Earlier this week, California Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) was given the Vanguard Award for "Elected Official of the Year" for his work in social justice.
We also reported that one of the biggest efforts Yee is working on currently is a Senate bill to ban the "bullet button" in California.
That certainly got people talking.
In California, an "assault weapon" is defined as a semi-automatic rifle with both a pistol grip and a detachable magazine, among other features. A "bullet button" is designed to replace a normal magazine release button with a recessed button that can only be accessed through the use of a tool - such as, the tip of a bullet.
The California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) declared that semi-automatic rifles utilizing a bullet button are considered to be "fixed magazine" rifles, and therefore legal under the state's assault weapon ban. This was most recently reaffirmed in April of 2011 in the case of Haynie vs. Pleasanton, wherin the CA DOJ said that the arrest of an individual with such a rifle was without cause, as such a rifle is legal.
See the full text of 'Haynie vs. Pleasanton' in the PDF attached to this article.
Yee disagrees. Though the bullet button still slows down a person's ability to change magazines, Yee argues that it should still be banned for safety reasons, calling assault weapons and bullet buttons "public nuisances."
People all over the state - and across the country - feel passionately about the issue of bans on assault weapons and bullet buttons.
Many say such a ban is useless; that people who want to kill will find a way, and that whether or not bullet buttons and semi-automatic assault weapons are banned won't make a difference. Therefore, the ban would only punish law-abiding citizens who use guns and bullet buttons safely.
Others say, tragedies like the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting - which Yee has been using as a reason to push the bill even harder lately - are proof that more gun control is needed in this country.
Patch wants to know - what do you think?
Let's continue the conversation. Please vote in our poll below, and feel free to share your thoughts and explain your vote in the comments section below.
There was an other shooting in colorado which you may not have heard about on the main steam media a shooter showed up at a christian meeting and started shooting and a woman with a concealed carry permit killed him.
Britain had a gun massacre in 2010. 12 people were shot to death and 25 people were wounded. The police weren't able to stop the massacre for THREE HOURS because they weren't armed. With regard to "Assault Weapons" - assault weapons are usually fully automatic. It is almost impossible to own a fully automatic weapon in the US because you aren't allowed to register any fully automatic weapons that were manufactured after 1986. I have two rifles in my gun safe that the newspapers would almost certainly call "assault weapons" but they aren't because they are semi-automatic. the rifles that I have fire 5.65 x 45mm rounds that have a muzzle energy of ~1300 ft lbs. The fearsome and scary AK-47 that is available in semiautomatic versions fairly readily in California fires a 7.62 x 39mm round that generates ~1500 ft lbs. The most common hunting rifle cartridge (the .30-30), generates ~1900 ft lbs. So there you have it - the most common hunting rifle is substantially MORE powerful than the legendary AK-47. Are we now going to ban hunting rifles? If so - how do we deal with the Supreme Courts recent pronouncement that the 2nd amendment is an individual right?
Why is it that all of these tragedies happen in a GUN FREE ZONE is it just a coincidence or is it because bad guys don't want to be were there are law abiding citizens with CCW's there to protect themselves and their families.
Posted on July 24, 2012 by correia45 This editorial was sent to me by a fan. It is an opinion piece from CNN. As can be expected in the aftermath of any shooting that grabs headlines, two things are going to happen. 1. Liberals will knee jerk try to pin it on the right. 2. They’ll start bleating for more gun control. We got #1 when ABC news was trying to blame this on the Tea Party before the blood had even dried, and of course when that came back as untrue, just like it did with the Giffords shooting, they went right into #2. Larry Correia is the New York Times bestselling author. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fisking-a-gun-control-editorial/
Following an outpouring of opposition, the California Assembly's Appropriations Committee has pulled SB249 from their hearing calendar. Originally scheduled for Thursday, the removal of SB249 from the calendar means it is effectively dead for the year. We are told by our sources that Assembly staffers said the decision was the result of grassroots opposition. As one staffer said, "you really unleashed the dogs this time." SB249, if enacted, would have prohibited the sale and possession of all semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines, including the so-called "bullet button" magazines currently allowed. California already prohibits any magazine with more than a ten-round capacity.
http://stopsb249.org/takeaction
NEVER HAPPEN.
Consider that a semi-automatic rifle isn't one of those "evil assault weapons" unless you add that pistol grip. So, a five inch piece of plastic makes the gun more dangerous? REALLY? Senator Yee just wants an excuse to take guns. He wants to seize private property and no even provide compensation! Remember what the first act of the British to quell the American rebellion was: They moved to seize the guns and ammunition of the Colonists on 26 April 1775. The result was the battles of Lexington and Concord. In New England this is a holiday called "Patriot's Day." It is these same gun-grabbers that claim the Second Amendment is to ensure the militia could be armed. But they don't want the armed populace (which is the militia) to own the sort of weapons a militia would need!
Just look at Thomas Paine’s booklet “Common Sense”, or Hitler’s diatribe, “Mein Kampf” or Mao Tse-Tung’s “Little Red Book” or Karl Marx’s/ Frederic Engels “ political manuscript, “The Communist Manifesto”. All of these writings caused millions of deaths and uncounted suffering. All without the author lifting a firearm or so-called Assault Weapon. So why do we allowing the media to exhort our youth to violence? Violence in movies engenders copycats; evening news reports give infamy to violent criminals, newspapers post photos of the most heinous criminals. All this advertisement leads to more violence in our society. Control violence in the media. Re-examine the 1st Amendment and the media’s willingness to teach our youth that violence is laudable. The problem is not the 2nd Amendment. It is the 1st Amendment.
Why isn't Senator Yee calling these things nuisances?
It is also noteworthy that while the anti-gun people like to note that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to arm the militia, the type of guns a militia would need are exactly the type Yee wanted to ban.
Absolutely correct. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting...nor crime control. It was always about controlling a tyrannical government. Which...is why they want to take away the only type of weapons that can be most useful in controlling that government. And much of our populace just doesn't get it. Sad. That's why you need an arsenal. To arm those too stupid to see the writing on the wall before it fell and hit them on the head.
Such "kneejerk reaction" generally is because people want to do the impossible: Prevent a tragedy that has ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. We cannot prevent the past and it is rare when the same thing happens in exactly the same manner. Governments do this all the time on all scales. The Congress of Vienna was established after the Napoleonic Wars, bu could not prevent World War I. The League of Nations was not designed to prevent World War II. The UN will probably never prevent any war, it has proven impotent to do much of anything worthwhile. I grew up in the USSR. Stalin allowed people to have hunting rifles: SINGLE SHOT weapons, while his soldiers had much more modern arms.
You are right about the U.N. Generals always fight the last war. And our politicians are always trying to prevent the last mass killing. They should be focused on the next major terrorist attack - a nuclear EMP.
So making laws to try and prevent the next disaster is a nonviable approach.
In fact, people are being led to believe that our children are in immediate danger because of Sandy Hook. It isn't true, as the odds of a child being shot at school are LESS than the odds they will be struck by lightning.