search
top

Brown Vetoes 4 “Gunpocalypse” Bills, Signs 6

California FlagThe bills Brown signed were the worst of the bills. From the Firearms Policy Coalition:

The bills Brown signed, which will become law on January 1, 2017, are:

  • SB 880 (Hall) and AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • SB 1235 (de Leon): Now competes with Gavin Newsom’s Safety for All Act/Ammo Ban.
  • SB 1446 (Hancock): Confiscation of lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • AB 1511 (Santiago): Bans the loaning of firearms.
  • AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes some non-violent misdemeanors punishable by prohibitions on owning firearms.

The bills Brown vetoed are:

  • AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines “firearms” to include items that are not firearms.
  • AB 1674 (Santiago): Bans buying more than one firearm within a 30-day period.
  • AB 2607 (Ting): Dramatically expands who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.
  • SB 894 (Jackson): Re-victimizes victims by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.

The only thing that’s going to save California is federal preemption.

30 Responses to “Brown Vetoes 4 “Gunpocalypse” Bills, Signs 6”

  1. Dannytheman says:

    SB 1235 Ammo ban is 2018.. I am in mourning. Need to find work elsewhere!

  2. Jim says:

    I left 15 years ago, never going back.

    Dunno how long we’re going to have to wait for a pro-gun president/congress to liberate CA.

    • Zermoid says:

      Feel same way about NJ, left in 1990, I suffer occasional visits to see family and friends. Never moving back.

  3. Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

    Wow just wow. The fact that these can even be passed, much less upheld shows where our government is at.

    I wouldn’t comply. I’d post I have mags and they can come and take them.

    • Publius says:

      Well, go on. Move to Cali and do it, I dare you.

      • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

        Sorry, but I live across the country. If this passed in PA or federally, you’re damn straight I would do it. But its call picking your battles, and my battle is here in PA, not Cali.

        So not sure of your point.

  4. Brad says:

    I’ll be voting with my feet.

    But one good thing about this California catastrophe? Let it warn the rest of the nation of what the Democratic Party really means when the Democrats say they only want “reasonable” “gun safety” “reform”.

  5. TS says:

    When Washington and Oregon passed their gun loaning ban I thought it a bit ironic that California was better than those two states regarding letting someone else handle your gun. There was actually one aspect around guns where California wasn’t the worst place to be. WA and OR passed these laws with deception- convincing people it was just about background checks on sales. Since CA already had banned private sales (but not private transfers), I figured that California would always be better than these new states that fall to Bloomberg- because what are they going to do? Openly come out and say they want to make it a crime to hand your friend a gun no matter how short, and no matter their clean record? How wrong was I? I will not underestimate just how anti-gun this state is again. Anything can pass. Anything. What’s even scarier is the next governor will probably sign everything.

  6. JeffinCA says:

    I live in CA and I fucking hate CA.

  7. Antibubba says:

    Federal ANYTHING won’t mean a thing with Hillary’s Supreme Court. Brown just added tens of millions of fence-sitters to Trump’s supporters. I may have to choke back the vomit and be one of them.

  8. RC says:

    Looking through the text of 1446, I can guarantee the following:

    – Compliance rate of less than 15%. The SKS Model M/D round up in the late 90’s had a compliance rate of about 10-20%, and those were whole guns that the state had a tracking mechanism for. Magazines, depending on firearm, were relatively inexpensive prior to 1999. I don’t know how many AR mags I have lying around, and I’d wager a lot of Californians just won’t comply out of ignorance.

    – This ban is going to render some firearms largely unusable. You ban legacy magazines, you’re essentially banning any out-of-production gun for which mags are no longer made – to name just one example, an HK P7M13. People are simply not going to be able to find mags for it.

    – By my admittedly less-than-expert opinion, this appears to be an unlawful taking. If the state were offering recompense for magazines (and the guns rendered useless without them), this’d be perhaps a different story, but that’s not the case here. A lot of people in Cali, having been subject to three different AWB’s (1989 Roberti-Roos, 1994-2004 Federal AWB, post-2000 California AWB) sank a ton of money into magazines in 1999, as purchase/transfer afterward was prohibited. California has about 8M firearms extant -and given the run on mags in 1999, I’d guess somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 30M magazines. At $50 apiece (California prices without inflation back then), that’s an uncompensated taking of, by my estimate 500M-1.5B dollars.

    SAF, NRA, and a whole bunch of others are going to sue over that last point.

    • BC says:

      Not to be a killjoy, but a Takings Clause challenge to these laws is pretty much a non-starter, and if the SAF and NRA sue over that point they’re going to get laughed out of court. Prevailing Takings Clause doctrine is that these sorts of regulatory/statutory prohibitions simply do not qualify as takings, because (a) the property isn’t being appropriated for public use and (b) the property owner hasn’t been completely deprived of all beneficial use of the property (he can still sell it out of state, for instance).

