The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: ABX on July 05, 2012, 11:19:57 pm
-
http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Cali-Makes-Moves-to-Ban-Most-Semi-Autos_4223-1.html
If you think it is hard to own and possess a semi-automatic firearm in California now, just wait until Senate Bill 249 gets enacted, NRA-ILA reports.
Senate Bill 249 was amended from an agriculture bill to a serious anti-gun bill to eliminate the ownership and possession of most semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding Californians. SB 249, introduced by state Senator Leland Yee (D-8), would restrict any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing magazine release components in semi-auto firearms (bullet button, etc).
Senate Bill 249, if enacted, would ban the ownership and possession of AR-15s and other magazine-fed semi-automatic firearms that currently use "bullet buttons" or other tools to restrict the removal of the magazine. This anti-gun bill would also authorize civil and criminal penalties for possessing a "conversion kit."
Also, SB 249 would make the possession of a "conversion kit" a public nuisance, authorize civil and criminal penalties and require surrendering the conversion kit. According to this bill, a conversion kit is any combination of parts that, when affixed to a firearm with a fixed magazine, are designed and intended to convert that firearm into an “assault weapon” as defined in the bill.
-
Pretty sure that's unconstitutional but it will have to be challenged in Court to find out.
-
Let me guess: violates the commerce clause, but not the power to tax.
-
Pretty sure that's unconstitutional but it will have to be challenged in Court to find out.
I doubt if it's unconstitutional. Banning semi-automatic weapons still leaves open a broad range of short and long arms that aren't semi-auto. That being said, if one can act on the adage that discretion is the better part of valor, then continuing to possess said weapons can probably be managed.
-
I doubt if it's unconstitutional. Banning semi-automatic weapons still leaves open a broad range of short and long arms that aren't semi-auto. That being said, if one can act on the adage that discretion is the better part of valor, then continuing to possess said weapons can probably be managed.
But California cannot exceed Federal Law, or supercede the US Constitution; that would be the basis for a lawsuit all the way to SCOTUS on this in my view.
Besides, how would they possibly enforce it?? How many semiautomatic military style battle rifles have come into the State since the ban was lifted?? How much ammo do those owners have stockpiled??
I dunno about you, but I would not want to be the State employee tasked with trying to round all those weapons up...
-
But California cannot exceed Federal Law, or supercede the US Constitution; that would be the basis for a lawsuit all the way to SCOTUS on this in my view.
Besides, how would they possibly enforce it?? How many semiautomatic military style battle rifles have come into the State since the ban was lifted?? How much ammo do those owners have stockpiled??
I dunno about you, but I would not want to be the State employee tasked with trying to round all those weapons up...
Right. Molon Labe
-
But California cannot exceed Federal Law, or supercede the US Constitution; that would be the basis for a lawsuit all the way to SCOTUS on this in my view.
Besides, how would they possibly enforce it?? How many semiautomatic military style battle rifles have come into the State since the ban was lifted?? How much ammo do those owners have stockpiled??
I dunno about you, but I would not want to be the State employee tasked with trying to round all those weapons up...
Which federal law? And at any rate, the states are generally free to exceed federal law unless a reviewing court finds that (a) Congress passed a comprehensive regulatory regime intended to cover the field and (b) either (i) Congress expressly or impliedly prohibited states from going beyond the limits of the federal law or (ii) allowing states to do so would wreck the regime set up by the federal law. Also, you have issues of comity between sovereigns and in an area where the Constitution has not given Congress full power to legislate, and has not wholly removed that power from the states, the states may legislate with impunity within the sphere allowed to them and not denied them by virtue of the grant of power to Congress.
Also, I doubt if the Second Amendment would be read as providing a right to own a semi-automatic weapon as opposed to any of the plethora of other weapons that aren't semi-auto. As far as I recall, the Supreme Court's holding on the Second Amendment essentially says that the states cannot wholly ban the possession of all firearms; that is a far cry from saying that the states cannot limit which firearms may be possessed. After all, if there's a Constitutional right to a semi-auto, can it be gainsaid that there is also a right to a fully-auto, or even a machine-gun, or military grade firearms?
-
And to think, back in 1982 the citizens of Cali turned down Prop 15 which would have banned handguns in California.
-
And to think, in 1982 Californians voted down Prop 15 which would have banned handgun ownership in Cali.
Since then the politicians have worked overtime trying to find a way around the will of the people.
-
I doubt if it's unconstitutional. Banning semi-automatic weapons still leaves open a broad range of short and long arms that aren't semi-auto. That being said, if one can act on the adage that discretion is the better part of valor, then continuing to possess said weapons can probably be managed.
violates in common use clause.. Heller vs DC
'
'
;