California Governor Jerry Brown signed a slate of new gun laws on a Friday, thus keeping the moves out of the heart of the news cycle. And while the news laws are not a spike in the heart of California gun owners, every gun control law violates the United States Constitution and presses the jackboot of tyranny a little more forcefully on citizens’ collective neck. In case you forgot. Courtesy calccw.com, here’s a rundown of the Golden State’s latest affronts to firearms freedom . . .

AB 48 – Assemblymember Nancy Skinner’s bill makes it illegal for someone to “knowingly manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give, lend, buy, or receive any large capacity magazine conversion kit that is capable of converting an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity magazine.” Skinner, a democrat, represents the Berkeley area.

AB 170 – This changes the definition of “person” in existing law for assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles from “individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or any other group or entity” to just “individual.” The bill was authored by democratic Assemblymember Steven Bradford of Gardena.

AB 231 – Creates the offense of third degree criminal firearm storage, if the storage of the gun endangers a child. Philip Ting, democratic assemblymember from San Francisco, authored the bill.

AB 500 – Democratic Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s bill requires the Department of Justice to have a firearm dealer delay the sale of a gun if the buyer “has been taken into custody and placed in a facility for mental health treatment or evaluation, that he or she has been arrested for, or charged with, a crime, or that the purchaser is attempting to purchase more than one firearm within a 30-day period.” The DOJ must determine whether or not that person is eligible to buy a firearm within 30 days of the usual 10-day waiting period.

AB 538 – Authored by democratic Assemblymember Richard Pan, the bill makes “nonsubstantive” changes to open carry law.

AB 539 – Another bill of Pan’s, the law allows those prohibited from owning guns to transfer their firearms to a licensed firearm seller until they are once again allowed to own the, The firearm dealer would have to notify the DOJ.

AB 711 – One of the more controversial bills, AB 711 bans the use of lead ammunition in hunting. The bill was introduced by democratic Assemblymember Anthony Rendon.

AB 1131 – Introduced by Berkeley Assemblymember Nancy Skinner, AB 1131 will increase the amount of time before someone can own a gun after a “credible threat of violence” is determined by a psychotherapist.

SB 127 – Introduced by republican Senator Ted Gaines, SB 127 would require psychotherapists to report to law enforcement if someone poses a serious threat of violence within 24 hours.

SB 363 – Senator Roderick Wright’s bill changes when fees are due from firearm manufacturers.

SB 683 – SB 683 would require people buying long guns, like shotguns or rifles, to pass a written test similar to one handgun buyers must pass. The bill was written by democratic Senator Marty Block from San Diego.

VETOED:

AB 169 – Roger Dickinson’s bill would have limited the transfer of handguns deemed “unsafe.” Gov. Brown wrote in his veto message, “I do not support restricting sales in this way without evidence that such restrictions would improve public safety.”

AB 180 – AB 180 would have allowed the City of Oakland to pass gun control measures that are stricter than the state norm. Brown said the bill, authored by Asm. Rob Bonta, would only create confusion.

SB 299 – Concord Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s bill would have required owners to report stolen guns within seven days. Brown argued that “responsible people report the loss of theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not. I remain skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.”

SB 374 – Another controversial bill, Sen. Darrell Steinberg’s SB 374. It would have banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. Brown wrote in his veto message that he doesn’t believe such a “blanket” legislation would enhance public safety.

SB 567 – Sen. Hannah Beth-Jackson’s bill would have changed the legal definition of what a shotgun is. Brown felt the bill was not necessary.

SB 755 – The law, introduced by Sen. Lois Wolk of Davis, would have added drug abuse convictions to the list of what would prohibit someone from owning a gun for 10 years. Again, Brown felt the bill was unnecessary.”

Details on these bills. Click here and key-in bill number to see actual bill.

[h/t MN]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

96 COMMENTS

        • And, if the U.S. is ever invaded, through a disarmed CA, NY, WA, ME, IL, AZ, NM, etc., etc., people in those states (all citizens) will be held personally responsible, so don’t let your elected reps do stupid stuff like this.

