Skip to comments.California: Anti-Gun/Hunting Bills are both Signed into Law and Vetoed by Governor Brown Today
Posted on 10/11/2013 10:35:53 PM PDT by Hugin
The wait is over for Californias law-abiding gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters. Governor Brown has signed some anti-gun bills and one anti-hunting bill into law. However, he also vetoed several anti-gun bills.
Below is a list of the bills signed into law and vetoed as well as a link to the respective descriptions given by Governor Brown.
The NRA will be looking over all the recently signed laws and our legal options for law-abiding Californians.
Thanks to NRA members, gun owners, sportsmen and Second Amendment supporters who tirelessly called and e-mailed their state legislators and the Governor urging them to oppose all the anti-gun/hunting legislation. Without your help, the veto actions on some of the deeply flawed anti-gun bills may not have occurred.
Bills Enacted into law:
Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) makes California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting. To view Governor Browns signing message, click here.
Assembly Bill 48 (Skinner) bans the sale of parts and repair kits capable of creating or converting a magazine to a capacity to hold greater than ten rounds.
Assembly Bill 231 (Ting) expands the law relating to the storage of firearms.
Senate Bill 683 (Block) expands Californias handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and prohibits anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.
Senate Bill 374 (Steinberg) bans the future sale or transfer of and classify ALL semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine or holding more than ten rounds of ammunition as "assault weapons" and the continued legal possession of these newly classified semi-automatics as assault weapons would require that you REGISTER and pay a FEE (TAX) on ALL of them. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Assembly Bill 169 (Dickinson) limits the sale and transfer of all lawfully acquired firearms that were never, or are no longer, on the California roster of approved handguns to two a year and redefines the technical provisions of single short pistols. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Assembly Bill 180 (Bonta) repeals state firearms preemption by allowing the City of Oakland to enact ordinances that are more restrictive than state laws concerning the registration or licensing of firearms. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Senate Bill 299 (DeSaulnier) makes it a crime if a victim of firearm theft does not report the theft within seven days. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Senate Bill 475 (Leno) effectively bans gun shows at the Cow Palace by requiring approval of the board of supervisors of the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisco prior to any gun shows. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Senate Bill 567 (Jackson) redefines shotguns to include any firearm that may be fired through a rifled bore or a smooth bore, regardless of whether it is designed to be fired from the shoulder. SB 567 also bans the sale of shotguns encompassed by the revised definitions that have a revolving cylinder, and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Senate Bill 755 (Wolk) expands the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm, including persons who have operated cars and boats while they are impaired commonly referred to as DUI. To view Governor Browns veto message, please click here.
Anything that violates the Second Amendment is to much.
What about “shall not be infringed” do these people not understand?
Doesn’t matter whether they understand or not, they have an agenda. Their agenda is to do away with the constitution and interject their own rules
You’re preaching to the choir. But since I’m still living here for a while, I’ve got to deal with things as they are, not as they should be.
Brown’s statement on SB 374 here...
aren’t most bullets lead?
Yep. There are alternatives for hunting like Barnes X bullets, but not for all cartridges, and they are more expensive.
ok, so I assume that their motive in banning lead bullets is to make it more difficult to use guns (a run around of the second amendment, that, if people used parallel reasoning to get around rove v wade they would be screaming bloody murder), but what do they give publicly as their reason? surely they don’t admit to their motives?
It’s only a matter of time. CA will lose most of its 2A rights. Maybe just a few more election cycles.
“what do they give publicly as their reason?”
Phony environmentalism. Supposedly animals eat gutpiles with lead bullets and get poisoned. Lead bullets were banned for hunting in the California condor’s range for that reason years ago. This expands that to the whole state. Doesn’t effect use for other than hunting.
I’m glad he recognized that this bill affected historical guns , hunting weapons, and target weapons, because I sure didn’t.
The given reason is the same as taking the lead out of gasoline. Among other things I have heard that wild fowl were using lead shot in their gizzards and poisoning themselves, not good if we want to hunt and eat them.
I’d give California back to Mexico but then all those dirty liberals would spread out into the rest of the country.
Doesn’t the PRC have veto-proof majorities in both chambers?
If they were really concerned about the condor, otherwise known as a buzzard, they would have banned anti-freeze
Remember that when they run as pro-gun and they state they would never go after hunters, but only want to restrict those 'mean' assault weapons.
I took plenty drugs in the 70s
Never had a flashback nor crazy decision making
It was a lifestyle for 12 years when I was my only responsibility
Frankly...it was fun
But as business grew and responsibilities grew in conjunction....