      The sad truth is that the legal fight over this was lost last year, when Sunnyvale’s municipal ban on magazine possession was upheld by the Ninth Circus. We’ve been living on borrowed time ever since.

      • Bill Twist says:

        Actually, I believe it would be a regulatory taking, and because a relatively small population (people who own those magazines or guns that only take those magazines) are being forced to shoulder the burden of a regulation that ostensibly benefits everyone (under the theory of less gun crime), then it would be a taking except of course for your second point about them being able to sell them out of state. If California prohibited any transfer and made the only legal method of getting rid of them turning them into the state for destruction, then absolutely they’d have to pay for them.

        Which is why any federal gun control will *NEVER* include an actual ban: They absolutely would have to compensate the owners.

        • BC says:

          If California prohibited any transfer and made the only legal method of getting rid of them turning them into the state for destruction, then absolutely they’d have to pay for them.

          Not accurate. As I explained above, prevailing Takings Clause doctrine is that these sorts of “public health and safety” prohibitions aren’t takings because they don’t appropriate the property for public use. If the gumbint were seizing the mags for its own use, then it might have to pay for them, but because it’s merely saying that Joe Q. Public can no longer legally possess them, it doesn’t.

    • TS says:

      I’m guessing compliance on the magazine turn-in will be <1%. And that's optimistic. This law has already been enacted in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sunnyvale, with exactly zero people turning them in for destruction. That's a good chunk of the California population, and a highly liberal chunk.

      • BC says:

        I reckon this is so. People will buy a few politically-correct crippleware mags for day-to-day range use, hide their contraband mags in a box in the garage or attic, and if anybody comes asking they’ll say they moved them out of state or lost them in a tragic canoeing accident.

        Needless to say the only people inconvenienced by this will be the people who care about following the law.

  9. Lance Lot Link says:

    Federal Preemption just very well might be the long term approach.

    There’s no dispute now that the government has the right to enact regulations under Heller, and since the 2A is incorporated, this authority would apply to the States and Feds.

    But the true beauty of it is its an offensive plan; its a radical change from defending existing rights to expanding them.

    I’ve never really thought this aspect through, and to a large degree, its not being played up by the pro 2A.

    But I do believe you have identified the best hope for the Bill of Rights.

  10. Zermoid says:

    BTW, what does “firearms that have magazine locking devices” mean exactly? Does that mean any gun with a detachable mag?

    • Zermoid says:

      Thinking about it, that could even cover internal mags with an open-able floorplate….

    • Publius says:

      I *think* it would ban the Bullet Button. But I’m not sure, don’t hold me to that.

  11. Inebriated Arsonist says:

    Mandatory confiscation doesn’t surprise me at all. The California Democrats always saw firearm confiscation as the end game.

    Still, it’s sad to see it happen. I’m not holding on to any hopes for the courts to save us on this one.

  12. NotClauswitz says:

    It’s another fuzzy and vague bunch of word-vomit spewed up buy the One-Party Politburo on a Party-Line vote. With Republicans as a minor rump-party busy with their own developer-interest shakedown schemes, there’s no pushback when the Social-Democrats ram-rod this crap through.
    There’s already a new BulletButton2.0 that gets around it, but the requirement for rifle-registration is worse, and has had low compliance in NY and Connecticut.
    This will mainly affect the Metroplex prison-county urban centers run by Democrats where the Left-Liberals also run/own the Sheriffs’ political campaigns, but out in rural flyover Free California enforcement is going to be a non-starter. My Pro-2A Sheriff issues CCW’s freely, so I’ve already been background-checked and can buy all the ammo I want. The illegality of Databasing all that is going to make some lawyer rich.

  13. JC_VA says:

    CA gun owners may as well put the standard release back on their ARs, non-compliance is basically the only option now.

    • TS says:

      Ironically, they could take the bullet button off when complying as well. As far as I see it, should you register your bullet button equipped AR-15 as an “assault weapon” then there is no need to keep the stupid thing on anymore.

  14. Roger says:

    If You think Calfornistan is bad and the Demokratik State of New Jersistan is bad and The Peoples Republik of Oregon is bad, Just wait until ole hil gets in office. There WILL be at least three more uber liberal supreme court ‘justices’.
    There WILL be NO more second amendment, There WILL be NO more 1st amendment.
    We will be able to thank (profusely) the legions of formerly republican Trump haters and their ilk for destroying this republic.
    Remember Benjamin Franklin’s comment. “You have a republic, if you can keep it.”

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      I think you should thank the Trump supporters because they choose as liberal authoritarian Democrat who is squishy on guns and justices to take on Clinton. Even if all the “Trump haters” voted for him, it still wouldn’t be enough to overcome the moderates who will not vote for Trump.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Innovation Routes Around Restrictions – Vehicle Weapons Lockers - […] From Sebastian (quoting the “Firearms Policy Coalition” — a gun-rights nonprofit using the discarded name of a ban group. Troll…
top