        • Joe, I can’t speak for the other states, but don’t judge IL by Chicago/Cook County. You may not be able to buy a legal gun in Chicago, but the rest of the state – for the most part – is quite well armed. If that invasion you talk about comes through here, they will have a very brutal education of their mistake.

  3. California is hopless I won’t just say move out. I left the state. But is there aanything that can save the state from leftist tyranny?

      • Unfortunately most of the millenials I meet want to solve those problems with MORE government, redistributing everything. Good diagnosis, utterly crappy prescription

    • A massive meteor strike in the Pacific Ocean, about 50 miles offshore, halfway between LA and Frisco – as in “Lucifer’s Hammer”.

      I escaped the PRCa in 2004. When I drove across the Snake River bridge between Oregon and Idaho, with my guns in the back of my truck (securely locked in a safe), I started singing “free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I’m free at last.” If I had stayed in that state, I would no doubt be committing daily crimes simply by owning my guns.

    • No. I still waiting to be voted on after summer recess. Of course we expect it to pass, but we also hope that Brown will recognize that it is massive boondoggle and will veto it, despite its delayed implementation until 2016. The implementation costs, which will likely include a whole new computer system and additional staff for the DOJ to process millions of applications and the tremendous effort to “track” millions of annual purchases, plus the costs to dealers who will be required to obtain not only the permit but a DL and a thumbprint for EVERY transaction, will be in the billions–billions they will undoubtedly try to pass onto gun owners.

      • If it passes, perhaps gun shops should start selling ammo by the bullet. Would take a little time, but could drive the state crazy.

        • Im down with all ammo (.22 included) being sold in 10 round boxes. That would give the state a huge migraine and you can be specific on how much ammo you want. It would be easier to know exactly how much you have especially since our mags can only hold 10.

      • three or four years ago, when CA was talking about same- thumb-print to buy ammo, Walmart just stopped selling in CA citing that alone as the reason.

        I would expect most of all retail stores to stop, and of course, no internet sales allowed.
        Bingo- effective gun banning, until a lawsuit and SCOTUS decision 10 years from then…

        I have to say, I am looking very seriously out-of-state for property.
        The State of CA is circling the drain under ALL DEM control, faster and faster.

  5. Kalifornia. Jerry Brown has not been the same since Linda Ronstadt stopped advising him personally. Condolences to those that are stuck in the land of anti-constitutionalists.

  6. About the only one I thought made any sense was SB-127. At least it’s trying something a little further up the failure chain than usual.

    Still open to lots of abuse, but it strikes me as the only thing there that isn’t either redundant to what’s already on the books, only intended to trap the law-abiding, or just silly. (Except the lead-ammo ban, I won’t pretend to understand the nuances there.)

    It would be nice to have penalties for police who get but ignore the warning….or for psychologists who are found on review to be issuing these fraudulently.

    • “About the only one I thought made any sense was SB-127. ”

      Don’t you mean SB755? I haven’t read the bill, but I don’t think drug addicts should be able to buy guns either. Do you know what some of them will do to get drugs?! They would stab their own mother for cash to buy crack/morphine! Seriously.

      • It is already illegal for drug addicts to buy guns–says so right on the 4473. And no one would DARE lie on a 4473 would they?

        • Well now, Jerry Brown, and the Cali. legislators, have seen to it to make it super duper double illegal! that will stop it from happening!

          Everybody pat themselves on the back.

  8. AB 231 is of concern. “Creates the offense of third degree criminal firearm storage, if the storage of the gun endangers a child”.

    The existing law is punishable only if someone is injured by the child having gained access to a gun, now the child doesn’t even have to access it let alone hurt anyone with it. The child doesn’t even have to get into the home where the gun is.

    Of course, this is all up to subjective determination by the police and prosecutors. So what will happen is that the police will make an arrest just about any time they see a loaded gun in a home and the prosecutor will load all kinds of charges in hopes of a plea bargain.

    Another step in the march to tyranny. Turning innocent people into criminals.

    • So, if my firearm safe is mounted on a wall, and somehow falls off onto the foot of a child, did I just violate AB 231?

