Tag: Bullet button

I’m pretty sure that we warned y’all this would happen. But did you listen? Why start now, right?

Californians, faced with yet another round of unconstitutional gun laws, responded by buying a record number of firearms in 2016. Of course, this happens every time crazy, gun hating liberals roll out new gun laws. Real Americans respond with their wallets.

News

Coders are quite familiar with the concept of choices. These take the general form:

if (condition1) {
     action(1);
}
elseif (condition2) {
     action(2);
}
elseif (condition3) {
     action(3);
}
         .
         .
         .
else {
     action(n);
}

The program runs through each condition checking to see if it’s true. Once it finds a matching condition, it executes the appropriate code.  Something similar happens with gun laws. In this case, let’s look at how law abiding citizens are reacting to the “bullet button” ban, SB 880.

The options are:

  1. Ignore the law and do nothing.
  2. Rush out and buy a new modern sporting rifle with a bullet button release.

Californians aren’t picking option 1. These rifles are flying off the shelves at gun stores around the State. If the intent of SB 880 was to reduce the number of modern sporting rifles in California, it’s already failed miserably.

This leads us to a variation on our pseudocode: The nested if/elseif statement. The general form is:

if (condition1) {
     if (condition1A) {
         action(1A);
       }
     elseif (condition1B) {
         action(1B);
       }
          .
          .
          .
     else {
         action(1n);
       }
}
elseif (condition2) {
     if (condition2A) {
         action(2A);
       }
     elseif (condition2B) {
         action(2B);
       }
         . 
         . 
         .

And you can see how these can go on and on; nest after nest after nest or nest within nest within nest. In this case, we’ve already entered the next layer. Since “Do nothing” has been rejected, that leads to more choices:

  1. Register your bullet button guns as “assault weapons”.
  2. Modify them to make them “featureless”.
  3. Ignore the law.

Some people will take option 1. Most will likely reject it since history teaches that registration leads to confiscation. To make a modern sporting rifle “featureless”, new magazine releases like “BB Reloaded” will likely suffice. There are also wraps for the pistol grip that may be legal too. (These prevent the thumb from reaching around the grip.) Other designers propose stocks that look more like a classic Monte Carlo stock. We’re awaiting legal guidance on all of these. By making the affected arms “featureless”, these modifications avoid the law’s mechanism to require registration.

That leads us to option 3. This isn’t legal advice, but there’s no way to tell just by looking at a rifle sitting on a shooting bench whether it’s been properly registered or not. “Papered” guns look just like outlawed guns.

So what were the geniuses in Sacramento thinking of when they passed Sb 880? They only imagined “option 1”. They expected all California gun owners to line up like sheep at an abattoir and register their rifles for convenient confiscation at a later date. Since the bullet button was an engineering response to a prior law, some might have guessed that the same engineers could come up with an “option 2”. But, none of them envisioned “option 3” as a choice. It never occurred to them that we might just ignore them, despite history to the contrary.

Now there’s yet another nested if/elseif layer and this is a choice for our betters in Sacramento to make: So whacha gonna do about it?

Or put another way: Μολών λαβέ.

Anti-gun Legislation News SB 880 State

The California Secretary of State has approved 6 petitions for circulation to repeal the “Gunmageddon” bills just signed into law by Gov. Brown. A 7th application to overturn AB 857 is supposedly in the works.

Supporters have a long row to hoe. The process is already rigged to go against them. Sec. Alex Padilla approved the petition applications but with the same inflammatory terms, such as “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines”, that the laws use. He’s legally obligated to do so since the initiatives must characterize the laws in the same way that the legislature did. If the Legislature referred to standard capacity magazines as “high capacity”, then the initiative to overturn the law in question must do so as well. The initiatives’ supporters will have a hard time convincing gun muggles to support their efforts; first to put the initiatives on the ballot and then to approve them. How many soccermoms do you imagine will support protecting “assault weapons”?

Anti-gun Legislation News State

A San Diego businessman, Barry Bahrami, has filed with the California Secretary of State to start six petitions to repeal the six “Gunmageddon” bills. The bills, AB 1135, AB 1511, AB 1695, SB 880, SB 1235, and SB 1446, were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown after rocketing out of the Legislature faster than a bad burrito through a drunken sorority girl on spring break. The Veto Gunmageddon campaign is attempting to place the measures on the fall ballot opposite Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” initiative, Prop. 63.

While I don’t claim to be an expert on California election law, my understanding is that initiatives of this type cause the affected laws to be held in abeyance until the matter is decided by the People. And given that the Fall ballot is already crowded with upwards of 21 measures, missing the deadline for the November ballot might not be a bad thing. Past elections have shown that voters tend to vote “no, no, no, no, no, no… NO!” when confronted by voter guides the size of a small encyclopedia. It may be better for these initiatives to appear on a later, less crowded ballot rather than joining the electoral flash mob on the Fall 2016 ballot.

Anti-gun Legislation News Politics State

That question isn’t directed at California gun owners; it’s directed at California’s political masters.

Gov. Brown signed a number of really stupid gun laws this week. The intent of these laws is to cow the people of California into surrendering their arms. The principle problem with such laws is that they require the cooperation of those who are the target of said laws and that’s more than a little bit of a problem. Americans are known for not cooperating with laws intended to disarm them. We could begin a look at this uniquely American behavior starting on April 19, 1775, but let’s talk about more recent times.