And the lure of that most addictive of all drugs.....the elusive split tail....grew ever more all consuming
And subsequently 5 children later as a result of that obsession
Even moderate pot smoking was long gone
And so it goes....I do miss pot a hair....late at night with Wifey in bed watching Joan Rivers or something silly...it could be fun on occasion....with only 3 left at home now
But I do get your point ....no getting high since 83....don’t drink either
I did become my daddy...lol
Absolutely astounded that this nut job vetoed anything at all.
SB 374 would have moved me out of the state.
Like global warming, all theory and no facts. No study ever found any such thing.
Are there enough gun grabbers in both houses of the legislature to overturn the veto(s)?!
Spooky ain’t it? My thing was playing music and with chirrens in the picture the choice was get a “real job” or indulge myself with the distant hope of “making it” so I had to opt for the “real job”. Later with no kids at home and my wife prodding me I did start playing in a band again and did so for 14 years and had a blast. Then the guys in the band “had a meeting” and decided they wanted to go “in a different direction”. LOL! They just wanted more of the $$$. I would have been glad to do it for nothing but that’s what they decided and it was pointless to argue. But, it did end several, uh, friendships. Still looking around for some “older” guys that want to play classic rock/modern C&W. (P.S. Not all musicians are liberals. LOL!)
Cali tried to ban handguns back in 1982 with Prop 15. It failed 2 to 1.
Since that time, the state had never allowed the voting public to vote on an anti-gun ordinance. Just can’t trust the WILL OF THE PEOPLE!
'Nope, I wasn't hunting. I was shooting at 'him' and that dam Deer ran in front of my rifle.'Problem solved
“Id give California back to Mexico but then all those dirty liberals would spread out into the rest of the country.”
Here’s a clue, they already have. But be honest, we got them from the Northeastern States, so the problem we face actually originated there.
(b) Except as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 32400) of this chapter and in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17700) of Division 2 of Title 2, commencing July 1, 2014, any person in this state who possesses any large-capacity magazine, regardless of the date the magazine was acquired, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), or is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100), by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Thousands of pistols, both in private hands and used by law enforcement, have high capacity magazines.
What happened to SB63 that would ban internet ammo sales?
Yeah, that sucks. Looks like it’s arbitrary as to whether it’s an infraction or a misdemeanor. I suspect if they decide it’s the latter that would be considered a gun related crime that would make it illegal to own guns. Do you know it that’s true?
They’ve been yammering for years about how wildlife eat the lead, especially shotgun pellets, and that it’s toxic. I’m not familiar with the research (if any) on this, but I suspect it’s a purely agenda-driven claim, because metallic lead isn’t really all that soluble, and it has to dissolve in the GI tract to do any damage; otherwise you just crap it out and go on about your business.
The lead ammo ban was the worst.
“The lead ammo ban was the worst”
Not sure why you would think so. It only affects hunting, and there are good non-lead bullets available, whereas SB 374 would have banned sale and transfer of virtually all semi-autos, and required all current owners to register them, and pay a tax. The NSSF spent a ton of money fighting the lead hunting bullet ban, but that’s because it effects their bottom line the most, as they represent gun and ammo manufacturers, not gun owners.
IMHO SB374 was the worst, then the high capacity magazine ban. But hey, they’re all crap.
Don't but probably at the discretion of the Cal AG or local DA.
I was also wrong about the LEO inclusion. They are excluded which is further troubling.
Law enforcement is essentially a private security force for government subdivisions. Unlike the military, their command and control system relies on the judgement of one individual in many circumstances. I dont believe that civilian security should have any technical advantage over the general citizenry. That means "high capacity magazines", Class III weapons, etc.
It affects reloaders when TSHTF.
There are two kinds of hunting: for game and for varmints. This affects rural property owners on a daily basis. It's just one more cost to being a landowner.
...and there are good non-lead bullets available, whereas SB 374 would have banned sale and transfer of virtually all semi-autos, and required all current owners to register them, and pay a tax.
It will be much easier for them to cut off the supply in a crisis with them tracking every ammo sale. They'll also have an excuse to "inspect" your stock if they have "reasonable suspicion" you might be using lead.
I was looking over an NRA FAQ about the recent CA gun control bills. It seems the part of AB 48 banning grandfathered magazines was never passed in the Senate.
Q: May I continue to possess my currently-possessed, grandfathered large-capacity magazines?
A: Yes. Nothing in the language of AB 48 is intended to prohibit the possession of grandfathered
magazines. AB did include a provision that would have prohibited the possession of large-capacity
magazines, and would have required existing grandfathered magazines to be surrendered, removed from
the state, or destroyed. This provision did not become law, however, because SB 396 was defeated. This
provision was included in AB 48 as well as SB 396 in case both bills had passed, so that the changes each
bill would have made to the Penal Code would not be in conflict with one another. This is a common
process in the legislature. Since SB 396 did not pass, existing grandfathered magazines remain lawful to