    • Can you construe it as dangerous to a child who can safely handle a gun to keep them from access? What if the kids is home alone and they get attacked!

      Law is ambiguous and therefore unconstitutional.

      • Leaving guns available at home for responsible minors to defend themselves makes sense.

        Of course, the government will want to “name” someone from the state to come inspect things at home, interview the family, ensure child’s well being, etc.

        Why stop at gun inspections? Let’s just have someone from the state be a “named person” who will help every parent decide what’s best for their children from birth (or sometimes before) until they’re 18.

        We could copy Scotland’s recent law to make sure we “get it right.”

        The role of the Named Person
        http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright/named-person

      • You can let your kids have access to guns under this law.

        Here is what the law actually says

        (c) Except as provided in Section 25105, a person commits the
        crime of “criminal storage of a firearm in the third degree” if the
        person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises that are under
        the person’s custody or control and negligently stores or leaves a
        loaded firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably
        should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm
        without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian,
        unless reasonable action is taken by the person to secure the firearm
        against access by the child.

        25105. Section 25100 does not apply whenever any of the following
        occurs:
        (a) The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal entry
        to any premises by any person.
        (b) The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a location
        that a reasonable person would believe to be secure.
        (c) The firearm is carried on the person or within close enough
        proximity thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use
        the firearm as if carried on the person.
        (d) The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined in
        Section 16860, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
        (e) The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed Forces
        or the National Guard and the child obtains the firearm during, or
        incidental to, the performance of the person’s duties.
        (f) The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the firearm in a
        lawful act of self-defense or defense of another person.
        (g) The person who keeps a loaded firearm on premises that are
        under the person’s custody or control has no reasonable expectation,
        based on objective facts and circumstances, that a child is likely to
        be present on the premises.

        So child has permission of parent? Not a crime. Child gets access in order to defend himself? Not a crime

        The law is no worse, and actually is better than the similar law in Texas.

  9. California is really shitty for a lot of reasons, the list is endless. But people saying move out….that is probably not a viable for solution for most, and running from problems, does that solve them? Where will people run to when the places to run to has run out?

    • Retreat and regroup. Bolstering other states against California tyranny.

      And this comes from a Californian. We just cant outdo the bay area and LA voting blocks.

      Unless, of course, we cut off the water to LA…..

  10. 2 small points:
    1. These bills make it so that you should never visit a mental health professional, as nothing good can come of it.
    2. The logic used in vetoing some of these bills, if applied to all of the bills passed, would have vetoed every one of them. Just look at what was said ab AB 169 and SB299, and tell me that doesn’t apply to everything.
    Also, I like the written test required to buy a gun in Cali. It reminds me of something I remember reading about in my history class: Voter literacy tests. It was one of those laws written by some guy named Jim Crow. We didn’t study that part of history for very long, as it made some people feel uncomfortable.

    • As far as I know it will be the same as test for the handgun safety certificate, which tests, generally, basic principle’s of transfers laws, safe handling, and the like. Twenty questions, multiple choice. Read the pamphlet and you can pass the test. (A pass is a 70%, so you can get six wrong.) The hardest part of the test is the $25 fee.

      • If there’s a written test to buy a gun, how about a written test to register to vote?

        Goose? Gander?

    • Forcing psychologists at gunpoint (oh, the irony) to report someone with violent tendencies will only deter people from getting the help they need.

      • Every last one of these invasive, offensive laws micromanaging people’s lives is backed by threat of force from men with guns, and badges. I’d like to designate the government of the State of California as being prone to violent tendencies and subject to legal disarmament.

  11. I’m most concerned with the veto’s. If they try it once, they’ll try it again.

    Especially “Change the definition of what a shotgun is.” That sounds like someone testing the waters for a way to ban shotguns.

    • I thought the same thing, that I was having bad deja vu. This list is mostly incorrect as it also does not list SB53, SB808 and several others we are fighting while it does list a bunch that were vetoed last year by Brown and are dead.

