California’s New Gun Laws Revealed

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, 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.


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]