  • In the 1970s, Illinois passed a handgun registration law. The estimated compliance rate was 25%.
  • Only about 10% of the “assault weapons” estimated to be in the State were registered after California’s Roberti-Roos Act in 1989. (The NY Times estimated that the rate was only about 2%.)
  • In 1990, New Jersey passed an “assault weapon” ban. The compliance rate was, at best, 1%.
  • The AB-23 registration period in California expired on December 31, 2000. Only 27,000 of the State’s estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 affected “assault weapons” were registered by the deadline. That’s a compliance rate of 2.5-5%.
  • In 2011, Connecticut passed an “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine ban. At the time, the State estimated that there were nearly 400,000 affected arms and roughly 2,000,000 affected magazines. Only about 50,000 rifles were registered and only about 38,000 magazines were registered; 12.5% and 2% respectively.
  • The New York SAFE Act of 2013 saw only about 45,000 of the Empire State’s estimated 1,000,000 “assault weapons” registered. 4.5%.
  • In 2013, Sunnyvale, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.
  • In 2013, San Francisco, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.
  • In 2015, Los Angeles, CA, banned “high capacity” magazines. None have been surrendered to the police.

All of these failed laws have a few things in common. They were all passed in “blue” states. One would think that residents of these states would be the most likely to comply with such laws. All have proven to be unenforceable. All have thus degraded respect for the rule of law. All are directed at innocent citizens who haven’t actually committed any crimes. But, for the most part, they’ve avoided poking the bear. With the exception of the magazine bans, they’ve studiously avoided confiscation.

As ill advised as previous bans were, their authors understood the meaning of the legal term of art “taking”. Our current government in Sacramento doesn’t seem to understand what their elders understood: A taking risked opening a can of legal worms that best remained in the can. The intent of the laws was to appear to be banning this or that; not actually doing anything. It’s a scam directed at the anti-gun, moonbat left. These new laws, however, do far worse than expose the State to the legal consequences of a taking. They’ve up and poked the bear. The best the ruling elites can now hope for is quiet political change come November.

If we’re all really lucky, votes will decide what happens next. If we’re not so lucky, the idiots in Sacramento will take their lead from their colleagues in Connecticut and resort to threats of violence against the People. The problem with making threats is that someone, someday, may call your bluff.

So now what?

Anti-gun Legislation News State

I’ve been thinking about doing a quick video to explain what a bullet button is and isn’t, but I’m not sure I can improve on what Amy Jane shows us here…

I’m glad I turned the volume down on my speakers. That blast could have been deafening.

News

From NRA-ILA:

Yesterday, March 1, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety passed three anti-gun bills and postponed a vote on the fourth. These egregious anti-gun bills are of serious concern to gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters.

Source: NRA-ILA | California: Three Anti-Gun Bills Pass Assembly Public Safety Committee

AB 1663 AB 1664 AB 1673 AB 1674 Anti-gun News State

Legal News Politics

From NRA-ILA:

On Thursday, January 14, California’s NRA-PVF “F”-rated Attorney General, Kamala Harris, announced her support of freshman Assemblymember David Chiu’s introduction of  Assembly Bill 1663 in a press release.  AB 1663 would expand the classification of “assault weapons” to include all detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles and any rifle that uses a “bullet button.1” Gun owners who possess these firearms would be required to register them as “assault weapons” or face potential felony penalties, arrest, and confiscation of the firearm.  AB 1663 will also ban the future sale of these firearms.

On the same day, NRA-PVF “F”-rated Assemblymembers Marc Levine and Phil Ting introduced a second anti-gun bill, Assembly Bill 1664.  AB 1664 would ban the use of a “bullet button.”

The use of a “bullet button” currently keeps semi-automatics with detachable magazines from being classified as an “assault weapon.”  In banning the use of a “bullet button” the possessor will now have possession of what California law considers an “assault weapon.”  With this being said, the possessor will have to register that firearm as an “assault weapon” or face potential felony penalties, arrest, and confiscation of the firearm.  AB 1664 will also ban the future sale of these firearms.

The explanation of registration in both bills means paying a registration fee and completing a registration form that contains:

  • A description of the firearm and unique identifiers;
  • The date the firearm was acquired
  • The name and address of the individual from whom, or business from which the firearm was acquired;
  • Registrant’s full name, address, telephone number, date of birth, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and;
  • California driver’s license number or California identification card number.

These bills are detrimental to the Golden State’s law-abiding gun owners, which number in the hundreds of thousands.   They would turn legally-owned semi-automatic firearms into what California law defines as an “assault weapon.”  These same firearms are used in hunting, competitive shooting and for general legal use throughout the United States.

Assemblymembers David Chiu, Marc Levine, and Phil Ting must hear from all of California’s Second Amendment supporters opposing these erroneous bills.  It is IMPERATIVE for you to forward this CRITICAL alert to your family, friends, fellow sportsmen, gun owners, and Second Amendment supports.

Contact information can be found below.

Assemblymember David Chiu (D-17)

(916) 319-2017

Contact page

assemblymember.chiu@assembly.ca.gov

 

Assemblymember Marc Levine (D-10)

(916) 319-2010

Contact page

levineforassembly@gmail.com

 

Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-19)

(916) 319-2019

Contact page

phil@philting.com

 

1 A bullet button is a device used to permanently fix a magazine in a semiautomatic rifle that was originally built to accept a detachable magazine in order to comply with California’s current gun laws. A “bullet button” replaces the magazine release with a block and the user needs to remove the magazine by using a tool.  The name came about due to a 1999 California State law which said that a “bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool.”

AB 1663 AB 1664 Anti-gun Legislation News State

AB 1664 Anti-gun Legislation News SB 880 State