  14. So with SB 683 you now have to pass a written test to own a gun. I have a serious problem with this. Would it be okay to have to pass a written test to vote? (Note: This technique was used post Civil War-era as a way of disenfranchishing Black citizens)

    Just like post Civil War disenfranchisement, this additional burden has the potential of asking “oddball” questions that will be impossible to answer. The question that should be asked by this august body of armed intelligentsia is: Who is writing the test questions? Why the hell do I need to prove my knowledge to you to exercise what is essentially an undeniable human right?

    As a second point: Is it okay to require a written exam prior to protesting (1st Amendment)? Are we required to have a written exam prior to calling on our 3rd, 4th, or 5th Amendment rights?

    • Not quite. It is extending the HSC to all firearms. The HSC is only needed to purchase, not to own. While I am not happy over it, it amounts to little more than a once every 5 years tax for $25 in order to buy. It is given by the FFL, so no worry (at this point) of wrongful denials. The test is brain dead easy.

      The greater worry is that this slight inconvenience is really a way of gradually introducing the infrastructure and they can actually make it difficult later…

      • “The greater worry is that this slight inconvenience is really a way of gradually introducing the infrastructure and they can actually make it difficult later…”

        Bingo!

        The civilian disarmament folks are very patient…it’s a war of attrition.

  15. Another bunch of gun control bills pushed forward and signed by Rebublicans. Oops! Democrats. Remind me again, pro-gun Democrats, how there are no differences between the parties? Cause the gun laws in states controlled by Democrats are pretty shitty. And they’re only going to get worse.

      • SB 127 – although I don’t see how it can be enforced. My point still stands – Democrats turn a state into CA – hereafter North Mexico – when they have control. I don’t hold any I’ll will towards Democrats or Republicans who respect my rights. As you can imagine, I don’t respect most politicians.

  17. A written test to simply purchase a firearm? Terrible idea of course, but doesn’t Jim Barrett, who writes for this site, support that very requirement?

  18. I’m pretty sure a lot of those were last year. So far we know AB1964 has been signed into law. No more SSE off roster handguns after 1/1/15. SB53 is on Brown’s desk. SB53 is basically a back door ammo registration scheme. Basically designed to make ammo even more expensive for law abiding gun owners. I won’t do anything about crime.

    • SB 53 is still in the Assembly. If it passes than he will be faced with a big decision.
      The fact is the CA DOJ is not equipped to handle electronic background checks. If they were there would be no need for the 10 day wait. The ten day wait was not passed under the guise of safety, but rather because all checks are still manual.
      A lot of the bill listed above were last year and old news. 1964 is the only one this year which has passed this session.

  19. There are so many laws on the books here in Kali that it must be terrifying for a first-time purchaser just to decide to buy a gun. Of course, that’s the whole point.

    • Exactly the same approach that Massachusetts has taken.

      Continue to allow people to theoretically buy, own and carry guns.

      But make it so onerous and costly with “common sense regulation” that people just give up gun ownership altogether.

      Then no one is “taking away your guns”…you’re giving them up “voluntarily.”

    • You nailed it.

      I remember researching how to buy my first handgun.

      Two forms of ID (Drivers licence and a car reg, utility bill, or other government issued document except a California ID if DL is used. Vague and infuriating requirement), Handgun Safety Certificate (test + $25 fee every 5 years), pay the DROS (another $25), pay tax (varies), demonstrate safe handling of handgun, wait 10 days, and buy a lock (around $5 or more).

      All this adds more than $100 dollars to the cost of a firearm for a first time buyer. Yet the same progtards balk when a simple ID requirement is offered to vote (I dont support this, just showing their hypocrisy).

      • Not quite $100. $25 +35 = $60. Sales tax has nothing to do with gun laws. You pay sales tax in states with sales tax.

        My experience was I went to the store, picked out a gun, was told I needed an HSC. 10 minutes later had one. Was told I needed a second form of ID, so I ran out and got my car registration. That + drivers license was good. I bought the gun and picked it up 10 day laters. Took less than an hr (other than the stupid waiting period). Didn’t know the laws into I experienced them, but they proved little hindrance. Maybe because the FFL was nice and expediently went through everything.

        The HSC would be a far greater burden if it were like North Carolina’ requirement that requires you to make a separate trip to a government office. If I was told I needed to go to the Berkeley PD to get it, I might not have….dang I hope I am not giving them ideas.

        As it stands, outside of the limitation on the variety of guns you may buy (that is where it really hurts now) the process is more intimidating on the outside, and much easier than one would think to actually go through. Of the 14 states that require a permit to purchase, 13 of them are at least a tad more burdensome than CA (including Nebraska, Iowa, etc). Like CA a CCW exempts, unlike CA many of those states have shall issue, but it is still harder to get CCW in Nebraska than an HSC in California.

        The only reason I insist on this is that too many people get discouraged about owning a gun in this state. Once you actually go through the process, you realize it is not that hard. Yeah I hate the added cost, but it is nothing like New York where you need a permit to own (not to mention NYC). I lik to try to undermine the intimidation effect.

        • Then you should take some people on a road trip to AZ. CA needs more prospective gun owners to get angry about how unfairly they’re treated compared to their neighbors and not just emboldened to jump through the hoops.

  20. SB 299 – Concord Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s bill would have required owners to report stolen guns within seven days. Brown argued that “responsible people report the loss of theft of a firearm and irresponsible people do not. I remain skeptical that this bill would change those behaviors.”

    SB 374 – Another controversial bill, Sen. Darrell Steinberg’s SB 374. It would have banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines. Brown wrote in his veto message that he doesn’t believe such a “blanket” legislation would enhance public safety.

    So…Jerry Brown thinks that a law can’t make irresponsible people responsible…and he doesn’t think blanket legislation will enhance public safety. Aren’t those the two main points behind all gun control?

  21. I almost thought AB 170 (second on the list, changing definitions from corps and individuals to just individuals) was a good thing, until I realized it was just a special interest carveout that some private security firm likely bought through campaign donation. A-holes.

  22. Where are the protesters at? Are they all sitting on their asses waiting for the gun groups to do all the work for them?

  23. Massachusetts just came close to passing egregious gun laws, and people were posting things with the that can never happen here mindset. There will eventually be no places left to run to, as the coasts and the high population density states set the tone for the rest of the country.

    • Progressives, collectivists, statists…call them what you will are like a virus.

      They consume through taxation theft all available resources, and then flee their utopia when it collapses in on itself. (As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”)

      Unfortunately for the rest of us, they flee to states with more freedom and less regulation / taxes, but immediately seek to impose higher taxes and more regulation to create a new utopia.

      They are blind to cause and effect.

      If you research the net migration data between states, you can observe the slow but relentless migration from the Northeast down into places like Virginia. More locally, they flee Massachusetts for New Hampshire. In the West, we see the results in Colorado.

      Their continued interference with free people and free markets disrupts equilibrium.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Na9-jV_OJI

  24. AB 539 – Another bill of Pan’s, the law allows those prohibited from owning guns to transfer their firearms to a licensed firearm seller until they are once again allowed to own the, The firearm dealer would have to notify the DOJ.

    This makes absolutely no sense as written. If you are a prohibited possessor with guns and cannot transfer them to an FFL, then what? Is this just some way of insuring the state will always confiscate them once you’re determined to be a prohibited possessor?

    Why don’t the just change the name of the state to “Chicago” and be doe with it?

    • Actually this law is at best neutral if not good.

      It means, e.g., if you are placed under a restraining order instead of surrendering your guns to the police, you can transfer them to an FFL for safekeeping until the situation is resolved

      All of these laws are old news, and none of them really amounts to much practically besides maybe the mag kit one.

      • How about knives, baseball bats, and fists?

        Will those be transferred as well for “safe keeping?”

      • So then theoretically, if one was in this situation, and only allowed to buy one per month….
        It could take years to get them back. And in the meantime, they blindly pass more laws that classify some as restricted, and you never get them back.

        • No, you are misunderstanding the law. Besides the 1 in 30 only apply to handguns, it also has other exceptions. It does not apply to private party sales. And it does not apply to returns of guns by an FFL that were held in pawn. I pawned three handguns. 2 months later I came in, paid the cash for all 3 of them back. I was subjected to the 10 day waiting period but not the 1 in 30. It was an “exempt”transfer.

          The transfer here is likewise exempt from 1 in 30. This bill is similar to a proposal in Texas to allow those under a restraining order to store firearms at an FFL until the situation is resolved. There is a reason why even the GOA took a neutral stance on this one. This is not the outrage you are looking for.

  26. Does this s##t make Kalifornia the worst state in America? You have my sympathy.

  27. New test for gun ownership in Kalifornia,

    1. Do you intend to keep this gun for your own use, or do you intend to sell it to a gang member for profit?
    2. Do you ever intend to load more than two cartridges in you firearm at any one time?
    3. Have you been convicted of more than 15 felonies in any one year?
    4. If you are a gang member, do you have sources for obtaining adequate supplies of outlawed ammo?
    5. If you are not a gang member, do you intend to affiliate your bad ass with a gang within 10 days of receipt of this weapon?
    6. Are you a lawful citizen of Mexico?
    7. If residing in the United States, have you been a resident for more than 8 hours?
    8. Is you car equipped with a hydraulic “Hopper” system?
    9. if so, can you hit 9 out of 10 bystanders while system is activated?
    10. Have you ever been convicted of Jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, or spending more than 5 minutes in a gun store? If so, you will be denied a purchase permit! Have a nice day.

    • 11. Are you currently or have you ever been a paid informant for the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Drug Enforcement Administration or the Federal Bureau of Investigation? (circle all that apply)

  28. I was just out there last week, with a considerable amount of my collection left home so as
    not to lose it to some archaic law in that State.

    Luckily, I went no further South than the Sacramento parallel, where I hear it is much
    worse. The overall oppression in many ways was unsettling to an Eastern Washingtonian.

    Folks down there just have to get on board to change these government over reaches, or
    they are going to end up like a 3rd world country.

    Sad, really.

  31. “I do not support restricting sales in this way without evidence that such restrictions would improve public safety.”

    Yet he signed AB 1964. WTF, over?

    Now the term “Quantum Democrats” is making more and more sense….

  33. With the real possibility of an uprising in America against this tyrannical government, the progressives’ seem eager to disarm themselves believing that the government is strong enough to protect its loyal blue states.

  35. California used to brag it was the worlds 7th largest economy, if so, that’s great, they won’t mind seceding from the rest of the nation which must be surely be a drag on such a large economic powerhouse.

  36. Take a test to buy a gun? Oh well, now its just like you have to do to vote or write a book! Oh wait…

  37. This article is misleading and confusing. It starts off with the bogus claim that “California Governor Jerry Brown signed a slate of new gun laws on a Friday”. These bills were all signed in October of LAST YEAR. Google any of these bill numbers and you will find that they are from 2013. This is very old news, reported as if it just happened. WTF?

    It’s bad enough living in Kalifornia with our draconian 2nd Amendment infringements and left wing lunatic fringe ruling class. Why do we have to rehash last years bad news like it just happened?. There will be plenty of opportunity for TTAG to bring us the bad news for this year. EPIC FAIL.

  38. What’s the issue here?
    AB 231, AB 500, AB 539, AB 711, AB 1131, SB 127 and SB 683 make sense.

    Banning .50 cal, high-cap mags and the stupidity of not allowing people to own NFL items by having a special NFL class for private ownership – that does NOT make sense.
    I’m all for gun ownership, but people can’t be saying that it is “infringing” on their gun rights if they have a special law making it a criminal act to say store a loaded gun easily accessible to a small child, or if they think that buying a gun = uber civilian operator license. Some people view a gun as some kind of magic wand of defence and justice… but don’t realise that as much as “freedom is not free” is a truth, that gun ownership is not without at the very least moral obligations and some basic prerequisites of character.

    • They do not make sense. For one, they are arbitrary. For example, who writes this written test for gun purchases? What exactly constitutes an “easily-accessible” gun? And secondly, the government has no right whatsoever to be requiring people to meet certain government-defined standards in order to exercise what is a fundamental right that is protected in the Constitution. It turns said right into a privilege. Should we require people to take a literacy test before exercising their right to vote?

Comments are closed.