CA Bullet Button Senator Leland Yee Plays the Race Card

Under California’s form of the AWB, semi-auto “black” rifles were required to have “fixed” magazines. I guess the thought was that a fixed magazine would make it more difficult to reload, thereby reducing the firepower of the rifle. (Also banned were magazines of greater than 10 rounds.) The “problem” is the stautory definition of “fixed.” Under the law (that Yee drafted) “fixed” means that a tool is required to remove the mag. When the law was first passed, you had to pop the rear pin on the upper to reload an internal mag. But some bright smith figured out how to make a “bullet button.” These buttons are in the same place as the original mag release, but cannot be operated with a finger; instead a tool is required–usually a bullet–which is pressed into the recessed release. This is perfectly legal under the statute as written, as the DOJ has conceded. The most recent iteration of the bullet button tool is simply a magnet that pops onto the release and is pressed. (These are of questionable legality, because the rule has been that the tool must be separate from the firearm). When Yee caught wind of them, he drafted a new law that will return us to the early days of the AWB–and to a place where there isn’t likely a manufacturer of compliant weapons. The intent is quite clear–our infamous representative Portantino (of the open carry ban) specifically stated the purpose was to rid the state of “assault weapons”, and it mattered to him not one whit that they are legal in all of the other states in the Union. “We don’t want those semiautomatic rifles here,” he said (roughly).
The democrats have a near supermajority in the Legislature. The republicans cannot stop its passage. Only Brown can do so by vetoing it, or a constitutional challenge that will be filed one minute after he signs this legislation into law.

I think we should just give California back to Mexico

Doesn’t Mexico have enough trouble?

Whew had me worried for a second, this would make me a resident of “Jefferson”! I guess I’m movin’ on up!

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Gyufygy: Aside from Ralph’s definition, which is really more accurate than mine anyway, I can offer you three equal statements, each of which stand alone, or work in conjunction with the other two.

#1: Assault rifle, except when it’s used incorrectly, is pretty universally defined as an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Emphasis on the automatic part. Assault rifle is a very specific bird. Your average semi-automatic black rifle is not an assault rifle, regardless of manufacturer, accessories, color, or attachments, unless it has select fire capability.

#2: Assault weapons are like the old saying about porn. I can’t tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it.

#3: Assault weapon is a generic term invented by people who need to invent names for things. It is non-technical, non-specific, and always open to interpretation. It did not have a specific definition until Congress tried to give it one in the 1994 AWB, and they did an astoundingly horrible job of it. A basic definition would be a semi-automatic rifle with any of several features — primarily those that make it “scary-looking,” but I’m editorializing, so ignore that part — such as a pistol grip, detachable magazine, flash hider, or folding stock. Or, infamously, a barrel shroud, AKA “the shoulder thing that goes up.”

Before you even finish that list of features, you immediately run into problems, because what if it has the last three, but not a pistol grip. Is it an assault weapon? What if it only has a pistol grip? Only a detachable magazine? Some AW laws use some combination to meet the qualification, some use any one of them.

Basically, when in doubt, refer to rule #2 above. Alternately, you could try to answer your own question by attempting to navigate the California Rifle Identification Flowchart, but know that if you go that route, you walk alone, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Try this on for size, and understand why even the cops can’t tell the difference between a legal and an illegal rifle–they just seize them and let the courts figure it out:

http://www.webshooters.org/images/CA_AW_Flowchart_Ver11b_2010_SideA.PNG

Notes: rimfires excluded, but I’ve read of S&W M&P 15-22s being seized because they are black and look evil. Further, a forward grip, a flash suppressor, a folding stock or a bayonet lug will makethe gun illegal, even if it is otherwise compliant with California law. Sounds silly until you understand the history–and even then it is silly. The original law banned rifles by make and model. So the manufacturers made new models. In return the Legislature identified specific “features” found on evil black rifles (like the thingy in the back that goes up) and banned any gun that had them. This process neatly avoided banning some other wood stocked semiauto rifles with 3-5 round capacities that had been manufactured and sold for years.

The point is the guns, nothing more nothing less, guns the politicos and the banners are afraid of. Califonia banned the Barrett .50 rfle even though there is no record of any crime being committed with one. But, as REpub Govenor Schwarzanneger said in his signing statement, these rifles have no nonmilitary purpose and could be used by terrorists to down a jet liner. Hmmkay. The same sort of thinking goes into the AR ban–not that they are automatic, but because they have the capacity (in a normal configuration) of rapidly firing up to 30 rounds of .223 or 7.62 (which has happened in gang shootings). At the time of the original ban passage, the street cops were outgunned by the gangbangers. And since these rifles has (allegedly) no legitimate “sporting” purpose, there was no good reason for anyone to have one. (Obviously, with the proliferation of uppers in many calibers, this rationalization no longer holds)

You can be American by law and still be un-American in spirit.

That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? In a nutshell. Kind a reminds me of another point I once heard about the pursuit of the American Dream. You never hear of a French Dream or a Chinese Dream, do you?