BF2S Forums Own a gun? Post your arsenal here.

CBS 5 Report Inspires New Legislation To Ban ‘Bullet Button’
May 20, 2012 10:00 PM

SACRAMENTO (CBS 5) – The debate over California’s strict gun control laws is about to heat up in Sacramento and it’s all because of what we reported a few weeks ago.

“When I saw the news I was absolutely horrified,” said State Senator Leland Yee, referring to a CBS5 report about the so-called bullet button.

It’s a modification that enables the magazine of a semi-automatic rifle to be removed quickly, with the tip of a bullet. Removable magazines in combination with other features like a pistol grip and telescoping stock are banned under California law. But the bullet button is legal because it doesn’t work with your finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

The modification has allowed military style rifles like the AR-15 to proliferate in the state, something Senator Yee said has got to stop.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

That’s why the Senator is introducing a bill to ban the bullet button.

“What I am proposing is to essentially prevent any mechanism that would allow the conversion of an assault weapon into a way that you can fire these magazines upon magazines without effort,” he said.

The senator’s bill is already in the cross-hairs of the Calguns Foundation, the state’s leading gun rights group.

“I am not sure the Legislature has an appetite to bite off something so large,” said Calguns President Gene Hoffman, the creator of the bullet button. “The real reason I designed it was because the original kind of ways to create AR-15s that were California legal were actually quite dangerous on the range.”

He said if a magazine is fixed, which is how California law requires it to be, bullets can jam.

“So the nice thing about the bullet button is that it allows you to remove the magazine and clear the jam,” he said, arguing that it essentially makes them easier to handle.  “They they are lightweight, easy to shoot for women. It’s more accurate.”

Since AR-15s have become the most popular selling firearm in America, he argues they’re now protected under the constitution.

“The reason the second amendment was put into the Bill of Rights is because General Gage wanted to take the Bostonians’ firearms. If Leland Yee wants to be General Gage it will be an interesting outcome,” said Hoffman.

Senator Yee said he’s ready for battle.

“It’s never going to be easy, but by the end of the day we are here in Sacramento to protect the general public and I think that is my priority,” said Yee.

Senator Yee plans to introduce his bill on Monday. As we did when we originally reported this story, we asked the State Department of Justice for comment on the issue. Once again they declined.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So don't live in California.

Its win-win.

rdx-fx wrote:

Silly Californians.

Ban an inanimate piece of hardware for being "evil", but coddle the violent felons with so many prisoner rights and parole opportunities.

So, according to the Californian thought process, the piece of metal & plastic ("assault rifle") is inherently "evil", but the violent felon is a "misunderstood victim".
Methinks they've been watching too many fantasy films, with evil sentient rings and swords.

I really wish they'd focus on enforcing existing Federal laws, rather than this inane focus on passing more State laws.
Existing US Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm (any firearm) by a person with a criminal record of violence, or psychiatric record of instability/insanity.

Sane, law-abiding people aren't going to purposely shoot other people, regardless if they're using a bolt action .22 or a fully automatic M-16.
Insane, psychotic, violent criminals will use anything they can get their hands on, from an improvised prison shank, or whatever they can get their hands on, regardless of laws.

Look at the military reserves in Switzerland, or Israel, where most households have (had?) a military issue automatic assault rifle in their home.
Now look at their rate of violent crime.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

True.

Problem is that our D.C. Democrats believe the mantra "As goes California, so goes the Country".
So they use California (and Neu Yawk) as their personal political petri dish, to see how much bullshit they can foist on the country.

People eat that shit up here in MA. It's legal to open carry up here, but no one ever does. The sole reason being they would get cops called on them the minute they walk outside their door by these over protective, hippie, self-righteous, armchair activist, Prius driving dregs of society.

if I saw a guy with a gun on his hip I'd probably call the police too (and they'd probably shoot him here in OC CA).  You want to walk around with a gun on your hip, join the police force.  It's not needed.  Do you also walk around with a helmet on in case a brick of frozen shit falls out of an airplane?  I get that sometimes it makes you feel safer - I really do understand that.  But perhaps you need to understand that a lot of people feel unsafe with a dude walking around with a holstered weapon. 

People here get shot by the police for holding hairbrushes, hoses, knife handles, elderly grandparents, etc.  It may work in bumfuck Montana where there is 1 stoplight per town, but open carry just doesn't fly where there are concentrated populations.

RDX: do you like being associated with Obama's (or any other politicians you disagree with) political platforms?  One senator does not equal 'Californians'.  You can clearly notice that in the article by the fact there is a lobby group called "Calguns" aka a group of Californians that fight for gun rights in California.

All Americans are fat
All Californians are pinko hippies
All people who make generalizations should be castrated.

herp derp.

And LOL if you think California is pro-prisoner.

And double LOL if you think there's any significant correlation between individual gun owners and overall violent crime rates.  That's very low on the totem pole of causality.

Dilbert_X wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

I can't see how you're against this:

Cute, but the average person is not smart or responsible enough to be carrying a gun.

Half the population is of below average intelligence - you want them carrying guns?

rdx-fx wrote:

Very pro-prisoner rights, pro-parole

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

if I saw a guy with a gun on his hip I'd probably call the police too (and they'd probably shoot him here in OC CA).  You want to walk around with a gun on your hip, join the police force.  It's not needed.

Do you also walk around with a helmet on in case a brick of frozen shit falls out of an airplane?  I get that sometimes it makes you feel safer - I really do understand that.  But perhaps you need to understand that a lot of people feel unsafe with a dude walking around with a holstered weapon.

UnkleRukus wrote:

ROGUEDD wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

if I saw a guy with a gun on his hip I'd probably call the police too (and they'd probably shoot him here in OC CA).  You want to walk around with a gun on your hip, join the police force.  It's not needed.

So you'd feel safer knowing that anyone around you, at any time, could be carrying, and you would never know? (concealed carry)

Do you also walk around with a helmet on in case a brick of frozen shit falls out of an airplane?  I get that sometimes it makes you feel safer - I really do understand that.  But perhaps you need to understand that a lot of people feel unsafe with a dude walking around with a holstered weapon.

What if I feel unsafe when I see someone walking a large dog. Should we not allow dog walking anymore? I feel unsafe when I know that, if someone pulled a knife on me, neither I, nor anybody around me could do anything but call the police and hope they arrive before someone gets stabby.

That's how MA law is. Unless you've been threatened personally, you cannot intervene. Even if it's your wife, or kids in your own home.

If some gang banger is robbing the convenience store you're in and shoots the clerk, you can't do anything until the gang banger points his gun at you.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It may work in bumfuck Montana where there is 1 stoplight per town, but open carry just doesn't fly where there are concentrated populations.