Gunner Trailer Hitch for sale. http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=17820185 "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side kid" -Han Solo "A dull knife is as useless as the man who would dare carry it" |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
John? just how bad do you interpret it now?????? Last edited by postal; 02-23-2013 at 1:47 PM.. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Yes... perhaps my judgement is off today.... I did get that reference right from the start though....
I'm just reading the wording of the summary, and it's my interpretation of.... Does 17190 specify barrel length/OAL? If not, ANY gun would then be classified as a shotgun. And I still just dont understand the point, unless its to actually try to allow newly introduced models we cant currently obtain here.... If it does give barrel/oal minimums, I dont see a point still... however, I'm really not a 'shotgun kind of guy'.... |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be interested in a 12 shot handgun though... perhaps some company needs to make one and call it "Jury"???
Logical step.... Though I really dont have an interest in a single shot... unless its a BMG or bigger.... Executioner... naturally.... |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
This is VERY bad legislation, literally in the way it is written, and in the un-intended(?) concequences- if it becomes law.
It has massive negative implications to numerous existing CA gun laws. Virtually all guns that can fire a "shotgun" shell would/could be considered shotguns, by definition. Originally designed to outlaw one weapon, it could do much more in the courts. From the Sen's website: SACRAMENTO – State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) is introducing a bill that would ban certain assault shotguns in California. The bill, which will be introduced in upcoming weeks, would ensure shotguns with revolving cylinders, known for their killing power, continue to be banned under California’s assault weapons ban. The bill was unveiled today at the State Capitol in Sacramento as part of a multi-bill package by Senate Democrats designed to address gun violence in the wake of the Newtown tragedy and other mass shootings. “As gun technology evolves, our laws need to keep pace with them,” Jackson said. “Shotguns with a rifled barrel and revolving cylinder are relatively new, and can fire a large number of cartridges in a short period of time. The danger of these guns far outweighs any recreational use they may have.” It is already illegal to use or possess to “smooth bore” shotguns with revolving cylinders in California. This bill would ban “rifled bore” shotguns with a revolving cylinder such as the Circuit Judge .410/.45. It is unknown how many such guns are sold in California. “No bill will singlehandedly solve the problem of gun violence,” Jackson said. “But a bill like this keeps our assault weapons ban up-to-date and relevant, so we can keep exceptionally deadly weapons out of the hands of the wrong people.” According to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, two in three Californians support a nationwide ban on assault weapons. Jackson added, “I hope that President Obama and Congress, as they work to renew the federal assault weapons ban, will follow our lead in banning these type of guns as well.”
__________________
Don't ask how many guns I own, I lost count. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Those .410 shotguns...so many deadly killing sprees there.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
...guys, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't short-barreled shotguns illegal in CA even if you have your NFA paperwork and it's all well and clean federally?
If I'm reading this correctly, any weapon with a barrel less than 18.5" long would thus be considered an NFA short-barreled shotgun and therefore illegal. This would include just about every handgun...
__________________
On the back window of a Prius; causes mental anguish to those who live in a world of stereotypes. |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life. Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!! Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
not in my initial reading of the proposed law.
Quote:
Quote:
Serbus are already CA SBS.
__________________
Jack Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA? No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Unusualy deadly? Really?
Circuit Judge holds 5 rounds of 410, 00 buck in 410 holds 4 pellets, for a total of 20. Thing is basicly a double action revolver. It's rifled, so pellets sling quickly outward. Would be good for slugs and 45, that's about it. 12 gauge 2 3/4 00 buck shell hold 9 pellets. Take a average semi home defence gun, 6 in the tube, one in the pipe, that's 63 pellets, 3 times as many, in less time than the Judge can fire 5, smooth bore, pellets hold on target. Makes sense. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Sounds like it would make AOWs into CA SBSs. Bad legislation.
__________________
"Bruen, the Bruen opinion, I believe, discarded the intermediate scrutiny test that I also thought was not very useful; and has, instead, replaced it with a text history and tradition test." Judge Benitez 12-12-2022 NRA Endowment Life Member, CRPA Life Member GLOCK (Gen 1-5, G42/43), Colt AR15/M16/M4, Sig P320, Sig P365, Beretta 90 series, Remington 870, HK UMP Factory Armorer Remington Nylon, 1911, HK, Ruger, Hudson H9 Armorer, just for fun! I instruct it if you shoot it. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
So will it be legal to use 38 or 44 special snake shot shells in a standard revolver under this stupid law?
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
As long as 22 pistols aren't using the energy of the explosive in the "shotgun shell", which translates to not being able to use "shotgun shells", sounds like to me.
