No on Prop. 63

Want to talk about something that doesn't fit into any other forum? This is the place to post your topic for discussion!

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby sandman » Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:30 am

California DOJ Proposes “Emergency” Regulations Regarding Magazines Capable of Holding More than 10 Rounds but None for "Assault Weapons"
This ban on high capacity magazines does seem unreasonable. Hopefully it can be successfully challenged.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE PLANNING?

1) Legal challenges to the bans on so-called "large capacity magazines" and "assault weapons", as well as to the most egregious aspects of the new ammunition restrictions.

2) Monitoring CA DOJ’s proposed regulations implementing the new laws and challenging any improper ones in court.

3) Continuing to grow the grassroots structure that was created during the election year in counties across the state, which will allow for more influence at the local and state levels of government.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20161216/california-doj-proposes-emergency-regulations-regarding-magazines-capable-of-holding-more-than-10-rounds-but-none-for-assault-weapons
User avatar
sandman
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 1:31 pm
Location: NEVER NEVER LAND

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby wildbill » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:02 pm

California Has Banned Possession of High-Capacity Magazines
There are different rumors going around about the date on which this ban goes into effect. I've heard Jan 1, 2017, July 1, 2017, and Jan 1, 2018 as the possible dates. This is the best I've been able to do for a definitive answer to the start date:
“The bill would require a person in lawful possession of a large-capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017, to dispose of the magazine, as provided.” There is neither any grandfather clause nor reimbursement. State law defines “large-capacity magazines” as anything with more than 10 rounds.

LINK:
http://lawnewz.com/important/california-has-banned-possession-of-high-capacity-magazines/
User avatar
wildbill
Cantankerous Mule
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:21 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby wildbill » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:15 pm

California Drops Gun Control Bomb–Announces “Emergency” Magazine Bans
I think this outlines the requirements of the law and July 1, 2017, does seem to be the deadline.
Under the new law, gun owners have six months to dispose of or permanently alter their large-capacity magazines. Pursuant to Penal Code section 32310, subdivision (c), a person who legally possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that magazine by any of the following means prior to July 1, 2017: (1) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; (2) sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer; (3) destroy the large-capacity magazine; or (4) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction. Alternatively, gun owners may permanently alter large-capacity magazines by reducing their ammunition capacity so that it no longer meets the definition of a “large-capacity magazine.” By providing this information to the public in a timely manner, through the emergency process, the Department will avert serious harm to public peace, health, safety, or general welfare.

LINK:
http://tribunist.com/news/california-drops-gun-control-bomb-announces-emergency-magazine-bans/
User avatar
wildbill
Cantankerous Mule
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:21 pm
Location: The Wild West

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:24 am

wildbill: July is enough time for a court challenge to be filed and hopefully a judge will order that the date be delayed until the case can be heard in a court of law and also hopefully the law will be ultimately nullified in one way or another as the result of the court decision. I know that's a lot of hoping, but hope is all we have left at this time!
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby mrfish » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:35 am

Why California’s new gun laws deserve contempt
A lot of gun owners are extremely unhappy with the passage of prop 63 and that's an understatement. Not sure if there is a legal remedy or not.
I do not advocate flouting the law. But nor do I advocate being naive. After July 1, tens of millions of illegal ammunition magazines will remain in private hands. And there is not much the state can do about it. That’s the problem with sweeping and arbitrary bans. People have a much stronger incentive to resist than to comply.

Maybe there's hope...
For another, it’s a fair bet that some of Proposition 63 and its related rules and regulations will not withstand scrutiny from a Trump-era U.S. Supreme Court. Try as they might, California’s anti-gun elected officials cannot repeal the Second Amendment.

LINK: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article123594949.html
User avatar
mrfish
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:50 am
Location: Poison Canyon

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:22 am

mrfish: Will court action take place rapidly enough to nullify the July 1st deadline? It seems like it oughta be, but the way the court system works, you never know. How I can be deprived of the right to own something I legally purchased over twenty years ago seems like something out of a book by George Orwell. It doesn't seem like it should even be legally possible!
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby BallaratBob » Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:45 am

GOP introduces new gun silencer law
This seems like a waste of time to me. I don't really care about silencers, but if they can do something about the laws here in California, then that would be a good thing.
User avatar
BallaratBob
Backcountry Hiker
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:23 pm
Location: Ballarat, CA

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:45 am

The NRA Fighting California Gun Laws. Taking it All the Way!
This is interesting... Is there a chance that the ban on high-capacity magazines will be overturned?
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:02 am

NRA files second lawsuit challenging state gun laws, this time targeting ban on high-capacity magazines
This has not received a lot of coverage, but considering that the relevant law goes into effect July first, it seems like it should!
A coalition including the National Rifle Assn. on Thursday filed a second lawsuit challenging California’s new gun laws, this time arguing a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines is unconstitutional.

It's absurd that those who legally purchased high-capacity magazines should be required to give them up!
“Banning magazines over 10 rounds is no more likely to reduce criminal abuse of guns than banning high horsepower engines is likely to reduce criminal abuse of automobiles,” the lawsuit says.

LINK: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-nra-files-second-lawsuit-challenging-1495148824-htmlstory.html
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

Re: No on Prop. 63

Postby desertrat » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:06 am

NRA hits back in court over California magazine ban
Here's another article on the same legal filing.
In 2000, California passed a ban on such magazines but still allowed those already in circulation to remain grandfathered. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed a measure making possession of even legacy “pre-ban” magazines illegal.

LINK: http://www.guns.com/2017/05/19/nra-hits-back-in-court-over-california-magazine-ban/
User avatar
desertrat
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 7:22 am
Location: BFE

PreviousNext

Return to News and Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests