GRRN Forums
February 08, 2012, 05:34:00 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: For you Twitter users you can find the on the official Twitter account.
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Show 28  (Read 756 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Armed Ape
Moderator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Host- Firearms Cafe


Firearms Cafe ArmedApe
WWW
« on: October 26, 2009, 02:00:37 AM »

Show 28 is my take on AB 962
Logged

Who said you can't teach an Ape to shoot a rifle, look at me, I shoot one all the time.
kilo113
Newbie

Offline Offline

Posts: 25



« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2009, 07:14:59 PM »

Good show, and thanks, I almost feel a little less hopeless :'(
Logged

"A desperate man, fighting for his life, will do anything to survive.  Never forget that."   -SSgt David Bellavia
"Your rights end where my nose begins". -Michael Bane's Grandpa
GRRN Forums
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2009, 07:14:59 PM »

ArmsList
 Logged
Jerome from California
Podcaster
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 692



http://www.facebook.com/j
WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2009, 10:56:05 AM »

Tony, thanks for focusing on AB 962 and other issues affecting California gun owners.
I also did a few articles covering AB 962 on the Gun Rights News-West Coast.

GRN-WC Ep. 8- I did a similar analysis on AB 962 as well as SB 585.
GRN-WC Ep.12- Efforts to repeal AB 962. Assemblyman Hagmans AB 373 and possible violation of FAAA 1994.
http://gunrightsnews.com/2009/westcoast/grn-west-coast-episode-008/
http://gunrightsnews.com/2009/westcoast/grn-west-coast-episode-012/

The NRA and CRPA are working with Assemblyman Hagman to pass AB 373.

Calguns Foundation is working on a case of possible violation of FAAA 1994 which preempts AB 962. I expect the Second Amendment foundation to help Calguns on this case. Hopefully we can get Alan Gura to represent the case in court. That being said, this case probably won't happen until after NRA/Mcdonald is decided by SCOTUS. The outcome of the SCOTUS case will have bearing on a lot of run-rights cases.
 
Great show as usual Tony.
Logged

Jerome from California
Gun Rights News

"There are no loopholes, only interpretation." -Chuckles Mulrooney, Attorney for the Damned
Armed Ape
Moderator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Host- Firearms Cafe


Firearms Cafe ArmedApe
WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 01:08:59 PM »

Good show, and thanks, I almost feel a little less hopeless :'(

haha well a little less is better than a little more Wink

thanks

Tony
Logged

Who said you can't teach an Ape to shoot a rifle, look at me, I shoot one all the time.
GRRN Forums
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2009, 01:08:59 PM »

 Logged
Armed Ape
Moderator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Host- Firearms Cafe


Firearms Cafe ArmedApe
WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2009, 01:10:41 PM »

Thanks Jerome, did you notice in my police skit that you were one of the det.?
Hope I said your last name right Tongue

Tony
Logged

Who said you can't teach an Ape to shoot a rifle, look at me, I shoot one all the time.
Jerome from California
Podcaster
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 692



http://www.facebook.com/j
WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2009, 01:40:57 PM »

No Tony I missed that until you mentioned it. Ha ha.
In that scenario alone of leaving your ammo with your buddy would constitute a transfer of ownership wouldn't it? Without going through the steps, you would have violated the law.
Logged

Jerome from California
Gun Rights News

"There are no loopholes, only interpretation." -Chuckles Mulrooney, Attorney for the Damned
Armed Ape
Moderator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Host- Firearms Cafe


Firearms Cafe ArmedApe
WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2009, 02:26:37 PM »

No Tony I missed that until you mentioned it. Ha ha.
In that scenario alone of leaving your ammo with your buddy would constitute a transfer of ownership wouldn't it? Without going through the steps, you would have violated the law.

You know I thought about that when I was doing the show, but in the copy of the passed bill that I was reading, I could not find anything about limits on ammo or on transfer of a certain amount.  Is that still in effect or did that get dropped??  Anyway in my example I made sure to have the amount be more than 50 just in case.  Do you know for sure if the transfer restriction is part of it??

Oh by the way I  enjoy your segments.  You should think about doing your own show.  You do a really good job. 

food for thought

Tony
Logged

Who said you can't teach an Ape to shoot a rifle, look at me, I shoot one all the time.
Panhead Bill
Hero Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2009, 04:35:23 PM »

Tony,

I've read the bill, I haven't had time to study it though.  But from my understanding the restrictions apply to ammunition "vendors," therefore transfers between private persons are not restricted.  Caveat: I haven't looked into the definition of vendor yet.  But to answer your question, yes they removed the 50 round limitation.

Bill
Logged
Armed Ape
Moderator
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 339


Host- Firearms Cafe


Firearms Cafe ArmedApe
WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2009, 10:44:43 PM »

Caveat: I haven't looked into the definition of vendor yet.  But to answer your question, yes they removed the 50 round limitation.
Thanks Bill

I thought so, but they reference so many other things that I wasn't sure.  In most places that I saw they were speaking to vendors but in some places when talking about a prohibited person they said " anyone" who sells, gives, transfers......what a mess!




Tony
Logged

Who said you can't teach an Ape to shoot a rifle, look at me, I shoot one all the time.
Panhead Bill
Hero Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 626


« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2009, 11:15:37 PM »

That's why CA laws are such a mess - in the last 6 months I've talked to 2 people criminally charged for trying to buy a firearm as a prohibited person and 1 who's being investigated for the same crime when they never knew they were prohibited. In fact, one  I'm working on now is NOT a prohibited person, but the DOJ can't even figure it out. Look, if you've committed a crime which makes you a prohibited person, sorry but take your licks (for a lot of prohibiting misdemeanors it's a 10 year restriction). But when the laws are so complicated that it's not clear whether you are or aren't, there's something wrong.

CA law - gotta love it. Just my 2 cents.

Bill
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 11:21:24 PM by Panhead Bill » Logged
wingsprint410
Supporter
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


Sideways in turn 4


« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2009, 07:08:31 PM »


Great episode Tony. I was very impressed with how you presented your point of view. I am not sure I could have remained as composed. It is sad to watch such a beautiful state self destruct. California has become a never ending train wreak.

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!