My rough interpretation of that Californio would be yes it is still legal. it is not illegal to fire "shot" out of a pistol. but... But that shotgun shell inside a firearm designed/made to use that shotgun shell, not conforming to shotgun lengths. I dislike the way it is written. 38 snake shot shells are not "shotgun" shells. But it makes shotguns, as anything that fires "shotgun shells". Gun manufacturers should ...stop designing shotgun shells now, multiprojectile rifle rounds. Not the solution. It could be interpreted as shotguns are the catch-all of definitions, and rifles are a specific type of shotgun...after their next step. Next step in their plan is to make all ammo fit the definition of "shotgun shell." Let us not let them get to that. Does anybody recall any cases where they say exactly what a shotgun shell is? the shell case? needing to have a wad? it appears shotgun shells have two cases...the brass head and case? If the brass head isn't brass is it still a shotgun shell? could that lil plastic on the end of the .38 or 44 or even the .22lr be considered a shell case? Because it doesn't matter if it has a single or multi-projectile by this definition. ball shot.. it sounds like as long as it doesn't have ballshot inside of it, it can't be considered a "shot"gun shell... non-necked case...oohhhh?? They just don't like the little lead balls (or the bullet ones). The little "sphericals." that can spread out... s12s?
__________________
__________ Now happy with my muzzelite ruger 10/22 bullpup stock. Last edited by IncVoid; 02-25-2013 at 4:34 AM.. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
OPSEC!
__________________
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. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bump for discussion...
This is one that passed the Senate last week. If I'm reading it properly (and other here indicate that I am), it redefines almost all handguns (in popular calibers, that have shotshell ammo available) many rifles as shotguns. Since they have barrels less than 18", they're now SBS's. What happens to SBS's in CA? I know they're illegal, but are the subject to confiscation? I would assume possession is a felony. Does that mean cops can round up anyone at a handgun range, toss them in a squad car, and slap them with felony charges? This seems likely to pass, along with the rest of them. Are there any indications otherwise? I presume CGF will sue, and file an injunction. Can an injunction be denied? ie, until the lawsuit is settled, possession of a handgun is illegal in CA? I guess I'm just looking for someone to give me a hug and tell me it'll be alright, and that my fears are unfounded. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Existing law, for purposes of specified provisions, defines shotgun as a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger."
All firearms propel projectiles due to expanding gasses not by the " energy of the explosive". |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
expanding gases contain the energy of the explosive, thats why theyre expanding
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Seeing that long guns make up less than 500 deaths per year. I wonder how many of those are from shotguns and then how many of those happened with these 'killing machines' in California.
God, I swear... every day when i come to read up the latest on calguns, my blood pressure through the roof.
__________________
WTB: multiautomatic ghost gun with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Must include shoulder thing that goes up. Memberships/Affiliations: CERT, ARRL ARES, NRA Patron Member, HRC, CGN/CGSSA, Cal-FFL |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
STOP HELPING THEM. They are literally turning to the people who KNOW the questions to be asked to help them fix the problems with their bills.
Loose lips sink ships. STFU.
__________________
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Thomas Jefferson "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." - John Adams "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." - Alexis de Tocqueville Proud Contributing Member: |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Why do California firearms owners insist on helping the idiots who want to take away our rights? Nobody understands what opsec is obviously. This thread isn't the only one in this forum doing so...amazing.
__________________
NRA Certified Metallic Cartridge Reloading Instructor, Shotgun Instructor and Range Safety Officer |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
if the NFA exists federally as the mechanism of choice to define dangerous and unusual weapons for purposes of commercial sale and owner ship and CA is intent on creating their own list and banning more weapons that are not by federal law or definition dangerous and unusual but actually in common use............ it seems that they inviting a serious debate to determine if the NFA overrules state determinations or if arbitrary lists and laws that are not rooted in facts but in emotion should stand. The debate is bound to happen some day guess they weren't willing to wait. Now if this passes odds are We'll actually see a debate of which has more authority in regulating constitutionally protected commerce?
States can choose to allow or not allow NFA stamp weapons within their borders, which seems to be a reasonable level of discretion granted to the states by the NFA that they can administer, venturing beyond that will be the debate. Is it infringing for states to further redefine, restrict or ban or is it a states right to clamp down extensively beyond the NFA when something is in common use. i fear the consequences of this passing and the inconveniences it will bring to us but i also see the coming debate as inevitable as their trajectory is beyond a collision course with law abiding firearms owners and court challenges
__________________
NRA Life member, multi organization continued donor etc etc etc Last edited by ddestruel; 06-03-2013 at 9:32 PM.. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|